No abstract

Urban green spaces are increasingly recognized as alternative ameliorative methods to technical solutions abating cities' environmental problems like poor air quality, climate change impacts, and heat stress. However, the costs of development and maintenance of green spaces in terms of materials, labor, and time are not known. The main objective of the study was to assess the costs and benefits associated with green space investment in residential plots of Dar es Salaam City. The study employed in-depth interviews using structured questionnaires and document review. Results indicated that households incur an average cost of TZS 136,579 (USD 59) and a maximum of TZS 6,629,019 (USD 2,882) for establishing more than one home greenery type. The total net monetary benefit per household after all costs due to disservices have been accounted for was TZS 3,148,827 (USD 1,369) annually. Based on a cost-benefit analysis of home greenery, it was found that the benefit was 2.6 times as much as the investment cost thus suggesting that maintaining home greeneries is cost-effective and a worthwhile investment. The results may help in evaluating trades off between courses of action as well as a decision tool for the households when investing in green spaces. The study recommends that residents and City managers should invest in allotments, shade trees, and/or fruit trees, as they were found to have the highest benefits, monetary savings, and benefit-cost ratio. Moreover, to maximize monetary benefit from home greenery, residents should select the right type of green space followed by choosing the right plant species, identification of the right location within the residential plot for establishing green space, and adopting building designs that optimally support green space functioning.

Most studies have reported benefits of green spaces to households but few studies have been reported on negative effects (disservices) as well as their economic cost. Understanding ecosystem disservices from home greenery is important for health, safety and security of urban environment. The current paper reports on a study on economic value of green spaces including aesthetics, health, safety and security, physical, social and economic disservices. The study employed focus group discussion and in-depth interviews using structured questionnaire. Results indicate that, 65% of the respondents face the aforementioned disservices. Disservices which are aesthetic in nature were found to be faced by majority followed by health and physical disservices. The study has shown that households spend an average of TZS 60,691 (USD 26) per year on prevention and control of aesthetic and health disservices. In totality, valuation of ecosystem disservices from home greeneries has revealed that a household can incur an average total cost of TZS 116,817 (USD 50) per year. At City level, the total disservice cost is estimated to be TZS 106 billion (USD 45,415,595) per year. Disservices affect 5% of the annual household income on preventing and controlling their impacts. The study recommends that departments responsible for handling environmental management issues should recognize the value of green space and integrate aesthetic factors into their planning and budgeting.

This paper presents results of the assessment of changes in provision of forest ecosystem goods and services in the Ugalla-Masito Ecosystem, using a case study of Ilagala and Karago villages in Kigoma Region, where REDD is being piloted. Various data collection methods were employed. These included focused group discussions, key informants' interviews, in-depth interviews using structured questionnaires and document analysis. The results indicate that the demand for forestry products in the ward is quite high compared to the level which the surrounding forest can supply. This includes demand for fuelwood, timber and building poles. The ecological footprint accounting techniques revealed that people in Karago need five to six times their available village area per year for fuelwood production, while for Ilagala, the requirement is 8.5 to 9.7 times. This implies that these villages have a very high ecological deficit. Regarding possible compensation for the forgone ecosystem services, the present study reveals that each household in the villages may need to be paid Tshs 1,919,000 -Tshs 2,586,000 ($ 1279-$ 1,724) per year as compensation for foregone fuelwood. The study recommends that there is a high need for conservation schemes such as the REDD project to cooperate with village governments in the farm field tree planting campaign as well as encouraging the use of improved stoves so as to cut down costs of fuelwood access in the foreseeable future.

No abstract