Perceptions and knowledge of ecosystem services in urban river systems, Eastern Cape, South Africa

Perceptions and knowledge of ecosystem services in urban river systems, Eastern Cape, South Africa | 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 Research Article Perceptions and knowledge of ecosystem services in urban river systems, Eastern Cape, South Africa Elizabeth A. Mack, Frank C Akamagwuna, Chenai Murata, Fenji Materechera-Mitochi, and 2 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-3856996/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Review Version 1 posted 9 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract The ecosystem services concept has been studied in rural contexts but not as much in urban landscapes, particularly aquatic ecosystems in Africa. This means we have little knowledge of how urban populations perceive ecosystem services (ES) supplied by rivers in urban centres. To fill this gap, this paper assesses local people’s perceptions and knowledge of ecosystem services supplied by rivers in urban centres using the Swartkops River in the Nelson Mandela Bay metropolitan area in the Eastern Cape as a case study. The survey results indicated variation in the extent people felt the river provided a variety of services. There was almost universal agreement that the river never provides freshwater which likely reflects high levels of pollution in the river. An interesting aspect of the model results were differences in results related to the importance of conceptual and experiential knowledge of ES. For provisioning services, like recreation, experiential knowledge of the river was more important than conceptual knowledge, whereas for intangible ES such a regulating services, conceptual knowledge was important than experiential knowledge. Cities freshwater pollution South Africa Swartkops River Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 1. Introduction It is projected that by 2050, two-thirds of the world’s population will be living in cities (United Nations 2018 ). The phenomenon of rapid urban population increase is very prevalent in the developing world, especially in Africa. Since 1990, the number of African cities increased from 3,300 to 7,600, and urban centres have added 500 million people (OECD/UN ECA/AFDB ( 2022 ). In South Africa for instance, over 70% of the population will live in cities by 2030 (COGTA, 2016 ). These rates of change place anthropogenic stresses on natural ecosystems in and around cities. Multiple reasons have been offered to explain the rapid urbanisation in Africa, including people migrating from rural to urban centres in search of social services and economic opportunities as well as proximity to administrative centres that are often situated in cities (Njoh 2003 ; Güneralp et al. 2017 ; Heinrigs 2020 ). As a result of the growing urbanisation and urban population, natural systems such as rivers and wetlands within cities have become seriously degraded (Uluocha and Okeke 2004 ; Walsh et al. 2005 ; Collier et al. 2015 ; Xu et al. 2019 ). Recent studies on the so-called urban river syndrome have shown that the hydrology, ecology, biodiversity, water quality and geomorphology of urban rivers have been severely altered due to pollution, land cover change, poorly designed and over-burden sanitation services, run-off from roads and rail networks, industrial and domestic waste discharges (Capps et al. 2016 ; Jackson et al. 2016 ; Odume 2017 ). Systemic governance failure and urban poverty have also been identified as critical contributors to river ecological degradation in cities (Odume et al. 2022 ). As in many other parts of the world, the implications are that rivers in many cities in Africa have become seriously degraded, compromising their ecological function and the services they provide to society (Capps et al. 2016 ; Chen et al. 2022 ). In the Nelson Mandela Bay Metro (NMBM) in the Eastern Cape of South Africa for example, rivers and streams within its urban landscape appeared to be seriously impacted (Odume 2017 ). This then raises an important but less researched question on how urbanisation re-configures relations between rivers and people, and how local urban populations perceive ecosystem services supplied by urban rivers in cities as well as the factors that may mediate such perceptions. The ecosystem services concept has largely been studied in rural contexts but not much in urban landscapes, particularly aquatic ecosystems in Africa (Haase et al. 2012 ; Keeler et al. 2019 ). For this reason, the knowledge of how urban communities experience, perceive and value the services urban rivers provide remain sparse. It is thus important to assess local people’s perceptions and knowledge of ecosystem services in cities for several reasons. First, such an assessment has the potential to surface the ecosystem services that are most important to people (Martín-López et al. 2012 ; Hartel et al. 2014 ; Hossu et al. 2019 ). Second, it can reveal the ecosystem services that local people are most willing to conserve because of their perceived importance and value (Murata et al. 2019 ). Third, it can reveal important synergies and trade-offs that can occur when certain ecosystem services are consumed or conserved (Martin-Lopez et al. 2012; Hartel et al. 2014 ; Hossu et al. 2019 ). Fourth, the perception and knowledge of ecosystem services by urban communities can form the basis for mobilising individual, collective and relational agencies for positive actions given the urgent need to reverse the trajectory of ecological degradation of urban river systems (Everard and Moggridge 2012 ; Chen 2017 ; Odume et al. 2022 ) Fifth, such an assessment can inform the design and implementation of ecological interventions that are in line with local values (Harrison et al. 2010 ). Given the criticality of understanding knowledge of local people and how they perceive ecosystem services, research efforts have recently begun to seriously focus on this subject. For example, Rodriguez et al. (2006) conducted a study on local people’s knowledge of ecosystem services supplied by Opuntia spp. in Peru. The study found that people had more knowledge of, and assigned more value to, ecosystem services that have direct use value such as non-timber forest products, than they did to others. Lewan and Söderqvist ( 2002 ) conducted a study in Southern Sweden in which they investigated people's knowledge of ecosystem services supplied by a river system. Among their study samples were ordinary citizens, politicians, government officials and researchers. The study found that many respondents, including researchers and technically trained people, show little understanding of the ecosystem services concept. In South Africa, Murata et al. ( 2019 ) also found that local people had knowledge of provisional ecosystem services such as drinking water and construction timber, but the same cannot be said of regulatory and supporting services. The results from these studies highlight the urgent need to engage with local communities to accelerate the uptake of the concept of ecosystem services in society as a whole as a way of surfacing and strengthening the people-nature relations. In this paper, we seek to distil people-river relations in the Nelson Mandela Bay Metro (NMBM) by assessing local people’s perceptions and knowledge of ecosystem services supplied by rivers in urban centres. We also assess factors that may mediate local people perceptions of ecosystem services. The paper fills important gaps in the literature. First, it assesses perception of ecosystem services of river ecosystems in an urban environment. Prior review of ecosystem services has noted that there are few studies of aquatic ecosystems more generally (Hossu et al. 2019 ), particularly in an urban context (Haase et al. 2012 ; Keeler et al. 2019 ). Second, the study focus on South Africa implies contribution from Africa. Prior review of related studies has noted that most scholarship came primarily from the United States, China, and Europe (Cockerill 2016 ; Grizetti et al. 2016; Targetti et al. 2021 ; Zhang et al. 2021 ). This means we have little knowledge of how urban populations perceive ecosystem services supplied by rivers in urban centres within an African context. 2. Materials and Methods The river is located in the Nelson Mandela Bay Metropolitan Municipality (NMBM) in the Eastern Cape Province of South Africa (Fig. 1 ). It forms two main tributaries, Elands and KwaZungu Rivers, and it discharges into the Indian Ocean in Algoa Bay near the city of Port Elizabeth (Odume 2017 ). The Swartkops estuary is considered ecologically important as it has the third largest inter-tidal salt marsh of South African estuaries and ranked 4th most important in the country in terms of biodiversity and conservation (Odume et al. 2012 ; Borman et al. 2016; Odume et al. 2023). The Swartkops River ecosystem is threatened by several sources of water pollution including agricultural runoff, the discharge of raw and poorly treated wastewater effluent sewage from informal settlements and municipal treatment works respectively, removal of riverbed materials and alien invasive plants (Odume 2017 ; Adams et al. 2019 ). Population growth and informal settlements within the catchment were implicated as important contributors to observed ecological degradation in the catchment (Odume et al. 2023). Many communities within the Swartkops River catchment are impoverished, and this impoverishment is spatially distributed across the catchment area. It has been reported that in the residential areas of Zwide to Uittenhage more than 60% of households depend on less than USD 300 per month as opposed to the city of Port Elizabeth area with higher household income (Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality 2022). This differential standard of living and income leaves a greater percentage of the Swartkops population depending on the ecosystem services provided by the river for their livelihood. For example, harvesting of traditional medicines, fishing, bait collecting, angling and spiritual activities are among the benefits derived from the river catchment. 2.2 Survey Design and Data Collection Questionnaires were used to assess perceptions of Ecosystem Services (ESs) of the Swartkops River. Survey data were collected from residents who were 18 years and older living within the river catchment. A team of ten trained field staff collected 181 surveys between May 2021 and June 2021. Ethical approval (Ethics Review No. 2019-0808-990) for the research project and data collection was obtained. The survey was conducted in English and orally translated into the local language isiXhosa, when necessary. The survey contained a set of questions that asked about four different types of ecosystem services: provisioning (food, medicine, freshwater), regulating (flood reduction, regulation of local climate, waste transportation and purification), cultural (recreation, spiritual worship, cleansing and purification, aesthetic value) and supporting services (maintenance of species variety). Respondents were asked to indicate if the river always, sometimes or never provides these services. The survey also contained questions to collect information about respondents’ knowledge of ecosystem services (ES) and their length of residence near the river. Lastly, a group of questions collected information about respondents’ demographic and socio-economic characteristics. 2.3 Methods In addition to descriptive statistics and basic tabulations of the data, people’s likelihood of indicating “always”, “sometimes” or “never” for a particular ecosystem service was analyzed using multinomial logit models. These models are particularly useful for categorical data and in this study, provide an understanding of the likelihood that a respondent chooses a particular answer based on a set of characteristics. The general specification of the models estimated in this paper is as follows (Medwid and Mack, 2021): Pr (y = j) = \(\frac{{e}^{zj}}{1 + {\sum }_{k=1}^{J-1}{e}^{zj}}\) , for j=1, 2, J-1 (1) Pr (y = J) = \(\frac{1}{1 + {\sum }_{k=1}^{J-1}{e}^{zj}}\) where j = 1 corresponds to always and j = 2 corresponds to sometimes. The choice J corresponds to never and is the reference category in the analysis that follows. The variable z is a vector of respondent characteristics that serve as independent variables in the models. This variable is specified as follows: z j = β 0 + β 1 x 1 + β 2 x 2 + ……… + β n x n , where β 0 is the intercept for each model, β i (i = 1, 2,…,n) is a vector of slope coefficients for each of the independent variables in a vector X i the contents of which are specified below in Table 1 . Table 1 Variable Name Variable Description Gender A binary variable that takes on a value of 1 if the respondent is male and 0 if the respondent is female Age A categorical variable that takes on a value of 1 if the respondent is between the ages of 18–34, 2 if the respondent is between the ages of 35–44 and 3 if the respondent is 45 and older Education A categorical variable that takes on a value of 1 if the respondent has less than a high school education, 2 if the respondent has a high school education, and 3 if the respondent has greater than a high school education Income A categorical variable that takes on a value of 1 if the respondent has a monthly income less than R2000, 2 if the respondent has a monthly income between R2000- R5000, 3 if the respondent has a monthly income between R5000-R10000, and 4 if the respondent has a monthly income above R10000 Housing Type A categorical variable with a value of 1 if the respondent lives in an informal settlement with no municipal services, 2 if the respondent lives in an informal settlement with municipal services, 3 if the respondent live in a formal settlement with municipal services Knowledge of Ecosystem Services A binary variable that takes on a value of 1 if the respondent does have prior knowledge of ES and 0 if no Length of Residence A categorical variable that takes on a value of 1 if the respondent has lived near the river less than 5 years, 2 if the respondent has lived near the river 5–10 years, 3 if the respondent has lived near the river for more than 10 years Models were estimated in Stata13.1 using the mlogit command and robust standard errors. The coefficients of the models are relative risk ratios which can be interpreted similar to an odds ratio. Relative risk ratios greater than one (1) indicate that a respondent is more likely to answer in a particular way, relative to a base category. For example, a relative risk ratio of 1.30 indicates a respondent is 30% more likely to respond in a particular way compared to respondents in the never category. A relative risk ratio less than one (1) indicates a respondent is less likely to answer in a particular way, relative to respondents in the base category of never. 