Joburg Metropolitan Open
Space System
DATE: October 2002
Prepared for:
CITY OF JOBURG
Compiled by:
STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL FOCUS (Pty) Ltd
PO Box 74785
Lynnwood Ridge
Pretoria
0040
Tel: (012) 349 - 1307
Fax: (012) 349 - 1229
E-mail: sef@sefsa.co.za
Copyright Warning
With very few exceptions the copyright of all text and presented information is the exclusive property of Strategic
Environmental Focus. It is a criminal offence to reproduce and/or use, without written consent, any information,
technical procedure and/or technique contained in this document. Criminal and civil proceedings will be taken as a
matter of strict routine against any person and/or institution infringing the copyright of Strategic Environmental Focus
1997/002419/23
Joburg Metropolitan Open Space System
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................ III
LIST OF TABLES
........................................................................................... IV
LIST OF FIGURES
............................................................................................ V
LIST OF APPENDICES ............................................................................................ V
SECTION 1: BACKGROUND ................................................................................. 1
1.1
1.2
1.3
MOTIVATION FOR JMOSS................................................................ 1
PURPOSE OF JMOSS ....................................................................... 3
OBJECTIVES OF JMOSS .................................................................. 4
SECTION 2: DEFINING OPEN SPACE .................................................................. 5
2.1
2.2
2.3
NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL DEFINITIONS OF OPEN
SPACE ............................................................................................... 5
JMOSS DEFINITION OF OPEN SPACE ............................................ 6
WHAT IS A METROPOLITAN OPEN SPACE SYSTEM OR
MOSS? .............................................................................................. 7
SECTION 3: WHY OPEN SPACE? ........................................................................ 8
3.1
3.2
THE PURPOSE OF OPEN SPACE .................................................... 8
ECOSYSTEM SERVICES PROVIDED BY OPEN SPACE................ 10
SECTION 4: PRINCIPLES OF QUALITY OPEN SPACE ..................................... 13
SECTION 5: METHODOLOGY FOR THE IDENTIFICATION OF JMOSS ............ 16
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
CONSULTATION ............................................................................. 16
LIMITATIONS .................................................................................. 17
STUDY AREA .................................................................................. 17
METHODOLOGY ............................................................................. 19
GROUPING OF OPEN SPACES ...................................................... 32
SECTION 6: FINDINGS ........................................................................................ 37
6.1
6.2
TABLED RESULTS .......................................................................... 37
MAPPED RESULTS ......................................................................... 39
i
Prepared by: Strategic Environmental Focus
Joburg Metropolitan Open Space System
SECTION 7: THE JOBURG METROPOLITAN OPEN SPACE
MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK ...................................................... 40
7.1
7.2
GUIDING PRINCIPLES .................................................................... 40
GOALS AND OVERALL STRATEGY ............................................... 40
SECTION 8: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................ 42
8.1
8.2
CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................... 42
RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................... 42
SECTION 9: REFERENCES................................................................................. 44
ii
Prepared by: Strategic Environmental Focus
Joburg Metropolitan Open Space System
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Strategic Environmental Focus would like to express our sincere appreciation to the
following people and organizations who assisted in data collection and providing
comment when necessary.
Amanda Nair
Councillor Tau
Councillor Walters
Dirk Bouwer
Flora Mokgohloa
Gesan Govender
Hein Pienaar
Jane Eagle
Koekie Maphanga
Lebo Molefe
Other members of the Mayoral Committee
Paul de Jesus
Werner Fourie
Willem Badenhorst
Willie Nel
iii
City of Joburg
City of Joburg
City of Joburg
City of Joburg
City of Joburg
City of Joburg
City of Joburg
City of Joburg
City of Joburg
Joburg City Parks
City of Joburg
City of Joburg
Global Image
CSIR Transportek
Joburg City Parks
Prepared by: Strategic Environmental Focus
Joburg Metropolitan Open Space System
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1:
Ecosystem services provided by open space (adapted from
DMOSS, 1999). ................................................................................ 10
Table 2:
Proposed categories and sub-categories of open space. ................. 21
Table 3:
Definitions of the “natural” land cover categories. ............................. 26
Table 4:
Queries run for the identification of desired ecological open
spaces. ............................................................................................ 30
Table 5:
Statistics for the six open space categories. ..................................... 37
Table 6:
Results of the 10 queries run for the determination of desired
ecological open space. ..................................................................... 38
Table 7:
Statistics for the primary (ecological) open spaces. .......................... 38
Table 8:
Statistics for the secondary (agriculture, heritage, institutional
and social) open spaces. .................................................................. 39
Table 9:
Statistics for the tertiary (prospective) open spaces. ........................ 39
iv
Prepared by: Strategic Environmental Focus
Joburg Metropolitan Open Space System
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1:
Map of the City of Joburg and its 11 regions
Figure 2:
Open spaces in the Diepsloot region
Figure 3:
Open spaces in the Midrand region
Figure 4:
Open spaces in the Sandton/Rosebank region
Figure 5:
Open spaces in the Northcliff region
Figure 6:
Open spaces in the Roodepoort region
Figure 7:
Open spaces in the Doornkop/Soweto region
Figure 8:
Open spaces in the Alexandra region
Figure 9:
Open spaces in the Central region
Figure 10:
Open spaces in the Johannesburg South region
Figure 11:
Open spaces in the Diepkloof/Meadowlands region
Figure 12:
Open spaces in the Ennerdale/Orange Farm region
Figure 13:
Map of the existing primary open space network and secondary and
tertiary open spaces
Figure 14:
Map of desired ecological open spaces
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix 1:
Metadata information for the GIS data utilised in JMOSS
v
Prepared by: Strategic Environmental Focus
Joburg Metropolitan Open Space System
SECTION 1: BACKGROUND
In recognition of the rapid loss of open space resources, the need to respond
appropriately to development pressures, while adhering to the principles of
sustainable environmental management, and the resource constraints for
maintenance, management and securing of open spaces, the Environmental
Planning and Management Department of the City of Joburg, in consultation with
Joburg City Parks, embarked on a process towards the formulation of a Metropolitan
Open Space System (MOSS) plan for the city. To this end, Strategic Environmental
Focus were appointed by the City of Joburg in 2002 to complete the first phase of a
MOSS for the city (JMOSS), which would provide a solid base for further work
required during subsequent phases of the MOSS in order to make it functional. This
first phase of JMOSS consisted of:
-
A literature review on open spaces.
The identification and categorisation of existing open spaces.
The identification of desired open spaces.
The formulation of an open space network based on a precautionary,
catch-all approach.
The identification of further steps required to render the MOSS functional.
As this phase of JMOSS was essentially a desktop study and did not include any
form of ground-truthing or public consultation. This study has resulted in the
identification of a broad, all-inclusive MOSS, which requires refinement during the
following phases.
1.1
MOTIVATION FOR JMOSS
Joburg is the largest City in the Gauteng Province and forms the largest urban
complex in South Africa, with an urbanisation rate of 97%. The city is home to a
population of 2.83 million people, of which 33% are housed in less than adequate
accommodation. The city provides jobs to 840 000 people in 290 000 formal sector
business enterprises, which represents 12% of South Africa’s employment. With a
contribution of R117 billion, Joburg is the largest single contributor to South Africa’s
GDP.
1
Prepared by: Strategic Environmental Focus
Joburg Metropolitan Open Space System
Due to the restructuring
Chapter 2 of The Constitution, the supreme law of South Africa, states
process, the City of
that everyone has the right “to have the environment protected through
reasonable legislative and other measures that promote conservation and
Joburg had inherited a
secure ecologically sustainable development and the use of natural
fragmented open space
resources, while promoting justifiable economic and social development”.
system, which fails to
The principles of The National Environmental Management Act, Act
provide the benefits and
107 of 1998 (NEMA) state that:
 Environmental management must be integrated, acknowledging that all
potentials of a MOSS.
elements of the environment are linked and interrelated, and it must
The absence of a
take into account the effects of decisions on all aspects of the
environment and all people in the environment by pursuing the
comprehensive
policy
selection of the best practicable environmental option”. [2(4b)]
framework or guidelines
 “Sensitive, vulnerable, highly dynamic or stressed ecosystems require
specific attention in management and planning procedures, especially
for
the
protection,
where they are subject to significant human resource usage and
management
and
development pressure”. [2(4r)]
optimization
of
open
space areas within the city has resulted in the ongoing loss of valuable open space
resources. Furthermore, a high population density and a rapid rate of urbanization
increases the demand for housing, services and infrastructure as well as
employment, which places extreme pressure on the city’s natural resources. Due to
these urgent socio-economic needs, the investment of resources in a Metropolitan
Open Space System (MOSS) is generally not considered a priority by local
communities. This threatens not only the conservation of biodiversity and ecological
systems, but also the recreational amenity of residents and the provision of other
important services open spaces provide to the city, such as storm water attenuation,
pollution mitigation etc. Fortunately, however, there is an increased awareness
amongst the people of South Africa that an important requirement for an enhanced
quality of life in urban areas is open space. The planning development and
management of a MOSS can no longer be regarded as secondary to other local
council functions. It is, therefore, necessary to highlight the role open space plays as
the “container” of resources that deliver essential services crucial to the maintenance
of an acceptable quality of life for all communities. Open space requires recognition
as an asset that requires careful management, and it needs to be afforded a status
by all citizens of Joburg that will lead to continued and productive use. Communities
and decision-makers have undervalued open space in the past, as the benefits to
society had not been clearly defined. As soon as it is realised that open space can
render a service to society, an economic value can be assigned to it and hence more
informed decisions can be made regarding open space management. In a recent
scientific publication by Balmford et al. (2002) on the economic implications of
conserving natural habitats, the benefit:cost ratio of conserving these habitats has
been conservatively estimated to be 100:1. Such an overwhelming figure, albeit an
indicator at a global level, calls for the urgent evaluation of the services rendered by
Joburg’s remaining open spaces, the raising of public awareness of these services
and the development of appropriate management strategies.
The ultimate aim is to develop an Environmental Management Strategy and plan of
action for open space in line with the principles of sustainable development. The
lack of such a plan to date has impacted negatively on future planning of areas and
planning processes, such as the formulation of Local Integrated Development Plans,
2
Prepared by: Strategic Environmental Focus
Joburg Metropolitan Open Space System
which have not been adequately informed by open space considerations.
Assessments regarding open space impacts of new developments have also tended
to be done on an ad hoc basis without being able to be contextualised within a
broader open space network. Therefore, it is essential that the MOSS should form
an important and integral part of and inform both the Local Integrated Development
Plan (LIDP) and the Strategic Development Framework (SDF), encouraging the
effective management of Johannesburg’s scarce natural resources in a way that will
promote sustainable development.
In initiating JMOSS, the City of Joburg has not only responded to national legislation
with regard to sound environmental management, but also on the international call
for managing land in a sustainable manner.
1.2
PURPOSE OF JMOSS
The purpose of this study is
The general principles of The Development Facilitation Act (Act 67 of
1995) stipulate that:
to develop an approach to

