Ecosystem Functioning, Goods, Services and Economic Benefits in Buffalo City Metropolitan Municipality (BCMM) Eastern Cape, South Africa

This paper focused on the ecosystem functioning, goods, services and economic benefits in Buffalo City Metropolitan Municipality (BCMM) Eastern Cape, South Africa. Approval for this study was given by both the BCMM and the University of Fort Hare (with ethical clearance certificate number given as KUL011SOLA01). The analysis of results begin with the demographic characteristics of the study population (such as age, educational attainment and race), as well as other issues including the following: knowledge and benefits derived from CVEs, changes in features of coastal vegetation resources management and conservation, as well as the analysis of derivable services (such as provisioning, cultural and regulation services) in the study area. It presents the analysis of questionnaire results, which indicated that more males (122/48.2%) participated in the field exercise, while respondents that had the highest frequency in terms of age (that is, 36-40 years old respondents) were 97 (38.3%). As regards educational attainment, majority of the respondents, (that is, 117/46.1%) were university degree holders, and blacks were 172 (68.0%). This research also sought to know the respondents’ knowledge of coastal vegetation resources, as well as the benefits derivable from the study area, and these were categorized into three areas namely, raw materials (154/56.9%), medicinal purposes (159/62.8%) and economic benefits (161/63.4%). The results were further elucidated with bar graphs, pie charts, scatter diagrams, plates and tables. Address for correspondence: E-mail: olatoyetolu@gmail.com INTRODUCTION This study focused on the functioning, goods and services as well as the economic benefits from Buffalo City Metropolitan Municipality. In general ecosystems offer several environmental functions and services, such as biodiversity conservation (Mace et al. 2012; Bommarco et al. 2013; Breuste et al. 2013), carbon sequestration (Egoh et al. 2012; Reyers et al. 2012), defense against soil erosion (MendozaGonzález et al. 2012; Ninan 2012) and also, vegetation beautifies the environment (Reyers et al. 2012; Rao et al. 2015; FAO 2016), flood control (Sitas et al. 2014), desertification and water supply (Wangai et al. 2016; Turpie et al. 2017). This calls for continued research to be undertaken, monitoring, and protection to ensure ecosystem functioning and services which is fundamental in coastal green sustainability (Willemen et al. 2013; Cortinovis and Geneletti 2018). According to Bastian et al. (2012), there are two basic areas of ecosystem functioning, firstly are the functions which offer direct advantage to man and secondly the environment. These are those which uphold natural systems integrity in general and ecosystems in specificity (Cabello et al. 2012). Also, the classifications of functions (namely, information, habitat, production and regulation functions, (Egoh et al. 2012) was elucidated in this chapter. Also, the analysis of results were further illustrated with tables, plates, bar charts and scatter diagrams accordingly. The Conceptualization of Ecosystem Service (ES) The concept of ecosystem services (ESs) was initially articulated as a tool for enlightening and communicating support efforts geared towards the conservation of biodiversity (De Groot et al. 2010; Gómez-Baggethun and Barton 2010). As the beamlight on environmental conJ Hum Ecol, 67(1-3):79-90 (2019) DOI: 10.31901/24566608.2019/67.1-3.3149 © Kamla-Raj 2019 PRINT: ISSN 0970-9274 ONLINE: ISSN 2456-6608 80 TOLULOPE AYODEJI OLATOYE, AHMED MUKALAZI KALUMBA, SONWABO PEREZ MAZINYO ET AL. J Hum Ecol, 67(1-3):79-90 (2019) servation and management is focused on securing the livelihood of species and ecosystems, wider societal attention on biodiversity concerns, as well as the numerous human and environmental merits holds much promise, and this concomitantly anticipates increased disposition to safeguard biodiversity, especially where severe ecosystem disturbances have been stated (Mononen et al. 2015). In the course of studying ecosystem services in the early years, the concept was marked with wide multiplicity as regards the use of concepts and terminologies (Haines-Young et al. 2012). However, latter developments such as the invention of the cascade model as well as the execution of the Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES) have endeavored to unite the terminologies and brought some levels of accord amongst different scientific fields of science (Haines-Young et al. 2010; Monomen et al. 2015; La Notte et al. 2017). The European Commission underscores the significance of precise information on ecosystem service as a platform for the operationalization of the 2020 EU Biodiversity Strategy (Cortinovis and Geneletti 2018). It is on this premise therefore that it is imperative to assess ecosystem goods and service delivery in our communities (Jorda-Capdevila et al. 2016). Instances of operationalizing the CICES categorization include the Green Frame strategy of mapping green infrastructure (Kopperoinen 2014) as well as the national ES classification of Belgium, (Turkelboom 2013). Notwithstanding the numerous progress in the developmental stages of ecosystem service, associated conceptions and operationalization, a lot is still required to done regarding the incorporation of ecosystem services in practical terms regarding the enactment of policies on national or regional scales. This is premised upon the all-encompassing characteristic of the concept, inadequate instances of ES applications, as well as typologies of the ES. In the urban scene, for example, the significance of ES cannot be over-emphasized. For example, Elmqvist et al. (2015), posited that financing, restoring, conserving, and improving ecosystem services and green infrastructure in urban climes goes beyond its social or ecological values. It is also economically sustainable, even in the face of prevailing economic situations. Further, the applications of ES is vital in decision-making procedures associated with urban land use and management practices and to guide restoration practitioners, landscape planners, urban managers architects, and other stakeholders as well as private and institutional stakeholders in the course of environmental service delivery (Jorda-Capdevila et al. 2016). Despite the fact that economic considerations provide worthwhile arguments for environmental developments, they are inadequate to fully measure or capture or monitor the wide array of merits associated with urban ecosystem services restoration. Indeed, many significant ecosystem services were not acknowledged in some published works on economic valuations of urban green infrastructure, other merits considered in this chapter incorporates other benefits such as promoting well-being, provisioning services, and social comfort, as further research efforts is required to satisfactorily capture these values. Urban ES are produced in diversities of habitats, green spaces, urban forests parks, vacant lots, landfills; cemeteries, gardens and yards, blue spaces, campus areas, and including streams, lakes, ponds, artificial swales, and storm water retention ponds, etc. (Chen et al. 2014; Elmqvist et al. 2015), and are generally typified by high demand on account of very large number of immediate local beneficiaries.