3. Results Table 2 below presents the profile of the respondents in the survey dataset. From a demographic perspective, the majority of respondents are male. In terms of age, survey participants are fairly evenly split between the three age categories. The same cannot be said for socio-economic characteristics, most respondents (65%) make between R2000 and R10 000 a month and 71% live in formal settlements with municipal services. Over 80% of respondents have lived near the river for over five years. This variable is important because it is related to experiential knowledge of the river and its characteristics. Table 2 Respondent characteristics Demographic Characteristics Categories Percentage of People Based on Survey Data Gender Male 60% Female 40% Age 18–34 years 33% 35–44 years 35% 45 and older 32% Education Less than a high school education 30% Matriculation 42% Greater than a high school degree 28% Income Greater than R10,000 14% R5,000 - R10,000 33% R2,000-R5,000 33% less than R2,000 20% Housing Type Informal Settlement with no Municipal Services 13% Informal Settlement with Municipal Services 16% Formal Settlement with Municipal Services 71% Length Residence Less than 5 years 14% 5–10 years 32% Greater than 5 years 54% Aside from living near the river, another factor that may impact knowledge about the services provided by the river is an awareness of the concept of ecosystem services. Our sample was evenly split in terms of prior knowledge; 50% of residents had prior knowledge of ecosystem services and 50% did not (Fig. 2 ). Figure 3 displays information about the extent respondents indicated the river provides particular types of ES. Respondents were less likely to indicate the river “always” provides ES. The regulation of local climate is an exception to this trend; 33% of respondents indicated that the river always provides this service. People were more likely to indicate that the river “sometimes” provides a variety of services including food (54.7%), medicine (48%), recreation (48%), water transportation and purification services (46%). People were also more likely to indicate the river never provides a particular ESs. A clear example of this trend is the provision of freshwater. Almost 80% of respondents indicated the river never provides this service. Respondents were also likely to say the river never provides water transportation and purification services (47%), as well as recreation (40%), and aesthetic value (pleasing to look at) (39%). In fact, respondents were largely split between the river sometimes providing particular services and never providing particular services. Three examples of this split opinion about services are the extent to which the river is pleasing to look at, provides spiritual services, and provides water transportation and purification. Table 3 provides a summary of model results for our two main variables of interest, prior knowledge of ecosystem services and length of residence. Appendices A-H provide the full model results. Models were not estimated for freshwater provision because nearly all respondents indicated the river never provides this service. Thus, there was not enough variability in the data to estimate multinomial logit models. The purpose for presenting the results in this way is to test the extent that knowledge of ecosystem services is important to understanding how surveyed respondents viewed the range of ES offered by the river. Here, ecosystem services are an indicator of conceptual knowledge of ES while the length of residence variable is an indicator of experiential knowledge about river services. The results are organized by type of ecosystem service: provisioning, regulating, cultural, and supporting services. A review of the chi-square test statistic in appendices A-D indicates that all of the models, save the one for food are statistically significant at the 1% level. The model for food services is statistically significant at the 5% level. The pseudo R-squared values range from a low of 0.1287 for food services to a high of 0.2594 for water transportation and purification services. This means approximately 13% of the variation in food services provision is explained by the model while about 26% of the variation in water transportation and purification services is explained by the model. When both prior knowledge of ecosystem services and length of residence are included in the models, the chi-square statistics get larger and the statistical significance improves. All models, save the one for flood regulation are statistically significant at the 1% level. The model for flood regulation is significant at the 5% level. The pseudo R-squared values also increase and range in value from 0.181 for spiritual services to a high of 0.3003 for water transportation and purification services. Aside from overall model explanatory power, there are also variations in the linkages between the main independent variables of interest and each ecosystem service. For the provision of food services, practical knowledge informed by people’s length of residence near the river was more important than conceptual knowledge of ecosystem service (i.e. prior knowledge of the concept of ecosystem services). For surveyed respondents that indicated the river sometimes provides food services, prior knowledge of ES becomes insignificant when length of residence is included in the model. Further, only residents that have lived near the river between five and ten years were more likely to indicate that the river sometimes provides food services. For the provision of medicine, experiential knowledge is also more important than conceptual knowledge of ESs. Residents who lived near the river more than ten years were less likely to indicate that the river always provides medicine. For regulating services, conceptual knowledge of ES is relatively more important than experiential knowledge of ES. In the models for flood regulation and the regulation of local climate, prior knowledge of ES was statistically significant, even after including length of residence in the model. In the models for flood regulation, respondents with prior knowledge of ES were more likely to indicate the river always and sometimes provides ES. In the models for regulation of local climate, both prior knowledge of ES and length of residence were important in explaining the responses of people who responded that the river sometimes regulates the local climate. The model results for supporting services are similar to those for regulating services; prior knowledge of ES is more important than experiential knowledge of the river. For both species variety and water transportation and purification services, people were more likely to respond that the river always and sometimes provides these services if they had prior knowledge of ES. The results for cultural ES are more varied. For recreation services, length of residence rather than ES was more important to understanding the always responses. People living near the river for more than five years were less likely to indicate that the river always provides recreation services. Conversely, prior knowledge of ES was more important to understanding the sometimes responses; people with prior knowledge of ES were more likely to indicate that the river sometimes provides recreational services. For spiritual services, both conceptual and experiential knowledge of ES were important to explaining the always responses. Prior knowledge of ES made respondents more likely to indicate that the river always provides spiritual services. However, people living near the river for more than ten years were less likely to indicate that the river always provides spiritual services. Only length of residence was important in explaining the sometimes responses for spiritual services. People living near the river between five and ten years were more likely to indicate that the river sometimes provides this service. For aesthetic services, knowledge of ecosystem services was more important in explaining the always responses; those with prior knowledge of ES were more likely to say the river always provides this service. Length of residence however was more important to explaining the sometimes responses. People living near the river between five and ten years were more likely to indicate the river sometimes provides this service. While the overall model results discussed above indicate that all of the variables are useful in explaining the variation in survey responses, some variables are individually significant in explaining respondents’ survey choices. Individual factors are important to assess because they may mediate local people’s perceptions of ecosystem services. Table 4 provides a summary of results for the other control variables in the models that contain both prior knowledge of ecosystem services and length of residence. Gender was particularly important for the food and aesthetics models; men were more likely than women to indicate that the river always provides this service. They were also more likely to indicate that the river sometimes provides spiritual services. In terms of age, the results are mixed across age groups and different types of ecosystem services. For example, respondents between the ages of 35–44 were more likely to state that the river always and sometimes provides species variety. They were also more likely to state that the river sometimes provides recreational services. Older respondents however were less likely to indicate the river sometimes helps to regulate the local climate and provides spiritual services. They were more likely to indicate however that the river sometimes provides species variety. Education was not individually significant in most of the models, save the model for water transportation and purification services. Here, residents with a high school degree were less likely to indicate the river always provides this service. Income was individually significant in many of the models where people indicated the river sometimes provides a particular service. In these instances, upper-middle income survey respondents with monthly incomes between R5,000-R10,000 were more likely to say that the river sometimes provides recreational services and species variety. The highest income survey respondents with monthly income greater than R10,000 were more likely to say that the river sometimes regulates local climate and sometimes provides species variety. They were less likely to indicate that the river provides aesthetic services however. Lastly, type of housing was individually significant in several of the models. Residents in formal housing with municipal services were less likely to indicate the river always provides species variety. Residents living in both informal and formal housing with municipal services were also less likely to indicate the river always provides water transportation and purification services. The same was true for climate regulation and species variety; residents in housing with municipal services were less likely to say the river sometimes regulates the local climate and sometimes provides species variety. Residents of informal housing with municipal services were less likely to say the river provides aesthetic services. 