Policy, administrative practices should promote efficient and
establish a Metropolitan
integrated land development in that they encourage
environmentally sustainable land development practices and
Open
Space
System
processes, [3(1c) (viii)]l.
(MOSS) for the City of

Laws, procedures and administrative practice relating to land
development should [3 (1g)]Joburg, which will be utilised
i)
be clear and available to those likely to be affected thereby;
as a decision support tool
ii) in addition to serving as regulatory measures, also provide
guidance and information to those affected thereby.
and a spatial planning tool

Policy, administrative practice and laws should promote
that can assist in the
sustainable development at the required scale in that they should
[3(1h)]promotion of sustainable
i)
promote sustained protection of the environment;
management of open space
ii) ensure safe utilisation of land by taking into consideration
factors such as geological formations and hazardous
within the City of Joburg.
undermined areas.
This should provide an open

Each proposed land development area should be judged on its
own merits and no particular use of land, such as residential,
space policy plan, which will
commercial, conversational, industrial, community facility, mining,
facilitate the establishment
agricultural and public use, should in advance or in general be
regarded as being less important or desirable than any other use
and maintenance of an
of land [3(1j)].
efficient open space system

The commandant authority at national, provincial and local
government level should coordinate the interests of various sectors
that will link established and
involved in or affected by land development so as to minimise
potential conservation areas
conflicting demands on scarce resources [3(l)].
within the City of Joburg.
Environmental Planning and
Management are directly responsible for the establishment of a MOSS for the city,
which is seen as an opportunity for investigating innovative approaches.
3
Prepared by: Strategic Environmental Focus
Joburg Metropolitan Open Space System
1.3
OBJECTIVES OF JMOSS
The objectives of JMOSS, as stipulated in the terms of reference, are as follows:







To provide a cohesive, holistic view of the nature and purposes of an open space
system and generate principles of approach most likely to lead to its
establishment.
To formulate a perceptual model that can be used to identify the types of land
most worthy of inclusion within an open space system.
To propose a methodology, which, if
Agenda 21, the international blueprint for
applied, would be most likely to bring
sustainable development, states the following:
any potential open space into effect.

Chapter 10, dealing with an Integrated
To determine suitable boundaries for
Approach to the Planning and Management of
Land Resources, calls upon governments, at
a City of Joburg Metropolitan Open
various levels to review and develop policies
Space System.
to support the best possible use of land and
the sustainable management of land
To provide a holistic view and
resources.
analysis of existing open space.

