Search

Restoring riparian ecosystems in human-dominated landscapes requires attention to complexity, and consideration of diverse drivers, social actors, and contexts. Addressing a Global North bias, this case study uses a mixed-method approach, integrating historical data, remote sensing techniques and stakeholder perceptions to guide restoration of a river in the Western Cape, South Africa. An analysis of aerial photographs of the riparian zone from 1953 to 2016 revealed that although anthropogenic land conversion happened primarily before the 1950s, several land use and land cover classes showed marked increases in area, including: waterbodies (+ 1074%), urban areas (+ 316%), alien weeds (+ 311%) and terrestrial alien trees (+ 79%). These changes have likely been driven by land fragmentation, disturbance, and agricultural intensification. Stakeholder interviews revealed that despite the clear need for restoration, several barriers exist to successful implementation; these stem from inadequate financial resources, inappropriate funding models, institutional challenges, and a lack of techno-scientific knowledge. We give several recommendations to overcome these barriers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Scaled up planning and implementation of nature-based solutions requires better understanding of broad characteristics (typologies) of the current governance and financing landscape, collaborative approaches amidst local complexities, and factors of scalability. An inventory was compiled of water-related ecological infrastructure intervention projects in two river systems in South Africa, incorporating actor, environmental, social, and financial dimensions and benefits. Qualitative participatory analysis revealed eight typologies. Post-hoc classification analysis determined similarities and/or unique characteristics of seven quantitative typologies. Key characterising factors included the complexity/size of financial flows, complexity of partnership/governance arrangements, mandates/goals of actors, type of ecological infrastructure, trade-offs in investment in ecological/built infrastructure, and the model used for social benefits. Identified scalable typologies offer structures suited to increased investment, with other typologies offering specialised local value. A range of ecological infrastructure intervention typologies with differing biophysical and socioeconomic outcomes provide choices for investors with specific goals, and benefits to landscape actors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]