4. Discussion The goal of this paper was to assess local people’s perceptions and knowledge of ecosystem services supplied by rivers in urban centres. We also assessed factors that may mediate local people’s perceptions of ecosystem services. In this paper, we assessed how education, length of residence, housing, income, age, and prior knowledge of ecosystem services concept may mediate people’s perception of the ecosystem services supplied by rivers in urban centres. Survey results indicated variation in the extent people felt the river provided a variety of services. For many services, people were more likely to indicate the river sometimes provided a service instead of always. One service however for which there was almost universal agreement was the provision of freshwater; most respondents indicated the river never provided this service. This is likely because of high levels of pollution of the river. The Swartkops River is regarded as one of the most polluted river systems in the Eastern Cape of South Africa (Tshithukhe et al. 2021 ). High levels of E. coli , pharmaceutical compounds, metals and other chemical pollutants have previously been reported (Odume et al. 2012 ; Farounbi and Ngqwala 2020 ; Vumazonke et al. 2020 ; Ohoro et al. 2021 ). It is possible that residents’ familiarity with, and experiential knowledge of the river water quality may have shaped the perception that the river never provided freshwater. Another possibility would be the level of water service delivery within the catchment. Over 100% of households had access to piped municipal water, minimising their reliance on the river for drinking water (Nelson Mandela Bay Metro 2022), which is a contrast in rural-based studies that have indicated that people often perceived rivers as providing freshwater (Smith and Moore 2011 ). Our results highlight the importance of knowledge of the local environment in shaping the perception of people regarding ecosystem services (Moutouama et al. 2019 ) as well as socio-economic status and access to municipal services. An interesting aspect of model results were difference in results related to the importance of conceptual and experiential knowledge of ES. To capture these types of knowledge, prior knowledge of ES was included as a measure of conceptual knowledge and length of residence was included as a measure of experiential knowledge. For provisioning services such as food and cultural service like recreation, experiential knowledge of the river was more important than conceptual knowledge, whereas for intangible services such a regulating, conceptual knowledge was more important than experiential knowledge. Therefore, seems that experiential knowledge plays a key mediating role for ecosystem services that have direct use value such as provisioning of food and cultural services such as recreation. Similar observations have been made by Rodriquez et al., (2006), Lewan and Söderqvist ( 2002 ) and Murata et al. ( 2019 ) who reported that people tend to have more knowledge of and assigned value to ecosystem services that have direct use value. Rivers provide important regulatory and maintaining services such as flood control, local climate regulation, erosion prevention and maintaining population and habitats (Kaiser et al. 2020 ). For the most part, these regulatory services do not have direct use value. The model results indicate that conceptual knowledge of ES were comparatively more important than experiential knowledge for the regulatory and maintaining services. People who had prior knowledge of the concept of ecosystem services tend to indicate that the river sometimes or always provide these regulatory services. What this implies is that awareness raising and educating local people about the concept of ecosystem services can contribute to a better appreciation of the diversity of ecosystem services urban rivers provide, beyond those with direct use values Zedda ( 2023 ). It needs to be noted that level of formal education does not necessarily translate to being aware of or having knowledge of the concept of ecosystem services, as education does not seem to play any significant role in our model. For example, in a study that involves diverse participants including politicians, government officials and researchers, Lewan and Söderqvist ( 2002 ) found that the participants showed little understanding of ecosystem services concept. This implies that awareness raising and education should be designed specifically towards messaging the concept of ecosystem services among local people. Model results for cultural services suggested mixed importance of both conceptual and practical knowledge of ES. For the most part, cultural services such as recreation can be perceived as having direct use value, hence the importance of experiential knowledge, but services such as sense of identity may not, hence the relevance of conceptual knowledge. In the present study, there was a split in responses between sometimes and never for cultural services such as recreation and aesthetic. The research participants were of the view that the river does not always provide these services. As already indicated, the Swartkops River is seriously polluted although the level of pollution is seasonally mediated (Farounbi and Ngqwala 2020 ; Vumazonke et al. 2020 ). The awareness of the river pollution among the resident may have contributed to the responses, as residents may be aware of the risk posed in using polluted water for recreational purposes. Although our study shed interesting light on river-people relationality in an urban context, it is important to note some limitations of the present study which is based on a case study of one urban river at one point in time. Study results obtained in the future may differ from the ones presented in the present study. A different sample may also have different views about the river. These limitations suggest some avenues for future research. One avenue is the extension of the current study framework to other urban rivers. A second extension is to examine the linkages between urban river pollution and the perception of ecosystem services. An understanding of the ecosystem services may impact how people interact with urban rivers, but little is known about perceptions of urban river services on the African continent, and in South Africa in particular. To fill this knowledge gap, this paper analysed residents’ perceptions of urban river services in the Swartkops River in the Nelson Bay Municipality in the Eastern Cape. The results of this examination suggest a linkage between river pollution and people’s perceptions of a variety of ecosystem services. This overarching result suggests that one step in solving the problem of urban river degradation is finding innovative ways to strengthen people-river relations so that they value river systems more highly and take proactive measures to protect these important ecosystems. Declarations Funding This work was wholly supported by the LIRA 2030 Africa Programme, which is implemented by the International Science Council (ISC) in partnership with the Network of African Science Academies (NASAC), with support from the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida). Grant No. LIRA2030-GR08/19. Competing Interests The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence this paper. Author Contribution ONO contributed to the conceptualization of the study. Data were collected by ONO, FCA, CFN. Data analysis was conducted by EAM. The first draft of the manuscript was written by ONO, EAM, FCA; CM. The final manuscript was reviewed by ONO, EAM, CFA, CM, FM. Funding for the study was acquired by ONO and CFN. Acknowledgments This work is based on the research supported wholly by the LIRA 2030 Africa Programme, which is implemented by the International Science Council (ISC) in partnership with the Network of African Science Academies (NASAC), with support from the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida). Grant No. LIRA2030-GR08/19. References Adams, J. B., Pretorius, L., & Snow, G. C. (2019). Deterioration in the water quality of an urbanised estuary with recommendations for improvement. Water SA , 45 (1), 86-96. Bornman, T. G., Schmidt, J., Adams, J. B., Mfikili, A. N., Farre, R. E., & Smit, A. J. (2016). Relative sea-level rise and the potential for subsidence of the Swartkops Estuary intertidal salt marshes, South Africa. South African Journal of Botany , 107 , 91-100. Capps, K. A., Bentsen, C. N., & Ramírez, A. (2016). Poverty, urbanization, and environmental degradation: urban streams in the developing world. Freshwater Science , 35 (1), 429-435. Chen, S. S., Kimirei, I. A., Yu, C., Shen, Q., & Gao, Q. (2022). Assessment of urban river water pollution with urbanization in East Africa. Environmental Science and Pollution Research , 29 (27), 40812-40825. Chen, W. Y. (2017). Environmental externalities of urban river pollution and restoration: A hedonic analysis in Guangzhou (China). Landscape and Urban Planning , 157 , 170-179. Cockerill, K. (2016). Environmental reviews and case studies: public perception of a high-quality river: mixed messages. Environmental Practice , 18 (1), 44-52. COGTA. (2016). Integrated Urban Development: A New Deal for South African Cities and Towns. Department of Cooperative Governance and Urban Affairs, Republic of South Africa. Collier, C. A., Almeida Neto, M. S. D., Aretakis, G. M., Santos, R. E., de Oliveira, T. H., Mourão, J. S., ... & El-Deir, A. C. (2015). Integrated approach to the understanding of the degradation of an urban river: local perceptions, environmental parameters and geoprocessing. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine , 11 , 1-13. Everard, M., & Moggridge, H. L. (2012). Rediscovering the value of urban rivers. Urban Ecosystems , 15 , 293-314. Farounbi, A.I. & Ngqwala, N.P (2020). Occurrence of selected endocrine disrupting compounds in the eastern cape province of South Africa. Environ Science and Pollution Research 27, 17268–17279 (2020). Grizzetti, B., Lanzanova, D., Liquete, C., Reynaud, A., & Cardoso, A. C. (2016). Assessing water ecosystem services for water resource management. Environmental Science & Policy , 61 , 194-203. Güneralp, B., Lwasa, S., Masundire, H., Parnell, S., & Seto, K. C. (2017). Urbanization in Africa: challenges and opportunities for conservation. Environmental research letters , 13 (1), 015002. Haase, D., Schwarz, N., Strohbach, M., Kroll, F., & Seppelt, R. (2012). Synergies, trade-offs, and losses of ecosystem services in urban regions: an integrated multiscale framework applied to the Leipzig-Halle Region, Germany. Ecology and Society , 17 (3). Harrison, P. A., Vandewalle, M., Sykes, M. T., Berry, P. M., Bugter, R., de Bello, F., ... & Zobel, M. (2010). Identifying and prioritising services in European terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems. Biodiversity and Conservation , 19 , 2791-2821. Hartel, T., Fischer, J., Câmpeanu, C., Milcu, A. I., Hanspach, J., & Fazey, I. (2014). The importance of ecosystem services for rural inhabitants in a changing cultural landscape in Romania. Ecology and Society , 19 (2). Heinrigs, P. (2020). Africapolis: understanding the dynamics of urbanization in Africa. Field Actions Science Reports. The Journal of Field Actions , (Special Issue 22), 18-23. Hossu, C. A., Iojă, I. C., Onose, D. A., Niță, M. R., Popa, A. M., Talabă, O., & Inostroza, L. (2019). Ecosystem services appreciation of urban lakes in Romania. Synergies and trade-offs between multiple users. Ecosystem Services , 37 , 100937. https://www.africancentreforcities.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/IUDF-2016_WEB-min.pdf https://www.un.org/development/desa/en/news/population/2018-revision-of-world-urbanization-prospects.html Jackson, M. C., Loewen, C. J., Vinebrooke, R. D., & Chimimba, C. T. (2016). Net effects of multiple stressors in freshwater ecosystems: a meta‐analysis. Global Change Biology , 22 (1), 180-189. Kaiser, N. N., Feld, C. K., & Stoll, S. (2020). Does river restoration increase ecosystem services?. Ecosystem Services , 46 , 101206. Keeler, B. L., Hamel, P., McPhearson, T., Hamann, M. H., Donahue, M. L., Meza Prado, K. A., ... & Wood, S. A. (2019). Social-ecological and technological factors moderate the value of urban nature. Nature Sustainability , 2 (1), 29-38. Lewan, L., & Söderqvist, T. (2002). Knowledge and recognition of ecosystem services among the general public in a drainage basin in Scania, Southern Sweden. Ecological Economics , 42 (3), 459-467. Martín-López, B., Iniesta-Arandia, I., García-Llorente, M., Palomo, I., Casado-Arzuaga, I., Amo, D. G. D., ... & Montes, C. (2012). Uncovering ecosystem service bundles through social preferences. PLoS one , 7 (6), e38970. Medwid, L., & Mack, E. A. (2022). An Analysis of Household Perceptions of Water Costs across the United States: A Survey Based Approach. Water , 14 (2), 247. Moutouama, F.T., Biaou, S.S.H., Kyereh, B. et al. Factors shaping local people’s perception of ecosystem services in the Atacora Chain of Mountains, a biodiversity hotspot in northern Benin. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 15 , 38 (2019). Murata, C., Mantel, S., de Wet, C., & Palmer, A. R. (2019). Lay knowledge of ecosystem services in rural Eastern Cape Province, South Africa: implications for intervention program planning. Water Economics and Policy , 5 (02), 1940001. Nelson Mandela Bay Metropolitan Municipality (2022) Integrated development plan 2022/23 – 2026/27 https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiXxsWi5J-CAxU4U0EAHZzEC30QFnoECBIQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nelsonmandelabay.gov.za%2FDataRepository%2FDocuments%2Fdraft-2022-23-idp-noted_CvOpv.