Chapter 40 entitled: Information for Decisionmaking
states
that:
In
sustainable
To identify those potential open
development, everyone is a user and provider
spaces that occur throughout the
of information. The need for information arises
at all levels, from that of senior decisionmetropolitan area that are worthy of
makers at the national level to the grass roots
inclusion in an open space system
and individual levels.
based on applied criteria.
To, in terms of the chosen methodology, assess existing and potential open
space that should constitute the MOSS.
4
Prepared by: Strategic Environmental Focus
Joburg Metropolitan Open Space System
SECTION 2: DEFINING OPEN SPACE
Five billion people worldwide live in metropolitan areas (The Trust for Public Land,
2002). With urbanisation influencing every city around the world, the problems of a
deteriorating environment are at the forefront of global planning. Pollution of
resources, global climate change, species extinction and inappropriate development
in natural areas are inter alia the challenges facing sustainable development. When
seen in the context of the impact of humans on world ecosystems, it is clear that the
links between cities, nature and sustainability have profound impacts on the global
environment. Hence it is vital that networks of open spaces, which form an integral
part of resource conservation, use and management, be identified. A prerequisite for
the identification of an open space system is the definition thereof, which is
discussed below.
2.1
NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL DEFINITIONS OF OPEN SPACE
A review of both national and international literature on the subject of open space
revealed that definitions for this concept vary substantially and that this is often a
point of contention. As examples, a few definitions of open space from both national
and international sources are presented below:
2.1.1
Definitions from international sources
State of New York, 2001
“Open space is land, which is not intensively developed for residential,
commercial, industrial or institutional use. Open space can be publicly or
privately owned. It includes agricultural and forest land, undeveloped
shorelines, undeveloped scenic lands, public parks and preserves as well
as water bodies. Internationally, land that is defined as open space is
dependant, in part, on its surroundings. For example, a vacant lot or a
small marsh can be an open space in a big city, or a narrow corridor or
pathway for walking or bicycling is open space even though developed
areas surround it.”
Marin County, California (Open Space Preservation Program Policy,
1985)
“An area of natural landscape essentially undeveloped, such as ridges,
streams, natural shorelines, scenic buffer areas, and agricultural lands.”
5
Prepared by: Strategic Environmental Focus
Joburg Metropolitan Open Space System
City of Corvallis, Oregon (2002)
“Open space is any undeveloped or predominantly undeveloped land,
including waterways, in and around an urban area. There are both public
and private open spaces. For example, meadows, hilltops, orchards,
farms, and marshes are all open spaces. Parks, too, may be open
spaces in some cases, where they include one ore more of these
features.”
2.1.2
Definitions from national sources
Cape MOSS (Chittenden Nicks de Villiers, 2000)
“Open space is principally the unbuilt component inside the urban edge,
that serves a variety of purposes and functions.”
Durban MOSS (Durban Metropolitan Council, 1999)
Two types of open space were identified for the DMOSS:
Urban open spaces
“…are the human made or legally designated places and areas within the
DMA that are developed for community use. They include parks, sports
fields, agricultural fields, streets, town squares, road reserves, servitudes
for services such as electricity transmission line, dams, private gardens,
etc.”
Natural open spaces
“…are the remaining undisturbed natural and undeveloped areas within
the DMA. They are the areas that contain the core terrestrial, freshwater,
estuarine and marine ecosystems. These ecosystems include land cover
types such as grasslands, forests, beaches, estuaries, rivers, wetlands,
etc.”
2.2
JMOSS DEFINITION OF OPEN SPACE
For the purpose of this study, the definition of open space is similar to that of other
national and international definitions and is deemed to be:
“Any undeveloped vegetated land within and beyond the urban edge,
belonging to any of the following six open space categories: ecological, social,
institutional, heritage, agricultural and prospective (degraded land).”
Each of the six categories has a number of sub-categories, which are dealt with in
more detail in Section 5.
6
Prepared by: Strategic Environmental Focus
Joburg Metropolitan Open Space System
As the main focus of this MOSS is on ecological “green” open spaces, it does not
include hard surface open spaces (e.g. streets, malls, pavements, etc.), which form
part of both the Durban and Cape MOSS’s definitions of open space.
2.3
WHAT IS A METROPOLITAN OPEN SPACE SYSTEM OR MOSS?
The definition of a MOSS, as proposed by the Metropolitan Spatial Development
Framework (2000), aptly describes this concept as follows:
“A Metropolitan Open Space System (MOSS) is an inter-connected and
managed network of open space, which supports interactions between social,
economic and ecological activities, sustaining and enhancing both ecological
processes and human settlements. MOSS comprises public and private
spaces, human-made or delineated spaces, undeveloped spaces, disturbed
'natural' spaces, and undisturbed or pristine natural spaces.”
An open space system results from a planning process that is innovative, scientific,
and most importantly community driven. Open space planning and decision-making
must reflect community values, respond to citizens’ needs and address broader
community goals. Whilst incorporating sound environmental science regarding
ecosystems and the connection between land and water resources, participation by
community residents of all backgrounds and diverse interests should simultaneously
drive the planning and design process.
It is important to emphasise here that this first phase of JMOSS did not include any
public participation, as this will be undertaken during Phase 2. Phase 1 simply
involved the identification of a MOSS constituting existing and potential open spaces,
which was based solely on scientific and ecological principles and did not include the
social or economic aspects. These will, however, be addressed during Phase 2,
when the MOSS will be refined with the aid of public participation and groundtruthing.
7
Prepared by: Strategic Environmental Focus
Joburg Metropolitan Open Space System
SECTION 3: WHY OPEN SPACE?
3.1
THE PURPOSE OF OPEN SPACE
According to the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (1995), the
purpose of open space is to:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Provide recreation opportunities
Conserve natural resources
Be ecologically productive
Provide opportunity for environmental education
Provide concrete opportunity for urban agriculture
Be a viable economic entity
Enhance the city ‘s appearance
Each of these items is discussed in more detail below.
1.
Provide recreation opportunities for the city ‘s population both passive and
active (Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, 1995). Outdoor
experiences provide important social values and are an important and
inexpensive form of relaxation. Parks can also be sites for athletic recreation,
which offer an important outlet for constructive outdoor activity and enrichment.
These are important opportunities for our youth to develop their skills by having
areas to play and explore. Recreation is increasingly viewed as an important
factor in maintaining adult health, both emotional and physical (The Trust for
Public Land, 2002).
2.
Conserve natural resources – the open space system is both a means to
conserve indigenous flora and fauna, and an important step in maintaining
ecological balance within the city (Department of Environmental Affairs and
Tourism, 1995).
3.
Be ecologically productive – i.e. exploit the potential of the site to improve the
microclimate, air and water quality, recharge the groundwater regime, prevent
flooding and reduce the impact of stormwater run-off, and to increase biological
diversity (Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, 1995).
4.
Provide opportunity for environmental education, which will increase an
understanding of the biophysical systems that influence the city (this involves
8
Prepared by: Strategic Environmental Focus
Joburg Metropolitan Open Space System
more than being aware of plants and animals or the workings of the local wetland
or stream. The child in the schoolyard surrounded by buildings, with no tree or
blade of grass in sight, survives because of natural systems that support him)
(Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, 1995). Open space offers
opportunities for education of people of all ages about environment and history.
The City of Joburg’s natural and historical landmarks are common heritage, they
provide common ground, can bind citizens together, give a sense of belonging,
teach about the past and are the foundation for the future (The Trust for Public
Land, 2002).
5.
Provide concrete opportunity for urban agriculture - food gardens, woodlots,
medicinal plant materials, handcraft projects, agriculture, rabbit farming etc.
(Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, 1995).
6.
Be a viable economic entity – careful planning and management of the open
space system can improve the image of a town as a tourist destination
(Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, 1995) as well as attract and
retain businesses. Green cities that offer a high quality of life consistently attract
and retain businesses. For example, Portland, Oregon, USA, which has
implemented the strictest anti-sprawl regulations in the country and has invested
in an extensive MOSS, has attracted many new companies, including HewlettPackard, Intel and Hyundai, which picked the city because its quality of life
appealed to their educated workforce. According to Bill Calder, a spokesman for
Intel, the computer chip manufacturer that has nearly 9,000 employees in
Oregon, "Companies that can locate anywhere they want to will go to places that
attract good people." (The Trust for Public Land, 2002).
On a smaller scale, popular parks and greenways also foster entrepreneurial
economic development. Typical examples include food services, as well as the
rental, sale, and repair of recreation equipment. This kind of local economic
activity also helps keep residents' expenditures in their own communities (The
Trust for Public Land, 2002).
7.
Enhance the city ‘s appearance through careful planning and the provision and
maintenance of amenity services (Department of Environmental Affairs and
Tourism, 1995). With Joburg getting its basic form from the rivers and ridges that
occur within the area, the enhancement of urban form is another benefit. This
creates an opportunity for the monotony of the built environment to be broken by
blending with these natural elements. As a result, stabilisation of property values
may take effect. Well-maintained parks enhance the quality of life by providing
scenic views and convenient recreation opportunities. Consequently, adjacent
landowners see an increase in real property values and marketability for their
property. According to real estate agents in Seattle, USA, property near the
Burke Gilman Trail, a 12-mile recreational trail, is significantly easier to sell and
roughly 6 % more valuable than similar property far from the trail (The Trust for
Public Land, 2002).
9
Prepared by: Strategic Environmental Focus
Joburg Metropolitan Open Space System
Not only do open space projects offer amenities to residents, they often provide
a mechanism for remediating contaminated or vacant land, thus improving the
overall productivity of a neighbourhood or city. For example, in 1993, TPL (Trust
for Public Land) helped the city of Portland and the state of Maine purchase 30
acres of abandoned industrial land on their waterfront. The creation of a new
waterfront trail on this site has helped boost the local real estate market,
sparking the renovation of nearby buildings and the construction of new housing
(The Trust for Public Land, 2002).
From the above, it is apparent that the purpose of open space is three-fold: 1) to
enhance the social environment, 2) to provide economic benefits and 3) to enhance
ecological functioning. The latter will be discussed in more detail in this report, as the
focus of Phase 1 of this MOSS is on ecological open space, which is dealt with
below. It must be emphasised, however, that, although the focus is on ecological
open spaces, the preservation of the ecological environment positively impacts on
both the social and economic features of the environment.
3.2
ECOSYSTEM SERVICES PROVIDED BY OPEN SPACE
Ecological open spaces deliver a variety of goods (e.g. paper, wood, plants as a food
source, drinking water, etc.) and services (e.g. erosion control, waste treatment, etc.),
which have been discussed in the Durban MOSS (Durban Metropolitan Council,
1999) and the Cape MOSS (Chittenden Nicks de Villiers, 2000). These goods and
services have been collectively termed “ecosystem services” and are depicted in
Table 1 below.
Table 1:
Ecosystem services provided by open space (adapted from DMOSS,
1999).
SERVICES
ECOSYSTEM FUNCTIONS
Gas Regulation
Regulation of chemical
composition of atmosphere
Climate Regulation
Regulation of temperatures
Disturbance
Regulation
Regulation of episodic and large
environmental fluctuations on
ecosystem functioning
Water Regulation
Regulation on water flow
Water Supply
Storage and retention of water
Erosion Control
Retention of soil within an
ecosystem
10
EXAMPLES
Carbon sequestration, oxygen
and ozone production
Urban heat amelioration, wind
generation, noise abatement
Flood control, drought recovery,
refuges from severe
environmental events
Capture and gradual release of
water by vegetation for urban use
Supply of water by rivers,
watersheds, and reservoirs for
agricultural, industrial and
household use
Prevention of soil loss by
vegetation cover and by
Prepared by: Strategic Environmental Focus
Joburg Metropolitan Open Space System
SERVICES
Soil Formation
Nutrient Cycling
Waste Treatment
ECOSYSTEM FUNCTIONS
Soil formation processes
Storage, recycling, capture and
processing of nutrients
Recovery of nutrients, removal
and breakdown of excess
nutrients
Pollination
Movement of floral gametes
Biological Control
Regulation of animal and plant
populations
Refugia
Habitat for resident and migratory
population
Food Production
Primary production for food
Raw Materials
Primary production for raw
materials
Genetic Resources
Unique biological materials and
products
Recreation
Providing opportunities for
recreational activities
Cultural
Providing opportunities for
aesthetic, educational, spiritual,
intrinsic and scientific use of
ecosystems
EXAMPLES
capturing soil in wetlands
Weathering of rock by water,
accumulation of organic material
in woodlands and wetlands
Nitrogen fixation, nitrogen cycling
through food chains
Breaking down of waste,
detoxifying pollution
Supply of pollinators for plant
reproduction, including insects,
birds and rodents
Predator control of prey species –
rodent control, insect control,
bats control etc.
Nurseries, habitat for migratory
birds, regional habitats for
species
Production of, crops, fruit etc. by
non – commercial farming
Production of fuel, craftwork
materials, house building
materials, fodder etc.
Genes for resistance to plant
diseases, ornamental species,
plant medicines
Eco – tourism, sport fishing,
swimming and other outdoor
recreational activities
Scenic views, environmental
education, research
opportunities, sense of place, an
attractive living environment for
residents
In addition to the ecological value of ecosystems, the services listed above also
indicate that ecosystems have an economic value, as many of the goods provided by
functional ecosystems can be sold. Furthermore, a number of these services reduce
costs in terms of the engineering costs that would be incurred by replacing these
services, should they not be provided by nature (Chittenden Nicks de Villiers, 2000).
For example, trees and other plants play a critical role in improving air quality and
serve as indicators of air pollution. According to Michael Hough, author of Cities and
Natural Process, "Where air pollution is dilute, an important environmental control
device is plants. Leaves take up and absorb pollutants such as ozone and sulphur
dioxide to significant levels. For example, to take up the 462,000 tons of sulphur
dioxide released annually in St. Louis, Missouri, USA, it would require 50 million
trees. These would occupy about 5% of the city's land area" (The Trust for Public
Land, 2002).
Furthermore, rainfall in urban areas washes pesticides and fertilizers from lawns and
oil, petrol and sand from parking lots and roads, creating polluted runoff that flows
11
Prepared by: Strategic Environmental Focus
Joburg Metropolitan Open Space System
into nearby water bodies. Although run-off is generally absent in forested
watersheds, in heavily paved urban areas, as much as 85% of all precipitation can
enter nearby water systems in the form of polluted runoff. As soils filter out many
types of contaminants and vegetation slows the flow of water, open space buffers
along rivers and waterfronts significantly reduce runoff into urban fresh water and
marine systems (The Trust for Public Land, 2002).
In order for the ecological services discussed above to remain sustainable in the long
term, it is essential that quality open spaces be identified and maintained. The
principles of quality open space are discussed below.
12
Prepared by: Strategic Environmental Focus
Joburg Metropolitan Open Space System
SECTION 4: PRINCIPLES OF QUALITY OPEN SPACE
It is important to create a network of open spaces, which will form an integral part of
resource conservation, use and management. The provision of a planned open
space system is essential because it enhances the overall quality of life. This
becomes increasingly important as densities increase, as the need for quality open
space correspondingly increases. According to the Community Open Space Policy
(2000), quality open spaces should be:
Equitable/Accessible:
Every neighbourhood should have open spaces that are:
 inviting and accommodating;
 located throughout a community for all residents to access
 able to meet local or regional needs
 accessible
 suitable for use by multiple generations and differing cultures
 safely accessible for individuals of various physical and cognitive abilities
Safe:
Open spaces should not only be structured physically for safety, but
perceived as havens for people of all backgrounds and abilities. Open spaces
should not be centres of criminal activity.
Diverse:
All community residents and visitors should be able to access a variety of
open spaces that support diverse uses. Open spaces should support a variety
of uses and purposes and accommodate diverse user groups and thus have
different sizes. Open space designs are adaptable over time to meet
changing local and regional needs, without diminishing the experience of a
coherent and unified space.
Connected:
A network of spaces enhances other public places and civic amenities.
Communities and regions have networks of open spaces providing greater
opportunities and more diverse experiences. Connected spaces enhance
ecological diversity and functions. Open spaces are connected to public
transportation and pedestrian facilities. Libraries, schools, courthouses, and
other public facilities include open space.
13
Prepared by: Strategic Environmental Focus
Joburg Metropolitan Open Space System
Ecological:
Open spaces provide environmental benefits at multiple scales. Open spaces
provide habitats, minimize storm water runoff, infiltrate groundwater and offer
the community the opportunity to connect with nature.
Engaging:
Open spaces promote cultural understanding, interpret environmental and
cultural identities and foster community pride. The design, materials and uses
of an open space can reflect elements rooted in community values, history
and cultural linkages. Open spaces help define a community and positively
impact the physical, emotional, cognitive and spiritual growth of citizens.
Cared for:
Open spaces engender a sense of committed appreciation of nature in
neighbourhoods, with many citizens devoting their time and resources to
open space planning and management.
Funded:
Open spaces, like highways and wetlands, require investments to reap
community benefits. The long-term success of open space also requires longterm commitment and maintenance to protect the quality of the environment
and visitor enjoyment.
In order to ensure that open spaces encompass the qualities described above, it is
essential that the process for the establishment of a MOSS is (Community Open
Space Policy, 2000):
Community Driven:
Open space planning and decision-making reflects community values,
responds to citizens’ needs, and addresses broader community goals.
Citizens create a vision for open space preservation and enhancement.
Communities address open space needs in relation to other goals, including
local and regional economic priorities, social development objectives, and a
local vision of community character. Citizens identify community assets, such
as civic buildings, community organizations, and natural features that can be
enhanced through strategic investments in open space.
Inclusive:
Participation by community residents of all backgrounds and diverse interests
drives the planning and design process. Traditional and non-traditional
partners are sought out and included.
Science-based:
Decision-makers use sound environmental science in open space planning
and management. The identification and design of open space consistently
incorporates sound science regarding ecosystems and the connection
14
Prepared by: Strategic Environmental Focus
Joburg Metropolitan Open Space System
between land and water resources. Planning for public open space
recognizes that open space can function as a system if it is designed with
nature, instead of "in spite of" nature.
Innovative:
Communities engage in innovative partnerships that achieve creative
solutions. Park professionals, community organizers, and public officials seek
out creative partnerships and use collaborative processes to carry out
innovative strategies for acquiring, funding, and managing open space.
As mentioned previously, this report deals with Phase 1 of JMOSS only, which does
not include the social or economic components that are essential for the identification
of a MOSS and will be addressed in Phase 2. Hence, the social and economic items
listed above have not been taken into account in this project, which dealt solely with
the identification of a precautionary MOSS, based predominantly on ecological
principles. Refinement of the areas identified for this MOSS will take the principles
discussed above into consideration during the next phase.
15
Prepared by: Strategic Environmental Focus
Joburg Metropolitan Open Space System
SECTION 5: METHODOLOGY FOR THE IDENTIFICATION OF JMOSS
In order to meet the objectives as set out in the terms of reference, the methodology
employed identified the following:
EXISTING OPEN SPACES



