Direct and indirect socio‐economic benefits from ecological infrastructure interventions in the Western Cape, South Africa

Abstract

Investments in the restoration of ecological infrastructure are often promoted as a strategy to achieve win–win outcomes for people and the environment, and often involve the creation of temporary employment. Nevertheless, few studies have attempted to quantify the socio‐economic benefits among workers employed across multiple ecological infrastructure programs. This article examines how workers involved in ecological infrastructure activities perceive the benefits from their employment, and whether their perceptions of benefits correspond with the objectives of the programs. The analysis is based on a case study from the Western Cape, South Africa. We carried out a survey with 175 workers employed by 10 different local programs. The survey was designed to target a broad array of potential benefits including natural, physical, social, financial, and human assets, in order to extend beyond simple measures of income and employment. We find that workers primarily see the program benefits in terms of improved income and short‐term employment, while their natural and physical assets are perceived to be affected less. This is in line with the initial objectives of the ecological infrastructure programs in the Western Cape, since these are not targeting community‐based restoration due to the absence of shared community land. Instead, they are designed to pursue poverty alleviation and social development through short‐term income opportunities drawing on a public works model.

Livelihood security policy can support ecosystem restoration

“…In rural, highly modified environments, restoration is often a tool to improve resilience, stabilize production, and secure livelihoods (Hartman & Cleveland 2018). Therefore, poverty alleviation, community development, and the creation of livelihood opportunities linked to ecosystem service improvements are important factors to consider in such scenarios (Olesen et al 2021). This opens the scope for policy design such as MGNREGA to harness synergies between ecosystem restoration and local economic development (Hartman & Cleveland 2018).…”

Inclusion of ecosystem services in the management of municipal natural open space systems

“…plants is a labour-intensive practice with opportunities for socioeconomic upliftment (Cartwright & Oelofse, 2016;Cumming et al, 2017;Olesen et al, 2021;Rebelo et al, 2021).…”

“…While conventional infrastructure is typically monofunctional, ecological infrastructure provided by natural systems is multifunctional and provides co‐benefits for communities in terms of socio‐economic upliftment and increased human well‐being (Ahern et al., 2014; O'Farrell et al., 2019; Olesen et al., 2021). Floodplains, for example, facilitate water infiltration, reduce the effects of flooding (regulating service), and may provide a food source (provisioning service) and recreation opportunities (cultural service).…”

“…Invasive alien plants impact adversely on the ecosystem service of flow regulation, and on biodiversity which supports many supporting, provisioning, and cultural services (Le Maitre et al., 2014; van Wilgen & Wannenburgh, 2016). Maintenance of ecological infrastructure by clearing invasive alien plants is a labour‐intensive practice with opportunities for socio‐economic upliftment (Cartwright & Oelofse, 2016; Cumming et al., 2017; Olesen et al., 2021; Rebelo et al., 2021).…”

MGNREGA-Assisted Afforestation for Climate Moderation in India: An Overview

“…Hence, in such situations, it is crucial to take into account variables like poverty reduction, community growth, and the development of livelihood possibilities associated with enhanced ecological services [16]. This makes it possible to create policies like MGNREGA that take advantage of the connections between environmental restoration and local economic growth [17].…”