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2IGN9vyaGYH7BOHO0IzkES&opi=89978449 Njoh, A. J. (2003). Urbanization and development in sub-Saharan Africa. Cities , 20 (3), 167-174. Odume, O. N. (2017). Ecosystem approach to managing water quality. In Water Quality . IntechOpen. Odume, O.N., Muller, W.J., Arimoro, F.O. & Palmer, C.G. (2012) The impact of water quality deterioration on macroinvertebrate communities in the Swartkops River, South Africa: a multimetric approach. African Journal of Aquatic Science , 37:2, 191-200. Odume, O.N.; Onyima, B.N.; Nnadozie, C.F.; Omovoh, G.O.; Mmachaka, T.; Omovoh, B.O.; Uku, J.E.; Akamagwuna, F.C.; Arimoro, F.O. Governance and Institutional Drivers of Ecological Degradation in Urban River Ecosystems: Insights from Case Studies in African Cities. Sustainability 2022 , 14, 14147. https://doi.org/10.3390/ su142114147 OECD/UN ECA/AFDB (2022), Africa’s Urbanisation Dynamics 2022: The Economic Power of Africa’s Cities, West African Studies. OECD, United Nations Economic Commission for Africa and African Development Bank OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/3834ed5b-en Ohoro, C.R., Adeniji, A.O., Okoh, A.I. & Okoh O.O (2021) Spatial and seasonal variations of endocrine distrupting compounds in water and sediment samples of Markman Canal and Swartkops River Estuaru, South Africa and their ecological risk assessment. Marine Pollution Bulletin , 173 (A): 113012 Rodríguez, L. C., Pascual, U., & Niemeyer, H. M. (2006). Local identification and valuation of ecosystem goods and services from Opuntia scrublands of Ayacucho, Peru. Ecological Economics , 57 (1), 30-44. Smith, J.W. & Moore, R.L. (2011) Perceptions of Community Benefits from Two Wild and Scenic Rivers. Environmental Management 47 , 814–827. Targetti, S., Raggi, M., Zavalloni, M., & Viaggi, D. (2021). Perceived benefits from reclaimed rural landscapes: Evidence from the lowlands of the Po River Delta, Italy. Ecosystem Services , 49 , 101288. Tshithukhe, G., Mitotsoe, SN. & Hill, MP (2021) Heavy metals assimilation by native and non-native aquatic macrophyte species: a case study of a river in the eastern cape province of South Africa. Plants, 10, 12 : 2676. Uluocha, N. O., & Okeke, I. C. (2004). Implications of wetlands degradation for water resources management: Lessons from Nigeria. GeoJournal , 61 , 151-154. United Nations. (2018). 68% of the world population projected to live in urban areas by 2050, says UN. Department of Economic and Social Affairs, United Nations Vumazonke, S., Khamanga, S.M. & Ngqwala, N.P. (2020) Detection of pharmaceutical residues in surface waters of the Eastern Cape Province. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17, 4067. Walsh, C.J.; Roy, A.H.; Feminella, J.W.; Cottingham, P.D.; Groffman, P.M.; Morgan, R.P., II. The urban stream syndrome: Current knowledge and the search for a cure. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 2005 , 24, 706–723. Xu, Z., Xu, J., Yin, H., Jin, W., Li, H., & He, Z. (2019). Urban river pollution control in developing countries. Nature Sustainability , 2 (3), 158-160. Zedda L. (2023) The importance of a transformative biodiversity education for perceiving, appreciating and supporting lichen diversity in German urban environments. Lichenologist 55 (5): 161 – 168. Zhang, G., Zheng, D., Xie, L., Zhang, X., Wu, H., & Li, S. (2021). Mapping changes in the value of ecosystem services in the Yangtze River Middle Reaches Megalopolis, China. Ecosystem Services , 48 , 101252. Tables Tables 3 and 4 are available in the Supplementary Files section. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files Tables3and4.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Review Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 19 Feb, 2024 Reviews received at journal 17 Feb, 2024 Reviewers agreed at journal 17 Feb, 2024 Reviewers agreed at journal 19 Jan, 2024 Reviewers agreed at journal 18 Jan, 2024 Reviewers invited by journal 16 Jan, 2024 Editor assigned by journal 15 Jan, 2024 Submission checks completed at journal 15 Jan, 2024 First submitted to journal 12 Jan, 2024 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-3856996","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":267272777,"identity":"a014abdd-7c74-4f65-9686-35b1ddbfe765","order_by":0,"name":"Elizabeth A. Mack","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Michigan State University, Michigan United States","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Elizabeth","middleName":"A.","lastName":"Mack","suffix":""},{"id":267272778,"identity":"d4a5bb6e-3ebe-419f-8dbd-e8d238461ee4","order_by":1,"name":"Frank C Akamagwuna","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Rhodes University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Frank","middleName":"C","lastName":"Akamagwuna","suffix":""},{"id":267272779,"identity":"44caae51-5b5f-412e-9427-2f6177d6f1f5","order_by":2,"name":"Chenai Murata","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Rhodes University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Chenai","middleName":"","lastName":"Murata","suffix":""},{"id":267272783,"identity":"6fa01e40-bbda-433e-a878-bf3d25c23de0","order_by":3,"name":"Fenji Materechera-Mitochi","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Rhodes University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Fenji","middleName":"","lastName":"Materechera-Mitochi","suffix":""},{"id":267272784,"identity":"d9f8ce89-2cb0-47be-973f-c9d90762b512","order_by":4,"name":"Chika Felicitas Nnadozie","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Rhodes University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Chika","middleName":"Felicitas","lastName":"Nnadozie","suffix":""},{"id":267272785,"identity":"c2d501e4-d244-4bff-82cf-0ac166f9684e","order_by":5,"name":"Oghenekaro Nelson Odume","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Rhodes University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Oghenekaro","middleName":"Nelson","lastName":"Odume","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2024-01-12 12:59:14","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-3856996/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3856996/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":49766519,"identity":"9e8e692e-425b-451e-b388-2db24a068aa8","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-01-17 17:00:24","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":373254,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eLocation of the Swartkops River in the Eastern Cape Province of South Africa\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3856996/v1/8ce145ad29e9e8dd0a2e10dc.png"},{"id":49766516,"identity":"8c7b62bf-cd81-49a5-b3ad-eda74a365b7e","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-01-17 17:00:24","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":16359,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePrior knowledge of ecosystem services\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3856996/v1/1a3287153075bc0d3cc38e07.png"},{"id":49766518,"identity":"46103c1d-8a6e-4827-b29f-c38f388d4819","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-01-17 17:00:24","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":29565,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePerceptions of respondent regarding whether the river always, sometimes or never provides a particular ecosystem service\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3856996/v1/7db5b8cf2642f59bc708e1dd.png"},{"id":49766995,"identity":"ae53a3da-c1a4-4cbd-bde8-a58e002a2c0e","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-01-17 17:08:26","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":729708,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3856996/v1/ea86747e-94fb-455c-8e23-b56f504ad712.pdf"},{"id":49766517,"identity":"55e7ee69-ff0a-41e4-9287-3c87b8fa0402","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-01-17 17:00:24","extension":"docx","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":127421,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Tables3and4.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3856996/v1/79ba374f83346458186bf09a.docx"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Perceptions and knowledge of ecosystem services in urban river systems, Eastern Cape, South Africa","fulltext":[{"header":"1. Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eIt is projected that by 2050, two-thirds of the world\u0026rsquo;s population will be living in cities (United Nations \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). The phenomenon of rapid urban population increase is very prevalent in the developing world, especially in Africa. Since 1990, the number of African cities increased from 3,300 to 7,600, and urban centres have added 500\u0026nbsp;million people (OECD/UN ECA/AFDB (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). In South Africa for instance, over 70% of the population will live in cities by 2030 (COGTA, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). These rates of change place anthropogenic stresses on natural ecosystems in and around cities. Multiple reasons have been offered to explain the rapid urbanisation in Africa, including people migrating from rural to urban centres in search of social services and economic opportunities as well as proximity to administrative centres that are often situated in cities (Njoh \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e; G\u0026uuml;neralp et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Heinrigs \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). As a result of the growing urbanisation and urban population, natural systems such as rivers and wetlands within cities have become seriously degraded (Uluocha and Okeke \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e; Walsh et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e; Collier et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Xu et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Recent studies on the so-called urban river syndrome have shown that the hydrology, ecology, biodiversity, water quality and geomorphology of urban rivers have been severely altered due to pollution, land cover change, poorly designed and over-burden sanitation services, run-off from roads and rail networks, industrial and domestic waste discharges (Capps et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Jackson et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Odume \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). Systemic governance failure and urban poverty have also been identified as critical contributors to river ecological degradation in cities (Odume et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). As in many other parts of the world, the implications are that rivers in many cities in Africa have become seriously degraded, compromising their ecological function and the services they provide to society (Capps et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Chen et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). In the Nelson Mandela Bay Metro (NMBM) in the Eastern Cape of South Africa for example, rivers and streams within its urban landscape appeared to be seriously impacted (Odume \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). This then raises an important but less researched question on how urbanisation re-configures relations between rivers and people, and how local urban populations perceive ecosystem services supplied by urban rivers in cities as well as the factors that may mediate such perceptions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe ecosystem services concept has largely been studied in rural contexts but not much in urban landscapes, particularly aquatic ecosystems in Africa (Haase et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e; Keeler et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). For this reason, the knowledge of how urban communities experience, perceive and value the services urban rivers provide remain sparse. It is thus important to assess local people\u0026rsquo;s perceptions and knowledge of ecosystem services in cities for several reasons. First, such an assessment has the potential to surface the ecosystem services that are most important to people (Mart\u0026iacute;n-L\u0026oacute;pez et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e; Hartel et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Hossu et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Second, it can reveal the ecosystem services that local people are most willing to conserve because of their perceived importance and value (Murata et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Third, it can reveal important synergies and trade-offs that can occur when certain ecosystem services are consumed or conserved (Martin-Lopez et al. 2012; Hartel et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Hossu et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Fourth, the perception and knowledge of ecosystem services by urban communities can form the basis for mobilising individual, collective and relational agencies for positive actions given the urgent need to reverse the trajectory of ecological degradation of urban river systems (Everard and Moggridge \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e; Chen \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Odume et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) Fifth, such an assessment can inform the design and implementation of ecological interventions that are in line with local values (Harrison et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eGiven the criticality of understanding knowledge of local people and how they perceive ecosystem services, research efforts have recently begun to seriously focus on this subject. For example, Rodriguez et al. (2006) conducted a study on local people\u0026rsquo;s knowledge of ecosystem services supplied by \u003cem\u003eOpuntia\u003c/em\u003e spp. in Peru. The study found that people had more knowledge of, and assigned more value to, ecosystem services that have direct use value such as non-timber forest products, than they did to others. Lewan and S\u0026ouml;derqvist (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e) conducted a study in Southern Sweden in which they investigated people's knowledge of ecosystem services supplied by a river system. Among their study samples were ordinary citizens, politicians, government officials and researchers. The study found that many respondents, including researchers and technically trained people, show little understanding of the ecosystem services concept. In South Africa, Murata et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e) also found that local people had knowledge of provisional ecosystem services such as drinking water and construction timber, but the same cannot be said of regulatory and supporting services. The results from these studies highlight the urgent need to engage with local communities to accelerate the uptake of the concept of ecosystem services in society as a whole as a way of surfacing and strengthening the people-nature relations. In this paper, we seek to distil people-river relations in the Nelson Mandela Bay Metro (NMBM) by assessing local people\u0026rsquo;s perceptions and knowledge of ecosystem services supplied by rivers in urban centres. We also assess factors that may mediate local people perceptions of ecosystem services. The paper fills important gaps in the literature. First, it assesses perception of ecosystem services of river ecosystems in an urban environment. Prior review of ecosystem services has noted that there are few studies of aquatic ecosystems more generally (Hossu et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e), particularly in an urban context (Haase et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e; Keeler et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Second, the study focus on South Africa implies contribution from Africa. Prior review of related studies has noted that most scholarship came primarily from the United States, China, and Europe (Cockerill \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Grizetti et al. 2016; Targetti et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Zhang et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). This means we have little knowledge of how urban populations perceive ecosystem services supplied by rivers in urban centres within an African context.