Categories of open space based on current land use as well as provincial
planning and decision support tools.
Existing potential open spaces within each open space category to be included
in the MOSS.
An open space network of existing open spaces, indicating the importance of
each component within the network.
DESIRED OPEN SPACES

5.1
Desired potential open spaces to be included in the MOSS, indicating the
importance of the selected areas.
CONSULTATION
Project level consultation occurred at two-week intervals amongst the project
management team members1. During these meetings, data acquisition, project
progress as well as the methodology to be employed were discussed and
workshopped, where necessary.
1
The project management team members were:
Dirk Bouwer
City of Joburg
Hein Pienaar
City of Joburg
Gesan Govender
City of Joburg
Lebo Molefe
Joburg City Parks
Ainsley Simpson
Strategic Environmental Focus
Stephanie Koch
Strategic Environmental Focus
16
Prepared by: Strategic Environmental Focus
Joburg Metropolitan Open Space System
5.2
LIMITATIONS
The identification of open spaces for this phase of the JMOSS project required that
GIS data from a wide and varied number of sources be used to build a complex
overall GIS open space system for the Joburg metropolitan area. Although the best
available GIS datasets were used, the accuracy of the spatial information is not
always guaranteed, and further detailed refinement, specifically through “groundtruthing” and public involvement, will be necessary (as proposed for Phase 2 of
JMOSS).
5.3
STUDY AREA
The study area of approximately 164 458 ha is defined by the municipal boundaries
of the City of Joburg (Figure 1). Open spaces both within (73% of the total area) and
beyond the current urban edge were investigated, with the intention of maintaining a
linked MOSS, even as the urban edge boundary is revised to accommodate future
development needs. The urban edge represents the maximum permissible extent of
urban development, the determination of which takes as the point of departure the
existing extent of this development. Urban edges are demarcated through subregional and local planning, with the aim to establish a clear urban growth boundary
that has legal or statutory standing.
17
Prepared by: Strategic Environmental Focus
Joburg Metropolitan Open Space System
Figure 1. Map of the City of Joburg and its 11 regions.
18
Prepared by: Strategic Environmental Focus
Joburg Metropolitan Open Space System
5.4
METHODOLOGY
Identification of and planning for JMOSS involved the following steps (not all steps
are sequential – for example: the verification of digital information [step 4] was
conducted prior to mapping [step 3] for some datasets and after mapping for other
datasets):
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
Information Sourcing
Categorisation of Open Spaces
Mapping of the Open Spaces
Verification of Digital Information
Identification of Desired Ecological Open Spaces
Grouping of open spaces
Each of these steps is elaborated on below.
5.4.1
Information Sourcing
Spatial Information
Relevant spatial information, preferably in electronic format, is the basis of
any GIS mapping project. An extensive data acquisition campaign was
conducted by the project management team, resulting in data from a variety
of sources. These are inter alia as follows:
Electronic spatial information (for a detailed breakdown of the datasets
utilised, refer to Appendix 1):







City of Joburg (DANCED database, LIDP, SDF)
GDACEL (Red Data fauna and flora, ridges, Gauteng Open Space
Project Phase 2 (GOSP 2), Gauteng Agricultural Potential Atlas (GAPA
2002))
CSIR Transportek (cadastral erven)
DPLG (urban edge)
Prof. George Bredenkamp (specialist vegetation studies of the erstwhile
metropolitan local councils)
SEF data library
1:50 000 topographical maps
Hard copy spatial information:

City of Joburg (maps within various reports of studies conducted within
the relevant previous and current metropolitan areas)
19
Prepared by: Strategic Environmental Focus
Joburg Metropolitan Open Space System

Joburg City Parks (maps within various reports of studies conducted
within the relevant previous and current metropolitan areas)
Map Studio – Pretoria (2000/2001) and Witwatersrand (2000/2001)

Literature Review
A detailed review of both national and international open space reports and
related information was undertaken to provide background information and
a starting point for the methodology employed in this project. International
literature was primarily sourced from the Internet, while relevant local
literature was obtained from government departments and various nongovernmental organisations.
5.4.2
Categorisation of Open Spaces
Open space categorisation was achieved through a number of workshops
held amongst the project management team members. The proposed
categories listed below relate to current land use as well as provincial
planning and decision support tools (e.g. GOSP). Six proposed categories
of open space were identified, namely:
1.
Ecological open space
a. Existing
b. Desired
2.
Social open space
3.
Institutional
4.
Heritage
5.
Agriculture
6.
Prospective open space – these are degraded sites (e.g. slimes dams,
landfill sites) which, after rehabilitation, may have the potential of becoming
part of the ecological open space network.
Each of these categories has a number of sub-categories, the inclusion of
which has largely been dictated by the availability of spatial data.
Table 2 below lists the various proposed sub-categories.
20
Prepared by: Strategic Environmental Focus
Joburg Metropolitan Open Space System
Table 2:
Proposed categories and sub-categories of open space.
MAIN CATEGORY
SUB-CATEGORIES