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2. Materials and Methods","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe river is located in the Nelson Mandela Bay Metropolitan Municipality (NMBM) in the Eastern Cape Province of South Africa (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). It forms two main tributaries, Elands and KwaZungu Rivers, and it discharges into the Indian Ocean in Algoa Bay near the city of Port Elizabeth (Odume \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). The Swartkops estuary is considered ecologically important as it has the third largest inter-tidal salt marsh of South African estuaries and ranked 4th most important in the country in terms of biodiversity and conservation (Odume et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e; Borman et al. 2016; Odume et al. 2023).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Swartkops River ecosystem is threatened by several sources of water pollution including agricultural runoff, the discharge of raw and poorly treated wastewater effluent sewage from informal settlements and municipal treatment works respectively, removal of riverbed materials and alien invasive plants (Odume \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Adams et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Population growth and informal settlements within the catchment were implicated as important contributors to observed ecological degradation in the catchment (Odume et al. 2023).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMany communities within the Swartkops River catchment are impoverished, and this impoverishment is spatially distributed across the catchment area. It has been reported that in the residential areas of Zwide to Uittenhage more than 60% of households depend on less than USD 300 per month as opposed to the city of Port Elizabeth area with higher household income (Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality 2022). This differential standard of living and income leaves a greater percentage of the Swartkops population depending on the ecosystem services provided by the river for their livelihood. For example, harvesting of traditional medicines, fishing, bait collecting, angling and spiritual activities are among the benefits derived from the river catchment.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.2 Survey Design and Data Collection\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eQuestionnaires were used to assess perceptions of Ecosystem Services (ESs) of the Swartkops River. Survey data were collected from residents who were 18 years and older living within the river catchment. A team of ten trained field staff collected 181 surveys between May 2021 and June 2021. Ethical approval (Ethics Review No. 2019-0808-990) for the research project and data collection was obtained. The survey was conducted in English and orally translated into the local language isiXhosa, when necessary.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe survey contained a set of questions that asked about four different types of ecosystem services: provisioning (food, medicine, freshwater), regulating (flood reduction, regulation of local climate, waste transportation and purification), cultural (recreation, spiritual worship, cleansing and purification, aesthetic value) and supporting services (maintenance of species variety). Respondents were asked to indicate if the river always, sometimes or never provides these services. The survey also contained questions to collect information about respondents\u0026rsquo; knowledge of ecosystem services (ES) and their length of residence near the river. Lastly, a group of questions collected information about respondents\u0026rsquo; demographic and socio-economic characteristics.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.3 Methods\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn addition to descriptive statistics and basic tabulations of the data, people\u0026rsquo;s likelihood of indicating \u0026ldquo;always\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;sometimes\u0026rdquo; or \u0026ldquo;never\u0026rdquo; for a particular ecosystem service was analyzed using multinomial logit models. These models are particularly useful for categorical data and in this study, provide an understanding of the likelihood that a respondent chooses a particular answer based on a set of characteristics. The general specification of the models estimated in this paper is as follows (Medwid and Mack, 2021):\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePr (y\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;j) = \u003cspan class=\"InlineEquation\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"mathinline\"\u003e\\(\\frac{{e}^{zj}}{1 + {\\sum }_{k=1}^{J-1}{e}^{zj}}\\)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e, for j=1, 2, J-1 (1)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePr (y\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;J) =\u003cspan class=\"InlineEquation\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"mathinline\"\u003e\\(\\frac{1}{1 + {\\sum }_{k=1}^{J-1}{e}^{zj}}\\)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ewhere j\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1 corresponds to always and j\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2 corresponds to sometimes. The choice J corresponds to never and is the reference category in the analysis that follows. The variable z is a vector of respondent characteristics that serve as independent variables in the models. This variable is specified as follows:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ez\u003csub\u003ej =\u003c/sub\u003e β\u003csub\u003e0\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;β\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003ex\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;β\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003ex\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e + \u0026hellip;\u0026hellip;\u0026hellip; + β\u003csub\u003en\u003c/sub\u003ex\u003csub\u003en\u003c/sub\u003e,\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ewhere β\u003csub\u003e0\u003c/sub\u003e is the intercept for each model, β\u003csub\u003ei\u003c/sub\u003e (i\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1, 2,\u0026hellip;,n) is a vector of slope coefficients for each of the independent variables in a vector X\u003csub\u003ei\u003c/sub\u003e the contents of which are specified below in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"2\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVariable Name\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVariable Description\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eGender\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eA binary variable that takes on a value of 1 if the respondent is male and 0 if the respondent is female\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eAge\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eA categorical variable that takes on a value of 1 if the respondent is between the ages of 18\u0026ndash;34, 2 if the respondent is between the ages of 35\u0026ndash;44 and 3 if the respondent is 45 and older\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eEducation\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eA categorical variable that takes on a value of 1 if the respondent has less than a high school education, 2 if the respondent has a high school education, and 3 if the respondent has greater than a high school education\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eIncome\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eA categorical variable that takes on a value of 1 if the respondent has a monthly income less than R2000, 2 if the respondent has a monthly income between R2000- R5000, 3 if the respondent has a monthly income between R5000-R10000, and 4 if the respondent has a monthly income above R10000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eHousing Type\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eA categorical variable with a value of 1 if the respondent lives in an informal settlement with no municipal services, 2 if the respondent lives in an informal settlement with municipal services, 3 if the respondent live in a formal settlement with municipal services\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eKnowledge of Ecosystem Services\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eA binary variable that takes on a value of 1 if the respondent does have prior knowledge of ES and 0 if no\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eLength of Residence\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eA categorical variable that takes on a value of 1 if the respondent has lived near the river less than 5 years, 2 if the respondent has lived near the river 5\u0026ndash;10 years, 3 if the respondent has lived near the river for more than 10 years\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eModels were estimated in Stata13.1 using the mlogit command and robust standard errors. The coefficients of the models are relative risk ratios which can be interpreted similar to an odds ratio. Relative risk ratios greater than one (1) indicate that a respondent is more likely to answer in a particular way, relative to a base category. For example, a relative risk ratio of 1.30 indicates a respondent is 30% more likely to respond in a particular way compared to respondents in the never category. A relative risk ratio less than one (1) indicates a respondent is less likely to answer in a particular way, relative to respondents in the base category of never.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"3. Results","content":"\u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e below presents the profile of the respondents in the survey dataset. From a demographic perspective, the majority of respondents are male. In terms of age, survey participants are fairly evenly split between the three age categories. The same cannot be said for socio-economic characteristics, most respondents (65%) make between R2000 and R10 000 a month and 71% live in formal settlements with municipal services. Over 80% of respondents have lived near the river for over five years. This variable is important because it is related to experiential knowledge of the river and its characteristics.