Existing





Ecological
open space

Desired







Social open space







Institutional





Heritage




Agricultural


Prospective open
space




Nature reserves
Botanical gardens
Waterbodies (buffered by 50 m)
Undeveloped ridges
Bird sanctuaries
Nature trails
Areas of “high” conservation value (as determined by
specialist ecologist)
Areas with “high” habitat diversity (as determined by
specialist ecologist)
Areas with a low disturbance (as determined by
specialist ecologist)
Red Data fauna (from GDACEL)
Red Data flora (from GDACEL)
“Natural” land cover categories
Zoological gardens
Sports facilities
Recreational facilities
Places of interest
Places of worship
Libraries
Community centres
Municipal facilities
Airports/airfields
Educational facilities
Public service facilities (e.g. police stations, post offices
etc.)
Health facilities (i.e. hospitals and clinics)
Cemeteries
Historical monuments
Museums
Art galleries
Cemeteries of historical importance
Archaeological sites
Cultural sites
Agricultural lands (including urban agriculture)
Refuse sites
Mine dumps
Slimes dams
Landfill sites
Mining land & quarries
21
Prepared by: Strategic Environmental Focus
Joburg Metropolitan Open Space System
All facilities within the listed sub-categories, apart from the “desired” ecological open
spaces, are already in existence. This information was obtained from the various
sources listed in Point 5.4.1 above. In contrast, the identification of “desired”
ecological open spaces followed a set methodology, which is described in Point 5.4.5
below.
Although the inclusion of the sub-categories listed under social open space, heritage
and institutional may appear to be contradictory in terms of the JMOSS definition of
open space discussed in Section 2.2 of this report, these sub-categories were
included to ensure that the “green” open spaces, such as gardens, lawns etc.
possibly associated with the facilities listed in the sub-categories are not omitted from
this MOSS. Refinement of the MOSS during subsequent phases should investigate
the existence of open spaces within the facilities. Where open spaces are indeed
part of any of the listed facilities, the buildings, i.e. hard surfaces, should be removed
from the area currently classed as open space, such that only the soft-surfaced
“green” areas remain within JMOSS.
As the MOSS is dynamic and should cater for stakeholders across the board, the
proposed categories and sub-categories are neither final nor static and can,
therefore, be altered, should the need to do so arise during the public consultation
process to be conducted in the next phase.
5.4.3
Mapping of the Open Spaces
Conversion of point data
The gathered information was classified and mapped according to the
various categories described above. Where only point data was available
(mainly in the social open space, institutional, heritage and prospective
open space categories), cadastral boundaries of erven and smallholdings
were utilised in order to match the point data to the erven/smallholdings
with which they overlapped, resulting in polygon rather than point data.
Where uncertainties existed, Map Studio data was utilised for verification.
This methodology yields the most accurate results, as the
erven/smallholdings data utilised is at the highest level of resolution
currently available. Furthermore, the Map Studio dataset is the most
complete dataset currently available, indicating both the location and
names of all the areas under investigation.
Buffering of waterbodies
There is increasing interest in the value of riparian areas as corridors and
buffer strips, especially as potential wildlife habitat and recreational
corridors. These landscape features typically comprise a very small
22
Prepared by: Strategic Environmental Focus
Joburg Metropolitan Open Space System
proportion of the landscape, but they provide essential habitat for a variety
of plants and animals.
Buffer zones are usually viewed for their potential benefits to water
quality, and numerous studies have addressed the influence of buffer
zones on reducing non-point source pollution in watershed runoff.
However, recommended design criteria are highly variable, and relatively
few studies have addressed the compatibility of recommended buffer strip
widths for water quality with other important ecological functions. For
example, buffer zones can function as corridors for migration and
dispersal of animals if they are of adequate length to provide connections
to disjunct habitats. Buffer zones can also provide habitat for plants and
animals if sufficient area is available to meet habitat needs. Riparian zone
width is often positively related to faunal species richness and density and
is an important consideration in management of riparian ecosystems
(Upper Raritan Watershed Association, 2002).
Furthermore, the study conducted on the definition, mapping and
management of the MOSS in the Cape Metropolitan Area (CMA)
(Chittenden Nicks de Villiers, 2000) highlights the importance of river
buffers for the reduction of impacts of adjacent urban development on the
ecological functioning of the river. This would include the maintenance of
river quality, purification of sewage and the reduction of nutrient loads
from detergents and fertilizers.
According to the Upper Raritan Watershed Association (2002), a stream is
best protected when surrounded by a substantial buffer area of natural
vegetation, such as shrubs, wetlands and grasses and is not actively
maintained. Vegetation that is left in a natural state can optimally perform
the following functions (Upper Raritan Watershed Association, 2002):
 Prevention of stream bank erosion;
 Water storage and filtration to ground water;
 Removal of sediment and excess nutrients;
 Filtration of water impurities;
 Cooling and shading of stream water;
 Provision of organic debris for stream wildlife.
With regard to the optimal width of the buffer zone, one suggestion is that
these buffer areas are most effective when they are at least 50 feet wide
(Upper Raritan Watershed Association, 2002), while the 1:50 year
floodline has been recommended in a number of other documents (e.g.
Central Witwatersrand Regional Services Council, 1996; Chittenden Nicks
de Villiers, 2001).
For the purposes of JMOSS, all waterbodies, which include rivers (for
which floodline information was not available) and some wetlands (for
23
Prepared by: Strategic Environmental Focus
Joburg Metropolitan Open Space System
which digital data was available), were buffered by 50m on either side.
This buffer size is based on reference to floodplains in the previous Water
Act 1954 (Act 56 of 1954), which states that rivers should be buffered by
50m on either side, should the 1:100 year floodline be undetermined.
This is in line with the SDF for the City of Joburg (2001), which stipulates
that no development is to take place within the 1:100 year floodline.
Wetlands were also buffered by 50m because of their importance and
sensitivity. A precautionary approach, as advocated by the National
Environmental Management Act 1998 (Act 107 of 1998), was applied to
the buffer size, which will be refined and redefined for the various rivers
during Phase 2 of JMOSS, when an attempt to determine the actual
floodlines of the rivers will be made.
Size
For CMOSS, the cut-off size for areas to be included in the MOSS was
1000m2, as this was considered to be the minimum size for a meaningful
kick-about area, which is the basic form of recreational open space
(Chittenden Nicks de Villiers, 2001).
Furthermore, basic component standards exist, which take man’s needs
for recreation and contact with nature into account. These standards have
been expressed chiefly as the number of hectares of public open space
per 1000 people, and they vary considerably, ranging from 1.2 ha/1000 to
4 ha/1000 (e.g. Chittenden Nicks de Villiers, 2001; COCCOS, 1986;
Ferero, 1989; Sandton Town Council, 1993).
These size standards were not adopted during this first phase of JMOSS
for the following reasons:

JMOSS was carried out on a precautionary basis, so as to ensure
that no potentially important areas were omitted. Cognisance was
taken of the fact that JMOSS will be refined during Phase 2 of the
project, after public participation and ground-truthing has taken
place.

International trends are indicating a move away from the rigid
adoption and imposition of a standard (Sandton Town Council,
1993), and the JMOSS project team felt that the intrinsic value of
land should take preference over a set standard, as failure to do so
could lead to the loss of valuable open spaces in areas where these
ratios are exceeded. The systems approach, as opposed to the
numeric approach, is the preferred route to be taken for JMOSS.
It must be emphasised here that the statements made above are not
intended to discount the standard for the determination of public open
space sizes. Rather, this guideline should be taken into consideration
together with the inherent value of open space as well as identified
24
Prepared by: Strategic Environmental Focus
Joburg Metropolitan Open Space System
community needs, which will be determined during the second phase of
JMOSS.
5.4.4
Verification of Digital Information
The data represented in the GIS maps generated for each category was
verified through the identification of gaps and inaccuracies. Any gaps or
inaccuracies identified were rectified where possible, which was
accomplished utilising:

Map Studio data
This data was utilised for the verification of the various open spaces,
as this dataset is the most complete dataset currently available,
indicating the location and names of all the facilities under
investigation.

Projects conducted within the area under consideration
Maps of projects previously conducted within the area under
consideration were consulted for verification of the open space maps
generated to date. Most of these maps were in hard copy format,
which called for the digitising of information, where necessary.
Upon completion of the digital verification process, individuals (from the
City of Joburg as well as SEF) with working knowledge of the areas under
consideration were presented with maps of the various open space
categories for final substantiation of the data at hand.
5.4.5
Identification of Desired Ecological Open Spaces
Upon completion of the data verification process, identification of the
desired ecological open spaces could commence. As ecological open
spaces are primarily responsible for the preservation of biodiversity and
ecological processes as a whole, ecological criteria were employed in the
selection of the desired ecological open spaces.
Only areas falling within the “natural” land cover categories (from Land
Cover 2000) and which were not already represented in the any of the
existing open space were considered for inclusion into the desired
ecological open spaces. Below are the land cover categories that were
classed as “natural”, based on their definitions, which are presented in
Table 3.
“Natural” categories of land cover:
- Degraded lands (unimproved grassland)
- Forest and woodland (woodland & wooded grassland)
- Forest plantations (exotic)
25
Prepared by: Strategic Environmental Focus
Joburg Metropolitan Open Space System
-
Table 3:
Thicket, bushland, bush clumps, high fynbos
Unimproved grassland
Improved grasslands
Definitions of the “natural” land cover categories.
CATEGORY NAME
Degraded Lands
(Grasslands…)
Woodland (i.e. savanna)
(including Woodland and
Wooded Grassland)
Forest Plantations
(exotic)
Thicket, Bushland, Bush
clumps…
Unimproved Grassland
Improved Grassland
DEFINITION
Permanent or seasonal, man-induced areas of very low
vegetation cover (i.e. removal of tree, bush and/or herbaceous
cover) in comparison to the surrounding natural vegetation cover.
Sub-divided by Level 1 vegetation classes i.e. Degraded
Bushland. Typically associated with subsistence level farming and
rural population centres, where overgrazing of livestock and/or
wood-resource removal has been excessive. Often associated
with severe soil erosion problems. Characterised on satellite
imagery by significantly higher overall reflectance levels (i.e. white
appearance) and lower NDVI values (in comparison to the
surrounding vegetation).
All wooded areas with greater than 10 % tree canopy cover,
where the canopy is composed of mainly self-supporting, single
stemmed, woody plants > 5 metres in height. Essentially
indigenous tree species, growing under natural or semi-natural
conditions (although it may include some localised areas of selfseeded exotic species). Excludes planed forests (and woodlots).
Note: tree canopy cover will include a broad range from sparse –
open – closed canopy woodland, typically consisting of a single
tree canopy and grass layer.
All areas of systematically planted, man-managed tree resources,
composed of primarily exotic species (including hybrids).
Category includes both young and mature plantations that have
been established for commercial timber production, seedling
trials, and woodlots / windbreaks of sufficient size to be identified
on satellite imagery.
Communities typically composed of tall, woody, self-supporting,
single and/or multi-stemmed plants (branching at or near the
ground), with, in most cases no clearly definable structure. Total
canopy cover > 10%, with canopy height between 2 – 5 m.
Essentially indigenous species, growing under natural or seminatural conditions (although it may include some localised areas
of self-seeded exotic species, especially along riparian zones).
Dense bush encroachment areas would be included in this
category.
All areas of grassland with less than 10% tree and/or shrub
canopy cover, and greater than 0.1% total vegetation cover.
Dominated by grass-like, non-woody, rooted herbaceous plants…
(a) Essentially indigenous species, growing natural or seminatural conditions. Typically associated with the Grassland Biome.
As above, except for …(b) Planted grassland, containing either
indigenous or exotic species, growing under man-managed
conditions for grazing, hay or turf production, recreation (e.g. golf
courses) etc.
26
Prepared by: Strategic Environmental Focus
Joburg Metropolitan Open Space System
Within the areas that constitute “natural” land cover, the following
ecological data was utilised for the identification of desired ecological
open spaces:

Red Data fauna
Red Data fauna distributions were provided by GDACEL Directorate:
Conservation on a confidential basis. Red Data fauna was included
as a parameter in the selection of desired ecological open spaces, as
these species have become threatened largely as a result of habitat
loss. It is, therefore, crucial that these species be taken into
consideration during open space planning exercises, such that open
spaces with the required habitat be set aside for them, as far as this
is possible.

Red Data flora
Red Data flora distributions were provided by GDACEL Directorate:
Conservation on a confidential basis. Red Data flora was included as
a parameter in the selection of desired ecological open spaces, as
these species have become threatened largely as a result of habitat
loss. It is, therefore, crucial that these species be taken into
consideration during open space planning exercises, such that open
spaces with the required habitat be set aside for them, as far as this
is possible.
 Areas with a “high” conservation priority
Prof. Bredenkamp and Dr Brown, specialist ecologists, conducted
vegetation assessments of the former Northern, Western and
Southern Metropolitan Local Councils during 2001. One of the
parameters utilised to describe the identified vegetation units was
“conservation priority/status”, which was assessed by evaluating the
species composition in terms of the specialists’ knowledge of the
vegetation of the Gauteng area as well as the Grassland and
Savanna Biomes of South Africa.
Three conservation priority
categories were used for each vegetation unit (Brown & Bredenkamp,
2001):
High:
Ecologically sensitive and valuable land that should be
conserved and no development allowed.
Medium:
Land that should be conserved but on which low
impact development could be considered under
exceptional circumstances.
Low:
Land that has little conservation value and that could
be considered for development with little to no impact
on the vegetation.
27
Prepared by: Strategic Environmental Focus
Joburg Metropolitan Open Space System
For the purpose of identifying desired ecological open spaces, only
the areas categorised as “high” were taken into consideration, as they
are ecologically sensitive within the metropolitan context and hence
require protection.

Habitat diversity
Habitat diversity was determined by Prof. Bredenkamp as part of a
ground-truthing exercise for the Gauteng Open Space Project Phase
2 (GOSP 2), which was conducted at the metro scale and is in line
with the scale of JMOSS.
The current rate of global loss of biodiversity is one of the most
serious and alarming problems of the modern era and has resulted
primarily because of habitat destruction, over-harvesting, pollution
and the inappropriate introduction of foreign plants and animals into
open spaces. The maintenance of biodiversity and the management
thereof are extremely important, as it provides a number of vital
services, such as food, shelter, medicine, spiritual nourishment as
well as aesthetic relief.
In order to determine habitat diversity, areas were grouped from a
holistic viewpoint in terms of relative size, disturbance, variance in
topography and vegetation parameters. For example, areas
containing streams, ridges and slopes, which are relatively
undisturbed, were allocated a “high” habitat diversity. These areas
generally have high species numbers and can support numerous
plant and animal species. Open spaces representing similar
environmental features were clustered together, for example patches
of grassland and agricultural holdings. Open spaces were rated as
having a high, medium or low habitat diversity. Again, only those
open spaces with a “high” rating were taken into consideration during
the identification of the desired ecological open spaces.

Disturbance
Disturbance is taken from GOSP 2 and is taken to mean the extent of
invasion of an open space by exotic plant species. Disturbance was
assessed by Prof. Bredenkamp as part of a ground-truthing exercise
for GOSP 2, which was conducted at the metro scale and is in line
with the scale of JMOSS.
Exotic plant species invasion is an indication of disturbance because
of the numerous impacts that ensue from the alien vegetation.
Invading vegetation is seen as the second largest threat to
biodiversity after direct habitat destruction (Cowling & Hilton-Taylor,
1994). This includes negative impacts on stream flow due to elevated
water requirements in comparison to indigenous vegetation. This, in
28
Prepared by: Strategic Environmental Focus
Joburg Metropolitan Open Space System
turn, affects the functioning of wetlands and often results in
indigenous species being out-competed and displaced (Blossey &
Kamil, 1996).
The number of invasive species has a direct impact on the
functioning of an open space. The more invasive species, the more
are the financial and management inputs required to restore and
maintain the area, thereby reducing that area’s value.
The
disturbance parameter was measured by estimating the percentage
of invasive exotic species within each open space. Ratings of high,
medium and low were defined as follows:
High:
 60% invasive exotic species
Medium:
 21% and  59% invasive exotic species
Low:
 20% invasive exotic species
Of these categories, only areas with a “low” rating were considered
for the desired ecological open spaces, as these are the least
disturbed areas.
Having identified the criteria to be utilised in the selection of desired
ecological open spaces, queries were built and run on the data. Table 3
below represents the queries defined for the identification of desired
ecological open spaces, which was achieved through a process of
elimination. The queries are listed in the order in which they were run,
and they are rated numerically, such that the areas selected by a query
that has a rating of “1” will be the most important in terms of covering the
highest number of ecological criteria, those with a rating of “2” will be
slightly less important etc.
As disturbance is one of the factors that were taken into account by the
specialist ecologist when determining both “habitat diversity” and
“conservation priority”, it did not play as important a role in the
identification of desired ecological open spaces as did the other factors
discussed above. Open spaces containing Red Data species, areas with
a “high” habitat diversity and those with a “high” conservation priority were
considered to be the most important land parcels, and the queries were
set up in such a way that all of these areas were accommodated within
the desired ecological open spaces, except where they did not fall within
the “natural” land cover. The remaining “natural” land cover areas were
then selected and dubbed “general open space”. These areas were
included as a precautionary measure, such that no potential ecological
open spaces were omitted. This approach is especially necessary where
the “unimproved grasslands” natural open space category is concerned,
as grasslands are one of the most important ecosystems in South Africa.
29
Prepared by: Strategic Environmental Focus
Joburg Metropolitan Open Space System
They are unique, with an extremely high biodiversity and are
characterised by highly specialised animal life.
The queries in Table 4 have been divided into five sections, based on the
particular factor that is being eliminated.
Queries run for the identification of desired ecological open spaces.
FACTOR
BEING
ELIMINATED
QUERY
Red Data species (fauna & flora)
Table 4:
1) Select all areas that:
a. Contain Red Data species
b. Have a “High” conservation priority
c. Have a “Low” disturbance
d. Have a “High” habitat diversity
e. Fall within any of the “natural” land cover
types1
2) Of the areas that remain, select all areas that:
a. Contain Red Data species
b. Have a “High” conservation priority
c. Have a “High” habitat diversity
d. Fall within any of the “natural” land cover
types
3) Of the areas that remain, select all areas that:
a. Contain Red Data species
b. Have a “High” conservation priority
c. Fall within any of the “natural” land cover
types
4) Of the areas that remain, select all areas that:
a. Contain Red Data species
b. Have a “High” habitat diversity
c. Fall within any of the “natural” land cover
types
5) Of the areas that remain, select all areas that:
a. Contain Red Data species
b. Fall within any of the “natural” land cover
types
1
Natural land cover types are:
-
IMPORTANCE
RATING
1
2
3
3
4
Degraded lands (unimproved grassland)
Forest and woodland (woodland & wooded grassland)
Forest plantations (exotic)
Thicket, bushland, bush clumps, high fynbos
Unimproved grassland
Improved grasslands
30
Prepared by: Strategic Environmental Focus
QUERY
6) Of the areas that remain, select all areas that:
a. Have a “High” conservation priority
b. Have a “Low” disturbance
c. Have a “High” habitat diversity
d. Fall within any of the “natural” land cover
types
7) Of the areas that remain, select all areas that:
a. Have a “High” conservation priority
b. Have a “High” habitat diversity
c. Fall within any of the “natural” land cover
types
General
open
space
“High”
habitat
diversity
“High”
conservation
priority
FACTOR
BEING
ELIMINATED
“High” habitat diversity &
“High” conservation priority
Joburg Metropolitan Open Space System
IMPORTANCE
RATING
1
2
8) Of the areas that remain, select all areas that:
a. Have a “High” conservation priority
3
b. Fall within any of the “natural” land cover
types
9) Of the areas that remain, select all areas that:
a. Have a “High” habitat diversity
b. Fall within any of the “natural” land cover
types
10) Of the areas that remain, select all areas that:
a.
Fall within any of the “natural” land cover
types
3
3
Having selected the areas for potential inclusion into the desired ecological open
space category, they were evaluated in terms of their sizes and the degree to which
they were connected to existing ecological open spaces.