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\n\u003ctable id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRespondent characteristics\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/caption\u003e\n\u003cthead\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDemographic Characteristics\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCategories\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePercentage of People Based on Survey Data\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003c/thead\u003e\n\u003ctbody\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGender\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e60%\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFemale\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e40%\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAge\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e18\u0026ndash;34 years\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e33%\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e35\u0026ndash;44 years\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e35%\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e45 and older\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e32%\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEducation\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLess than a high school education\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e30%\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMatriculation\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e42%\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGreater than a high school degree\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e28%\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIncome\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGreater than R10,000\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e14%\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eR5,000 - R10,000\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e33%\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eR2,000-R5,000\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e33%\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eless than R2,000\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e20%\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHousing Type\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eInformal Settlement with no Municipal Services\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e13%\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eInformal Settlement with Municipal Services\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e16%\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFormal Settlement with Municipal Services\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e71%\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLength Residence\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLess than 5 years\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e14%\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e5\u0026ndash;10 years\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e32%\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGreater than 5 years\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e54%\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAside from living near the river, another factor that may impact knowledge about the services provided by the river is an awareness of the concept of ecosystem services. Our sample was evenly split in terms of prior knowledge; 50% of residents had prior knowledge of ecosystem services and 50% did not (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFigure \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e displays information about the extent respondents indicated the river provides particular types of ES. Respondents were less likely to indicate the river \u0026ldquo;always\u0026rdquo; provides ES. The regulation of local climate is an exception to this trend; 33% of respondents indicated that the river always provides this service. People were more likely to indicate that the river \u0026ldquo;sometimes\u0026rdquo; provides a variety of services including food (54.7%), medicine (48%), recreation (48%), water transportation and purification services (46%). People were also more likely to indicate the river never provides a particular ESs. A clear example of this trend is the provision of freshwater. Almost 80% of respondents indicated the river never provides this service. Respondents were also likely to say the river never provides water transportation and purification services (47%), as well as recreation (40%), and aesthetic value (pleasing to look at) (39%). In fact, respondents were largely split between the river sometimes providing particular services and never providing particular services. Three examples of this split opinion about services are the extent to which the river is pleasing to look at, provides spiritual services, and provides water transportation and purification.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e provides a summary of model results for our two main variables of interest, prior knowledge of ecosystem services and length of residence. Appendices A-H provide the full model results. Models were not estimated for freshwater provision because nearly all respondents indicated the river never provides this service. Thus, there was not enough variability in the data to estimate multinomial logit models. The purpose for presenting the results in this way is to test the extent that knowledge of ecosystem services is important to understanding how surveyed respondents viewed the range of ES offered by the river. Here, ecosystem services are an indicator of conceptual knowledge of ES while the length of residence variable is an indicator of experiential knowledge about river services. The results are organized by type of ecosystem service: provisioning, regulating, cultural, and supporting services.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA review of the chi-square test statistic in appendices A-D indicates that all of the models, save the one for food are statistically significant at the 1% level. The model for food services is statistically significant at the 5% level. The pseudo R-squared values range from a low of 0.1287 for food services to a high of 0.2594 for water transportation and purification services. This means approximately 13% of the variation in food services provision is explained by the model while about 26% of the variation in water transportation and purification services is explained by the model.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhen both prior knowledge of ecosystem services and length of residence are included in the models, the chi-square statistics get larger and the statistical significance improves. All models, save the one for flood regulation are statistically significant at the 1% level. The model for flood regulation is significant at the 5% level. The pseudo R-squared values also increase and range in value from 0.181 for spiritual services to a high of 0.3003 for water transportation and purification services.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAside from overall model explanatory power, there are also variations in the linkages between the main independent variables of interest and each ecosystem service. For the provision of food services, practical knowledge informed by people\u0026rsquo;s length of residence near the river was more important than conceptual knowledge of ecosystem service (i.e. prior knowledge of the concept of ecosystem services). For surveyed respondents that indicated the river sometimes provides food services, prior knowledge of ES becomes insignificant when length of residence is included in the model. Further, only residents that have lived near the river between five and ten years were more likely to indicate that the river sometimes provides food services.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor the provision of medicine, experiential knowledge is also more important than conceptual knowledge of ESs. Residents who lived near the river more than ten years were less likely to indicate that the river always provides medicine.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor regulating services, conceptual knowledge of ES is relatively more important than experiential knowledge of ES. In the models for flood regulation and the regulation of local climate, prior knowledge of ES was statistically significant, even after including length of residence in the model. In the models for flood regulation, respondents with prior knowledge of ES were more likely to indicate the river always and sometimes provides ES. In the models for regulation of local climate, both prior knowledge of ES and length of residence were important in explaining the responses of people who responded that the river sometimes regulates the local climate.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe model results for supporting services are similar to those for regulating services; prior knowledge of ES is more important than experiential knowledge of the river. For both species variety and water transportation and purification services, people were more likely to respond that the river always and sometimes provides these services if they had prior knowledge of ES.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe results for cultural ES are more varied. For recreation services, length of residence rather than ES was more important to understanding the always responses. People living near the river for more than five years were less likely to indicate that the river always provides recreation services. Conversely, prior knowledge of ES was more important to understanding the sometimes responses; people with prior knowledge of ES were more likely to indicate that the river sometimes provides recreational services.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor spiritual services, both conceptual and experiential knowledge of ES were important to explaining the always responses. Prior knowledge of ES made respondents more likely to indicate that the river always provides spiritual services. However, people living near the river for more than ten years were less likely to indicate that the river always provides spiritual services. Only length of residence was important in explaining the sometimes responses for spiritual services. People living near the river between five and ten years were more likely to indicate that the river sometimes provides this service.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor aesthetic services, knowledge of ecosystem services was more important in explaining the always responses; those with prior knowledge of ES were more likely to say the river always provides this service. Length of residence however was more important to explaining the sometimes responses. People living near the river between five and ten years were more likely to indicate the river sometimes provides this service.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhile the overall model results discussed above indicate that all of the variables are useful in explaining the variation in survey responses, some variables are individually significant in explaining respondents\u0026rsquo; survey choices. Individual factors are important to assess because they may mediate local people\u0026rsquo;s perceptions of ecosystem services. Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e provides a summary of results for the other control variables in the models that contain both prior knowledge of ecosystem services and length of residence.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGender was particularly important for the food and aesthetics models; men were more likely than women to indicate that the river always provides this service. They were also more likely to indicate that the river sometimes provides spiritual services.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn terms of age, the results are mixed across age groups and different types of ecosystem services. For example, respondents between the ages of 35\u0026ndash;44 were more likely to state that the river always and sometimes provides species variety. They were also more likely to state that the river sometimes provides recreational services. Older respondents however were less likely to indicate the river sometimes helps to regulate the local climate and provides spiritual services. They were more likely to indicate however that the river sometimes provides species variety.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEducation was not individually significant in most of the models, save the model for water transportation and purification services. Here, residents with a high school degree were less likely to indicate the river always provides this service. Income was individually significant in many of the models where people indicated the river sometimes provides a particular service. In these instances, upper-middle income survey respondents with monthly incomes between R5,000-R10,000 were more likely to say that the river sometimes provides recreational services and species variety. The highest income survey respondents with monthly income greater than R10,000 were more likely to say that the river sometimes regulates local climate and sometimes provides species variety. They were less likely to indicate that the river provides aesthetic services however.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLastly, type of housing was individually significant in several of the models. Residents in formal housing with municipal services were less likely to indicate the river always provides species variety. Residents living in both informal and formal housing with municipal services were also less likely to indicate the river always provides water transportation and purification services. The same was true for climate regulation and species variety; residents in housing with municipal services were less likely to say the river sometimes regulates the local climate and sometimes provides species variety. Residents of informal housing with municipal services were less likely to say the river provides aesthetic services.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"4. Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe goal of this paper was to assess local people\u0026rsquo;s perceptions and knowledge of ecosystem services supplied by rivers in urban centres. We also assessed factors that may mediate local people\u0026rsquo;s perceptions of ecosystem services. In this paper, we assessed how education, length of residence, housing, income, age, and prior knowledge of ecosystem services concept may mediate people\u0026rsquo;s perception of the ecosystem services supplied by rivers in urban centres.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSurvey results indicated variation in the extent people felt the river provided a variety of services. For many services, people were more likely to indicate the river sometimes provided a service instead of always. One service however for which there was almost universal agreement was the provision of freshwater; most respondents indicated the river never provided this service. This is likely because of high levels of pollution of the river. The Swartkops River is regarded as one of the most polluted river systems in the Eastern Cape of South Africa (Tshithukhe et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). High levels of \u003cem\u003eE. coli\u003c/em\u003e, pharmaceutical compounds, metals and other chemical pollutants have previously been reported (Odume et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e; Farounbi and Ngqwala \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Vumazonke et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Ohoro et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). It is possible that residents\u0026rsquo; familiarity with, and experiential knowledge of the river water quality may have shaped the perception that the river never provided freshwater. Another possibility would be the level of water service delivery within the catchment. Over 100% of households had access to piped municipal water, minimising their reliance on the river for drinking water (Nelson Mandela Bay Metro 2022), which is a contrast in rural-based studies that have indicated that people often perceived rivers as providing freshwater (Smith and Moore \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). Our results highlight the importance of knowledge of the local environment in shaping the perception of people regarding ecosystem services (Moutouama et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e) as well as socio-economic status and access to municipal services.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAn interesting aspect of model results were difference in results related to the importance of conceptual and experiential knowledge of ES. To capture these types of knowledge, prior knowledge of ES was included as a measure of conceptual knowledge and length of residence was included as a measure of experiential knowledge. For provisioning services such as food and cultural service like recreation, experiential knowledge of the river was more important than conceptual knowledge, whereas for intangible services such a regulating, conceptual knowledge was more important than experiential knowledge. Therefore, seems that experiential knowledge plays a key mediating role for ecosystem services that have direct use value such as provisioning of food and cultural services such as recreation. Similar observations have been made by Rodriquez et al., (2006), Lewan and S\u0026ouml;derqvist (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e) and Murata et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e) who reported that people tend to have more knowledge of and assigned value to ecosystem services that have direct use value.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRivers provide important regulatory and maintaining services such as flood control, local climate regulation, erosion prevention and maintaining population and habitats (Kaiser et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). For the most part, these regulatory services do not have direct use value. The model results indicate that conceptual knowledge of ES were comparatively more important than experiential knowledge for the regulatory and maintaining services. People who had prior knowledge of the concept of ecosystem services tend to indicate that the river sometimes or always provide these regulatory services. What this implies is that awareness raising and educating local people about the concept of ecosystem services can contribute to a better appreciation of the diversity of ecosystem services urban rivers provide, beyond those with direct use values Zedda (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). It needs to be noted that level of formal education does not necessarily translate to being aware of or having knowledge of the concept of ecosystem services, as education does not seem to play any significant role in our model. For example, in a study that involves diverse participants including politicians, government officials and researchers, Lewan and S\u0026ouml;derqvist (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e) found that the participants showed little understanding of ecosystem services concept. This implies that awareness raising and education should be designed specifically towards messaging the concept of ecosystem services among local people.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eModel results for cultural services suggested mixed importance of both conceptual and practical knowledge of ES. For the most part, cultural services such as recreation can be perceived as having direct use value, hence the importance of experiential knowledge, but services such as sense of identity may not, hence the relevance of conceptual knowledge. In the present study, there was a split in responses between sometimes and never for cultural services such as recreation and aesthetic. The research participants were of the view that the river does not always provide these services. As already indicated, the Swartkops River is seriously polluted although the level of pollution is seasonally mediated (Farounbi and Ngqwala \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Vumazonke et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). The awareness of the river pollution among the resident may have contributed to the responses, as residents may be aware of the risk posed in using polluted water for recreational purposes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAlthough our study shed interesting light on river-people relationality in an urban context, it is important to note some limitations of the present study which is based on a case study of one urban river at one point in time. Study results obtained in the future may differ from the ones presented in the present study. A different sample may also have different views about the river. These limitations suggest some avenues for future research. One avenue is the extension of the current study framework to other urban rivers. A second extension is to examine the linkages between urban river pollution and the perception of ecosystem services.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAn understanding of the ecosystem services may impact how people interact with urban rivers, but little is known about perceptions of urban river services on the African continent, and in South Africa in particular. To fill this knowledge gap, this paper analysed residents\u0026rsquo; perceptions of urban river services in the Swartkops River in the Nelson Bay Municipality in the Eastern Cape. The results of this examination suggest a linkage between river pollution and people\u0026rsquo;s perceptions of a variety of ecosystem services. This overarching result suggests that one step in solving the problem of urban river degradation is finding innovative ways to strengthen people-river relations so that they value river systems more highly and take proactive measures to protect these important ecosystems.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003ch2\u003eFunding\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis work was wholly supported by the LIRA 2030 Africa Programme, which is implemented by the International Science Council (ISC) in partnership with the Network of African Science Academies (NASAC), with support from the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida). Grant No. LIRA2030-GR08/19.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eCompeting Interests\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence this paper.\u003c/p\u003e \u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eONO contributed to the conceptualization of the study. Data were collected by ONO, FCA, CFN. Data analysis was conducted by EAM. The first draft of the manuscript was written by ONO, EAM, FCA; CM. The final manuscript was reviewed by ONO, EAM, CFA, CM, FM. Funding for the study was acquired by ONO and CFN.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAcknowledgments\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis work is based on the research supported wholly by the LIRA 2030 Africa Programme, which is implemented by the International Science Council (ISC) in partnership with the Network of African Science Academies (NASAC), with support from the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida). Grant No. LIRA2030-GR08/19.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAdams, J. B., Pretorius, L., \u0026amp; Snow, G. C. (2019). Deterioration in the water quality of an urbanised estuary with recommendations for improvement. \u003cem\u003eWater SA\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e45\u003c/em\u003e(1), 86-96.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBornman, T. G., Schmidt, J., Adams, J. B., Mfikili, A. N., Farre, R. E., \u0026amp; Smit, A. J. (2016). Relative sea-level rise and the potential for subsidence of the Swartkops Estuary intertidal salt marshes, South Africa. \u003cem\u003eSouth African Journal of Botany\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e107\u003c/em\u003e, 91-100. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCapps, K. A., Bentsen, C. N., \u0026amp; Ram\u0026iacute;rez, A. (2016). Poverty, urbanization, and environmental degradation: urban streams in the developing world. \u003cem\u003eFreshwater Science\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e35\u003c/em\u003e(1), 429-435.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChen, S. S., Kimirei, I. A., Yu, C., Shen, Q., \u0026amp; Gao, Q. (2022). Assessment of urban river water pollution with urbanization in East Africa. \u003cem\u003eEnvironmental Science and Pollution Research\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e29\u003c/em\u003e(27), 40812-40825.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChen, W. Y. (2017). Environmental externalities of urban river pollution and restoration: A hedonic analysis in Guangzhou (China). \u003cem\u003eLandscape and Urban Planning\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e157\u003c/em\u003e, 170-179.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCockerill, K. (2016). Environmental reviews and case studies: public perception of a high-quality river: mixed messages. \u003cem\u003eEnvironmental Practice\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e18\u003c/em\u003e(1), 44-52.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCOGTA. (2016). Integrated Urban Development: A New Deal for South African Cities and Towns. Department of Cooperative Governance and Urban Affairs, Republic of South Africa.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCollier, C. A., Almeida Neto, M. S. D., Aretakis, G. M., Santos, R. E., de Oliveira, T. H., Mour\u0026atilde;o, J. S., ... \u0026amp; El-Deir, A. C. (2015). Integrated approach to the understanding of the degradation of an urban river: local perceptions, environmental parameters and geoprocessing. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e11\u003c/em\u003e, 1-13.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEverard, M., \u0026amp; Moggridge, H. L. (2012). Rediscovering the value of urban rivers. \u003cem\u003eUrban Ecosystems\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e15\u003c/em\u003e, 293-314.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFarounbi, A.I. \u0026amp; Ngqwala, N.P (2020). Occurrence of selected endocrine disrupting compounds in the eastern cape province of South Africa. Environ Science and Pollution Research 27, 17268\u0026ndash;17279 (2020). \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGrizzetti, B., Lanzanova, D., Liquete, C., Reynaud, A., \u0026amp; Cardoso, A. C. (2016). Assessing water ecosystem services for water resource management. \u003cem\u003eEnvironmental Science \u0026amp; Policy\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e61\u003c/em\u003e, 194-203.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eG\u0026uuml;neralp, B., Lwasa, S., Masundire, H., Parnell, S., \u0026amp; Seto, K. C. (2017). Urbanization in Africa: challenges and opportunities for conservation. \u003cem\u003eEnvironmental research letters\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e13\u003c/em\u003e(1), 015002.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHaase, D., Schwarz, N., Strohbach, M., Kroll, F., \u0026amp; Seppelt, R. (2012). Synergies, trade-offs, and losses of ecosystem services in urban regions: an integrated multiscale framework applied to the Leipzig-Halle Region, Germany. \u003cem\u003eEcology and Society\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e17\u003c/em\u003e(3).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHarrison, P. A., Vandewalle, M., Sykes, M. T., Berry, P. M., Bugter, R., de Bello, F., ... \u0026amp; Zobel, M. (2010). Identifying and prioritising services in European terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems. \u003cem\u003eBiodiversity and Conservation\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e19\u003c/em\u003e, 2791-2821.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHartel, T., Fischer, J., C\u0026acirc;mpeanu, C., Milcu, A. I., Hanspach, J., \u0026amp; Fazey, I. (2014). The importance of ecosystem services for rural inhabitants in a changing cultural landscape in Romania. \u003cem\u003eEcology and Society\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e19\u003c/em\u003e(2).