Size
As the size of a natural area generally correlates with the number of species that
occurs in that area, size was taken into consideration in the selection of the
desired ecological open spaces. Hence, one large potential open space would
be more desirable than many small, isolated ones, all other parameters being
equal.

Connectivity
Connectivity, in terms of open space planning, is considered to be the potential
connection of open spaces occurring in close proximity to one another, thus
having a potential to function collectively, adding ecological value to the larger
31
Prepared by: Strategic Environmental Focus
Joburg Metropolitan Open Space System
environment. Hence, a potential ecological open space that adjoins or connects
two or more existing ecological open spaces would be more desirable, all other
parameters being equal, than one that is isolated.
Finally, all areas selected for potential inclusion into the desired ecological open
space category were investigated in terms of the agricultural potential for these areas
utilising the Gauteng Agricultural Potential Atlas (GAPA, 2002). Areas that coincided
with lands that have a “high” agricultural potential were excluded from the desired
ecological open space category, as usurping these lands would compromise food
security and poverty alleviation, which is not justifiable, considering South Africa’s
socio-economic needs. However, agricultural lands with a “medium” or “low”
potential were considered for inclusion into the desired ecological open space
category.
5.5
GROUPING OF OPEN SPACES
The various open space categories where grouped into 3 main classes, namely
primary, secondary and tertiary open space. The MOSS backbone is formed by
networking the primary open space areas, which are the larger and more ecologically
diverse, with a minimum (comparatively) of human disturbance. These areas are, in
general, more likely to have a significant complement of ecosystem functions, which
enables major service provision in regional ecological systems and thus the
maintenance of biodiversity.
Functional ecosystems, which constitute the primary open space network, operate as
core ecological areas and are, therefore, the seminal open spaces in terms of the
sustainability of the open space system. The primary open space network is
supplemented by secondary and tertiary open spaces, which form vital links between
the ecological open spaces. All three of these open space groups function as
corridors that promote and enable the flow of energy, water, nutrients, genetic
material and plants and animals between each other across the city.
The three groups identified are defined as follows:
1.
Primary open space network
Existing ecological open spaces
-
Constitutes all areas within the existing ecological open space
category.
All areas within this network are assumed to have equal importance in
terms of performing ecological processes (i.e. no distinction will be
made between, for example, nature reserves and botanical gardens),
and they represent the core areas of the MOSS.
32
Prepared by: Strategic Environmental Focus
Joburg Metropolitan Open Space System
-
All areas within this network should be perceived as no-go areas, in
which the City of Joburg will not support development. This status
may change during Phase 2 of this project, after ground-truthing and
public participation have been conducted. During the second phase of
JMOSS, certain areas placed within the ecological open space
network during Phase 1 may be identified as not fulfilling the role of an
ecological open space and may, therefore, be moved into one of the
other categories defined in Table 1. A similar approach was adopted
in Phase 2 of the Cape MOSS (CMOSS) (Chittenden Nicks de Villiers,
2001).
Desired ecological open spaces
-
-
Includes, as a separate layer, areas desired to be included in the
ecological open space network (refer to Point 5.4.5 above for
methodology employed in the selection of these areas).
A precautionary approach was adopted, where all areas that fulfil
certain ecological criteria (listed in Point 5.4.5 above) were selected.
Again, certain of the areas selected may be re-categorised during
Phase 2 of JMOSS, based on the findings that emanate from both the
ground-truthing and public participation exercises to be conducted
during that phase.
Not all ecological open spaces fall within the primary open space network, as isolated
patches of ecological open space remain. Below is a diagrammatic representation of
the classification for ecological open space.
PRIMARY
OPEN SPACE
NETWORK
Isolated
ecological
open spaces
Existing
ecological open
spaces
Desired
ecological open
spaces
Isolated ecological open spaces
Ecological open spaces, which are not physically connected to the broader
primary open space system and which are not linked to that system via
secondary or tertiary open spaces, will remain as isolated patches of
33
Prepared by: Strategic Environmental Focus
Joburg Metropolitan Open Space System
ecological open space, which nonetheless supply a number of ecosystem
services. Isolated pieces of ecosystems provide stepping-stones between
more functional ecosystems, which assists the movement of species and
genetic material that maintains the ecological viability of the primary open
space network.
2.
Secondary open space
-
Constitutes social open space, institutional, heritage and agriculture.
Areas in this open space are developable, subject to certain
conditions.
Some areas within this open space complement the primary open
space network to varying degrees, depending on the extent of
connectivity between the two types of open space. The following
distinctions are made:
a.
Connecting secondary open spaces – these are the secondary
open spaces that form links between primary open spaces and
thereby contribute to the connectivity of the primary open space
network.
Priority in terms of JMOSS - HIGH
Primary open space
Connecting secondary
open space
b.
Supplementary secondary open spaces - these are the
secondary open spaces that overlap with and extend beyond
waterbodies and/or ridges, which are part of the primary open
space network. This would typically be the case where a river
runs through a public park or where a dam is located within
educational grounds. Where this occurs, the surface area of the
primary open space network is indirectly increased, albeit with
areas that are ecologically less functional.
Priority in terms of JMOSS – MEDIUM
34
Prepared by: Strategic Environmental Focus
Joburg Metropolitan Open Space System
Primary open space
(e.g. river)
Supplementary
secondary open space
(e.g. recreational facility)
c.
Isolated secondary open spaces – refer to “Primary open space
network” above for a description of isolated open space.
Priority in terms of JMOSS - LOW
Isolated secondary
open space
Primary open space
-
3.
As applies to the ecological open spaces, certain of the areas
classified as secondary open space may be re-categorised during
Phase 2 of JMOSS, based on the findings that emanate from both the
ground-truthing and public participation exercises to be conducted
during that phase.
Tertiary open space
-
Constitutes all the areas within the prospective open space category.
These open spaces are developable. However, this does not
preclude these areas from the relevant prevailing legislation.
As is the case with the secondary open spaces, certain of these areas
complement the primary open space network to varying degrees,
depending on the extent of connectivity between the two types of open
space. Hence, the same differentiation as for the secondary open
space is made for tertiary open space:
a.
Connecting tertiary open spaces
b.
Supplementary tertiary open spaces
c.
Isolated tertiary open spaces
35
Prepared by: Strategic Environmental Focus
Joburg Metropolitan Open Space System
-
Again, certain of these areas may be re-categorised during Phase 2 of
JMOSS, based on the findings that emanate from both the groundtruthing and public participation exercises to be conducted during that
phase.
Finally, it is important to understand that the potential of the MOSS to deliver the best
range of open space services is dependent on all of these ecosystems being
managed collectively as part of the overall open space system.
36
Prepared by: Strategic Environmental Focus
Joburg Metropolitan Open Space System
SECTION 6: FINDINGS
The results of this study are presented in the form of tables and maps. The tables
depict the sizes of the various open spaces/networks that have been identified, while
the maps are a representation of the proposed MOSS for the City of Joburg.
6.1
TABLED RESULTS
The total area of the City of Joburg is 164 458.48 ha. In the tables below, the “% of
total” field indicates the percentage area occupied by a particular open space
category/network in relation to the total size of the area under consideration.
6.1.1
Table 5:
Results for the open space categories
Statistics for the six open space categories.
OPEN SPACE CATEGORY
AREA (ha)
% OF TOTAL AREA
Existing
30219.78
18.37
Desired
55123.00
33.52
Social
9436.19
5.74
Institutional
4883.01
3.00
Heritage
111.17
0.07
Agricultural
21952.26
13.35
Prospective
7636.51
4.64
Total
74238.91
45.14
Ecological
37
Prepared by: Strategic Environmental Focus
Joburg Metropolitan Open Space System
Table 6:
Results of the 10 queries run for the determination of desired
ecological open space.
QUERY #
6.1.2
Table 7:
(refer to table 4 for
description of queries)
# OF RECORDS
AREA (ha)
% OF TOTAL
AREA
1
19
9.37
0.01
2
0
0.00
0
3
26
44.66
0.03
4
178
382.40
0.23
5
488
3802.46
2.31
6
482
466.91
0.28
7
29
34.61
0.02
8
674
1038.51
0.63
9
2895
10826.46
6.58
10
5334
38517.22
23.42
Total
10125
55123
33.52
Results for the primary, secondary and tertiary open spaces
Statistics for the primary (ecological) open spaces.
OPEN SPACE TYPE
AREA (ha)
% OF TOTAL AREA
Isolated
3217.79
1.96
Network
27002.0
16.42
Total
30219.78
18.38
38
Prepared by: Strategic Environmental Focus
Joburg Metropolitan Open Space System
Table 8:
Statistics for the secondary (agriculture, heritage, institutional and
social) open spaces.
OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE
CATEGORY
TYPE
1*
Agriculture
2#
3^
1
Heritage
2
3
1
Institutional
2
3
1
Social
2
3
Total
% OF TOTAL
AREA
7.77
3.83
1.75
0.00
0.01
0.06
0.60
0.83
1.55
1.33
2.81
1.59
22.12
AREA (ha)
12773.97
6297.32
2880.97
6.49
10.10
94.58
982.70
1357.45
2542.86
2189.34
4626.73
2620.12
36382.63
* Connecting open spaces
# Supplementary open spaces
^ Isolated open spaces
Table 9:
Statistics for the tertiary (prospective) open spaces.
OPEN SPACE
CATEGORY
Prospective
OPEN SPACE
TYPE
1*
2#
3^
Total
AREA (ha)
% OF TOTAL
AREA
5109.97
1168.91
1357.62
7636.51
3.11
0.71
0.83
4.64
* Connecting open spaces
# Supplementary open spaces
^ Isolated open spaces
6.2
MAPPED RESULTS
The map of the MOSS for the City of Joburg had to be divided into smaller entities,
so as to facilitate the distinction between the numerous information layers. To this
end, the MOSS has been presented for each of the 11 regions where the existing
open space categories are concerned (Fig.’s 2-12; refer to Figure 1 for regions).
Figure 13, in turn, represents the existing open space networks for the whole of the
City of Joburg, and Figure 14 represents the desired open spaces for the entire study
area.
39
Prepared by: Strategic Environmental Focus
Joburg Metropolitan Open Space System
SECTION 7: THE JOBURG METROPOLITAN OPEN SPACE
MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK
7.1
GUIDING PRINCIPLES
A management framework particular to JMOSS can, at this stage, not be formulated,
as Phase 1 did not involve public engagement. This should be embarked on during
Phase 2, when specific management strategies will be identified together with the
relevant stakeholders. Nonetheless, a number of broad guiding principles for the
JMOSS management framework are presented below, which are generic rather than
specific.
A number of strategies exist for the management of open spaces. However, the key
to the success of a management framework is fitting the appropriate strategy to the
resource. Given the overall economic concerns, it is essential to establish careful
and understandable priorities to conserve specific open spaces and cultural
resources. The City of Joburg should work in partnership with environmental nongovernmental organisations and private landowners to establish and achieve land
conservation goals. In achieving these goals, the City of Joburg must deal fairly and
openly with property owners and citizens in general, and priorities ought to be
established through the combination of objective measurements of land conservation
needs and broad based citizen opinion. It is essential that every effort be made to
involve the citizens of Joburg, as their participation in and support of the MOSS are
key in its ongoing protection and judicious use.
7.2
GOALS AND OVERALL STRATEGY
The MOSS should adopt the following goals for the preservation and management of
the open spaces in the City of Joburg:



To protect water quality, including the quality of surface and underground
drinking water and the quality of lakes and streams and water based recreation.
To provide high quality outdoor recreation, on both land and water, accessible
to all citizens, regardless of where they live, what their financial status is or their
what their physical abilities are.
To protect and enhance those scenic, historic and cultural resources which are
readily identifiable as valued parts of common heritage of Joburg citizens.
40
Prepared by: Strategic Environmental Focus
Joburg Metropolitan Open Space System




To protect habitat for the diversity of plant and animal species, so as to ensure
the protection of healthy, viable and sustainable ecosystems as well as the
conservation and the preservation of biological diversity.
To maintain critical natural resource based industries, such as tourism.
To provide places for education and research on ecological, environmental and
appropriate cultural resources for the provision of a better understanding of the
systems from which they derive.
To preserve open space for the protection and enhancement of air quality.
The primary strategy for achieving these goals involves the City of Joburg working
cooperatively and in partnership with non-governmental organizations and private
entities to conserve a cohesive framework of open space, through which all citizens
can experience an improved life style.
41
Prepared by: Strategic Environmental Focus
Joburg Metropolitan Open Space System
SECTION 8: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
8.1
CONCLUSIONS
The final product of Phase 1 of JMOSS is an open space system within the City of
Joburg, the identification of which followed a precautionary approach, in order to
ensure the inclusion of all potential open spaces. Consequently, this product
provides a solid foundation for the refinement of the MOSS to be undertaken in
Phase 2.
8.2
RECOMMENDATIONS
Phase 1 of JMOSS has culminated in an extensive open space network, which has
involved a precautionary “catch all” approach. There are numerous steps, which
need to be taken before the MOSS can be used as a policy document by the City of
Joburg. By virtue of these steps being undertaken, the following will be achieved:





JMOSS will be a tool which can be used to ensure that the City of Joburg is
on a continual path to sustainable development;
City of Joburg officials and inhabitants will be able to ensure that areas of
high conservation value are kept for conservation purposes;
There will be a general acceptance of the value of open spaces as opposed
to these areas being waste lands;
There will be a common goal between officials, residents and developers for
each of the open spaces that have been identified;
There will be an accurate data set of natural assets, from which performance
indicators can be determined and measured over time.
However, in order to achieve this, the way forward should be as follows:



Detailed ground-truthing and consultation with recognised “experts” or people
with knowledge of the various areas;
Involvement of stakeholders at all levels and within all communities;
Development of a detailed management strategy for the primary, secondary
and tertiary open space networks. Particular emphasis should initially be
given to the primary open space network, thereby ensuring its continual
functioning.
42
Prepared by: Strategic Environmental Focus
Joburg Metropolitan Open Space System





Further consultation with the various stakeholder groups with the emphasis of
forging the necessary public private sector partnerships to ensure
implementation of the management strategies.
Ascribing costs and responsibility to the management strategy.
Undertake a Cost Benefit Analysis for the primary open space network.
Development of an incentive scheme, which would encourage the
implantation of JMOSS by the greater community of the City of Joburg.
Amendment and consolidation of the various Town Planning Schemes, which
are of relevance within the City of Joburg. This town planning scheme should
be informed by MOSS.
Once the above has been successfully undertaken, the City of Joburg will possess a
tool that can direct development along a sustainable path, thereby ensuring that the
targets of the Egoli 2030 plan are achieved.
Until such time as the above steps have been carried out and JMOSS has been
refined through ground-truthing and public input, it is strongly recommended that
permission for development in the existing and desired ecological open spaces be
withheld, as these are the ecologically sensitive “green” open spaces of the MOSS.
It would further be advisable that development of the “connecting” secondary and
tertiary open spaces be avoided, as far as this is possible, as these areas form vital
links between the ecological open spaces and hence play an important part in the
primary open space network. Although the “supplementary” and, to a lesser degree,
the “isolated” secondary and tertiary open spaces also play a role in the MOSS, they
are not as
43
Prepared by: Strategic Environmental Focus
Joburg Metropolitan Open Space System
SECTION 9: REFERENCES
LITERATURE
Balmford, A., Burner, A., Cooper, P., Costanza, R., Farber, S., Green, R.E.,
Jenkins, M., Jefferiss, P., Jessamy, V., Madden, J., Munro, K., Myers, N.,
Naeem, S., Paavola, J., Rayment, M., Rosendo, S., Roughhgarden, J., Trumper,
K. & Turner, R.K. (2002). Economic reasons for conserving wild nature. Science,
297: 950-953.
Blossey, B. and Kamil, J. (1996). What determines the increased competitive
ability of invasive non-indigenous plants? Pp 3 – 9 in: Proceedings of the IX
International Symposium on Biological Control of Weeds. Moran, V.C and Hoffmann,
J.H (Eds). University of Cape Town, South Africa.
Brown, L.R. and Bredenkamp, G.J. (2001). A vegetation assessment of the open
spaces of the Southern Metropolitan Local Council area. Report produced for the
Southern Metropolitan Local Council.
Central Witwatersrand Regional Services Council (1996). Metropolitan Open
Space Planning in the Greater Johannesburg Transitional Metropolitan Council Area.
Chittenden Nicks de Villiers (2000).
Managing Moss in the CMA.
CMOSS Phase 1: Defining, Mapping and
Chittenden Nicks de Villiers (2001). CMOSS Phase 2: Mapping. Pilot Project
Summary Report.
City of Johannesburg (2001). Spatial Development Framework.
COCCOS (1986). Of Ridges and Rivers: An Open Space Network for the Central
Witwatersrand.
Cowling, R.M and Hilton-Taylor, C. (1994). Patterns of plant diversity and
endemism in Southern Africa: an overview. Pp 31 – 52 in: Botanical Diversity.
Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, Technikon Pretoria (1995).
Urban Open Space: Guidelines for effective management. Discussion document
based on Agenda 21 and the RDP.
44
Prepared by: Strategic Environmental Focus
Joburg Metropolitan Open Space System
Durban Metropolitan Council (1999). Durban Metropolitan Open Space Framework
Plan.
Ferero, T. (1989). Kempton Park: Oopruimte Studie.
Huntley, B.J., Gelderblom, C. and du Plessis, E. (Eds) (1993). Proceedings of a
Conference on the Conservation of South African Botanical Diversity, Cape Town,
1993. National Botanical Institute, Pretoria.
National Environmental Management Act 1998 (Act 107 of 1998).
Sandton Town Council (1993). An Open Space Plan for Sandton.
Water Act 1954 (Act 56 of 1954).
INTERNET SITES
City of Corvallis, Oregon (2002). Protecting Open Space.
www.ci.corvallis.or.us
Community Open Space Policy (2000)
www.ouropenspaces.org
Marin County, California (1985). Open space preservation program policy.
www.sustainable.doe.gov
Metropolitan Spatial Development Framework (2000).
www.cmc.gov.za
NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (2001). The Draft 2001 NYS
Open Space Conservation Plan.
www.dec.state.ny.us
The Trust for Public Land (2002).
www.tpl.org
Upper Raritan Watershed Association (2002).
www.urwa.org
45
Prepared by: Strategic Environmental Focus
APPENDIX 1
Metadata Information for the GIS Data Utilised in
JMOSS