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHeinrigs, P. (2020). Africapolis: understanding the dynamics of urbanization in Africa. \u003cem\u003eField Actions Science Reports. The Journal of Field Actions\u003c/em\u003e, (Special Issue 22), 18-23.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHossu, C. A., Iojă, I. C., Onose, D. A., Niță, M. R., Popa, A. M., Talabă, O., \u0026amp; Inostroza, L. (2019). Ecosystem services appreciation of urban lakes in Romania. Synergies and trade-offs between multiple users. \u003cem\u003eEcosystem Services\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e37\u003c/em\u003e, 100937.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ehttps://www.africancentreforcities.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/IUDF-2016_WEB-min.pdf\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ehttps://www.un.org/development/desa/en/news/population/2018-revision-of-world-urbanization-prospects.html\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJackson, M. C., Loewen, C. J., Vinebrooke, R. D., \u0026amp; Chimimba, C. T. (2016). Net effects of multiple stressors in freshwater ecosystems: a meta‐analysis. \u003cem\u003eGlobal Change Biology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e22\u003c/em\u003e(1), 180-189.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKaiser, N. N., Feld, C. K., \u0026amp; Stoll, S. (2020). Does river restoration increase ecosystem services?. \u003cem\u003eEcosystem Services\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e46\u003c/em\u003e, 101206.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKeeler, B. L., Hamel, P., McPhearson, T., Hamann, M. H., Donahue, M. L., Meza Prado, K. A., ... \u0026amp; Wood, S. A. (2019). Social-ecological and technological factors moderate the value of urban nature. \u003cem\u003eNature Sustainability\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e(1), 29-38.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLewan, L., \u0026amp; S\u0026ouml;derqvist, T. (2002). Knowledge and recognition of ecosystem services among the general public in a drainage basin in Scania, Southern Sweden. \u003cem\u003eEcological Economics\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e42\u003c/em\u003e(3), 459-467.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMart\u0026iacute;n-L\u0026oacute;pez, B., Iniesta-Arandia, I., Garc\u0026iacute;a-Llorente, M., Palomo, I., Casado-Arzuaga, I., Amo, D. G. D., ... \u0026amp; Montes, C. (2012). Uncovering ecosystem service bundles through social preferences. \u003cem\u003ePLoS one\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e7\u003c/em\u003e(6), e38970.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMedwid, L., \u0026amp; Mack, E. A. (2022). An Analysis of Household Perceptions of Water Costs across the United States: A Survey Based Approach. \u003cem\u003eWater\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e14\u003c/em\u003e(2), 247.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMoutouama, F.T., Biaou, S.S.H., Kyereh, B. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e Factors shaping local people\u0026rsquo;s perception of ecosystem services in the Atacora Chain of Mountains, a biodiversity hotspot in northern Benin. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine\u003c/em\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e 15\u003c/strong\u003e, 38 (2019). \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMurata, C., Mantel, S., de Wet, C., \u0026amp; Palmer, A. R. (2019). Lay knowledge of ecosystem services in rural Eastern Cape Province, South Africa: implications for intervention program planning. \u003cem\u003eWater Economics and Policy\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e5\u003c/em\u003e(02), 1940001.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNelson Mandela Bay Metropolitan Municipality (2022) Integrated development plan 2022/23 \u0026ndash; 2026/27 https://www.google.com/url?sa=t\u0026amp;rct=j\u0026amp;q=\u0026amp;esrc=s\u0026amp;source=web\u0026amp;cd=\u0026amp;ved=2ahUKEwiXxsWi5J-CAxU4U0EAHZzEC30QFnoECBIQAQ\u0026amp;url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nelsonmandelabay.gov.za%2FDataRepository%2FDocuments%2Fdraft-2022-23-idp-noted_CvOpv.pdf\u0026amp;usg=AOvVaw2IGN9vyaGYH7BOHO0IzkES\u0026amp;opi=89978449 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNjoh, A. J. (2003). Urbanization and development in sub-Saharan Africa. \u003cem\u003eCities\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e20\u003c/em\u003e(3), 167-174.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOdume, O. N. (2017). Ecosystem approach to managing water quality. In \u003cem\u003eWater Quality\u003c/em\u003e. IntechOpen.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOdume, O.N., Muller, W.J., Arimoro, F.O. \u0026amp; Palmer, C.G. (2012) The impact of water quality deterioration on macroinvertebrate communities in the Swartkops River, South Africa: a multimetric approach. \u003cem\u003eAfrican Journal of Aquatic Science\u003c/em\u003e, 37:2, 191-200.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOdume, O.N.; Onyima, B.N.; Nnadozie, C.F.; Omovoh, G.O.; Mmachaka, T.; Omovoh, B.O.; Uku, J.E.; Akamagwuna, F.C.; Arimoro, F.O. Governance and Institutional Drivers of Ecological Degradation in Urban River Ecosystems: Insights from Case Studies in African Cities. Sustainability \u003cstrong\u003e2022\u003c/strong\u003e, 14, 14147. https://doi.org/10.3390/ su142114147\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOECD/UN ECA/AFDB (2022), Africa\u0026rsquo;s Urbanisation Dynamics 2022: The Economic Power of Africa\u0026rsquo;s Cities, West African Studies. OECD, United Nations Economic Commission for Africa and African Development Bank OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/3834ed5b-en\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOhoro, C.R., Adeniji, A.O., Okoh, A.I. \u0026amp; Okoh O.O (2021) Spatial and seasonal variations of endocrine distrupting compounds in water and sediment samples of Markman Canal and Swartkops River Estuaru, South Africa and their ecological risk assessment. \u003cem\u003eMarine Pollution Bulletin\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e173 (A): 113012\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRodr\u0026iacute;guez, L. C., Pascual, U., \u0026amp; Niemeyer, H. M. (2006). Local identification and valuation of ecosystem goods and services from Opuntia scrublands of Ayacucho, Peru. \u003cem\u003eEcological Economics\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e57\u003c/em\u003e(1), 30-44. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSmith, J.W. \u0026amp; Moore, R.L. (2011) Perceptions of Community Benefits from Two Wild and Scenic Rivers. \u003cem\u003eEnvironmental Management\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e47\u003c/strong\u003e, 814\u0026ndash;827.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTargetti, S., Raggi, M., Zavalloni, M., \u0026amp; Viaggi, D. (2021). Perceived benefits from reclaimed rural landscapes: Evidence from the lowlands of the Po River Delta, Italy. \u003cem\u003eEcosystem Services\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e49\u003c/em\u003e, 101288.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTshithukhe, G., Mitotsoe, SN. \u0026amp; Hill, MP (2021) Heavy metals assimilation by native and non-native aquatic macrophyte species: a case study of a river in the eastern cape province of South Africa. \u003cem\u003ePlants, 10, 12\u003c/em\u003e: 2676.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eUluocha, N. O., \u0026amp; Okeke, I. C. (2004). Implications of wetlands degradation for water resources management: Lessons from Nigeria. \u003cem\u003eGeoJournal\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e61\u003c/em\u003e, 151-154.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eUnited Nations. (2018). 68% of the world population projected to live in urban areas by 2050, says UN. Department of Economic and Social Affairs, United Nations\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVumazonke, S., Khamanga, S.M. \u0026amp; Ngqwala, N.P. (2020) Detection of pharmaceutical residues in surface waters of the Eastern Cape Province. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health\u003c/em\u003e 17, 4067. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWalsh, C.J.; Roy, A.H.; Feminella, J.W.; Cottingham, P.D.; Groffman, P.M.; Morgan, R.P., II. The urban stream syndrome: Current knowledge and the search for a cure. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. \u003cstrong\u003e2005\u003c/strong\u003e, 24, 706\u0026ndash;723.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eXu, Z., Xu, J., Yin, H., Jin, W., Li, H., \u0026amp; He, Z. (2019). Urban river pollution control in developing countries. \u003cem\u003eNature Sustainability\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e(3), 158-160.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZedda L. (2023) The importance of a transformative biodiversity education for perceiving, appreciating and supporting lichen diversity in German urban environments. \u003cem\u003eLichenologist 55 (5): 161 \u0026ndash; 168.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZhang, G., Zheng, D., Xie, L., Zhang, X., Wu, H., \u0026amp; Li, S. (2021). Mapping changes in the value of ecosystem services in the Yangtze River Middle Reaches Megalopolis, China. \u003cem\u003eEcosystem Services\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e48\u003c/em\u003e, 101252.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"},{"header":"Tables","content":"\u003cp\u003eTables 3 and 4 are available in the Supplementary Files section.\u003c/p\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":"urban-ecosystems","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"ueco","sideBox":"Learn more about [Urban Ecosystems](https://www.springer.com/journal/11252)","snPcode":"11252","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/11252/3","title":"Urban Ecosystems","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Hybrid","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false},"keywords":"Cities, freshwater, pollution, South Africa, Swartkops River","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-3856996/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3856996/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eThe ecosystem services concept has been studied in rural contexts but not as much in urban landscapes, particularly aquatic ecosystems in Africa. This means we have little knowledge of how urban populations perceive ecosystem services (ES) supplied by rivers in urban centres. To fill this gap, this paper assesses local people\u0026rsquo;s perceptions and knowledge of ecosystem services supplied by rivers in urban centres using the Swartkops River in the Nelson Mandela Bay metropolitan area in the Eastern Cape as a case study. The survey results indicated variation in the extent people felt the river provided a variety of services. There was almost universal agreement that the river never provides freshwater which likely reflects high levels of pollution in the river. An interesting aspect of the model results were differences in results related to the importance of conceptual and experiential knowledge of ES. For provisioning services, like recreation, experiential knowledge of the river was more important than conceptual knowledge, whereas for intangible ES such a regulating services, conceptual knowledge was important than experiential knowledge.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Perceptions and knowledge of ecosystem services in urban river systems, Eastern Cape, South Africa","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2024-01-17 17:00:19","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-3856996/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2024-02-20T01:07:44+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2024-02-17T11:09:50+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"455b26ea-305a-4a12-8eab-2dc7b5723a9b","date":"2024-02-17T07:02:00+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"d1a69c8a-076f-432e-a996-b59f1778565d","date":"2024-01-19T07:23:50+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"f2af01ab-b5cf-40e1-9e80-5acf638ee6ec","date":"2024-01-18T16:28:03+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2024-01-16T15:24:44+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2024-01-15T22:04:29+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2024-01-15T07:56:48+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Urban Ecosystems","date":"2024-01-12T12:49:00+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"urban-ecosystems","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"ueco","sideBox":"Learn more about [Urban Ecosystems](https://www.springer.com/journal/11252)","snPcode":"11252","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/11252/3","title":"Urban Ecosystems","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Hybrid","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"941ad5a4-affc-44ac-b1c2-e4cdbe269549","owner":[],"postedDate":"January 17th, 2024","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"under-review","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2024-05-11T05:47:35+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2024-01-17 17:00:19","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-3856996","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-3856996","identity":"rs-3856996","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"qtupq5eGEP_6zYnWcrvyt","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}