Industries became a permanent addition to cities in the 18th century, transforming the natural landscape and influencing the people directly dependant on it, this enforces to the consumer culture we experience every day. This industrial development all over the world has disregarded apparent and non-apparent relationships that humans have within nature, resulting in the connection between humans and nature to become estranged, leaving humankind searching for identity and purpose. This study investigates the connection between humans and nature through adapting the post-industrial landscape, to ultimately establish an identity of place for human well-being. The study proposes that apparent and non-apparent relationships between humans and nature can be introduced in the post-industrial landscape through the concepts of ecosystem services and commemorative design. By commemorating the natural landscape, memories and experiences will create an appreciation for the natural landscape, strengthening the connection between humans and nature. Different ecosystem services are generated by the design to establish ecological and human well-being. The sketch plan design intervention proposes that, these apparent and non-apparent relationships between humans and nature are revealed and celebrated. The non-apparent relationships are transformed into apparent design features within the landscape to make visitors aware of their unity with nature and the services it provides them with. The design proposal creates opportunities for interaction, education and appreciation by means of food gardens, utility gardens, biodiversity gardens and experiments of spontaneous succession. The purpose of these interventions is to restore the post-industrial landscape while creating a strong cultural connection to heritage within industries and nature to reconnect humankind with their own identity as part of nature. / Dissertation (ML(Prof))--University of Pretoria, 2014. / Architecture / ML(Prof) / Unrestricted

Nature and humans are intrinsic parts of the same system, called a social-ecological system (SES), wherein freshwater ecosystems form one of the important bases of the survival of all life. Human activities, such as land use and overconsumption, impact on freshwater systems; and freshwater systems also impact on the urban systems through which they flow. Changes in one part of the system, be it human or ecological, will impact on the other. If a freshwater ecosystem’s resilience is negatively affected and fails to retain its functional integrity, it will increase the vulnerability of the SES. Disregarding this connection can have a significant impact on the quality of an urban system. Throughout its history since 1855, the City of Tshwane SES has moved through different eras of change, which have altered the quality of the connection between the Apies River and the urban infrastructure through which it flows. These eras have been identified as: a) First era (1855–1909) Apies River as a natural system; b) Second era (1910–1970) Apies River becoming a hidden, polluted and disconnected freshwater system; and c) Third era (1971–2016), the era of attempts at beautification and to regenerate the Apies River freshwater system. The main goal of this study is to understand how changes in the connection between the built infrastructure in the City of Tshwane and the Apies River have affected the resilience of the Apies River’s system as an integral part of the Tshwane SES. The study achieved this by identifying the different changes, the drivers of change, and the effects that these changes have had on the resilience of the Apies River. This was carried out using the method of a historical narrative. It was concluded that the Apies River gained specific resilience but lost its general resilience and therefore its adaptive capacity. The main drivers behind the loss of general resilience of the Apies River system were: a) the lack of a local government structure to supply proper infrastructure and service delivery to the people of Pretoria, followed by an inflexible and largely unresponsive local government system lacking tightness of feedback and therefore not detecting the signals of crossing a threshold in time; and b) a lack of ecological awareness or the necessary understanding of how freshwater ecosystems function, in order to integrate natural freshwater ecosystems as a functional part of the urban infrastructure. / Dissertation (ML (Arch))--University of Pretoria, 2015. / National Research Foundation (NRF) supported this study as part of the program: Resiliency Strategies for Aspirational African Cities, through the research Grant no. 78649. Opinions expressed and conclusions arrived at, are those of the author and cannot necessarily be attributed to the NRF. / Architecture / ML (Arch) / Unrestricted

This study uses the double-bounded bid elicitation format to estimate how much households in the Khalong-la-Lithunya wetland area (KWA) would be WTP (on top of monthly water bills) for wetland resource conservation, and test whether WTP significantly varies with the institution responsible for its conservation management. KWA was purposely selected on account of the critically important role it plays in securing water provisioning ecosystem services; a role that is currently threatened by proximate and ultimate factors hypothesised to be driven by its unrecognised economic value. WTP was thus elicited and compared when the governance institution was (i) the Ministry of Natural Resources, and (ii) a private environmental conservation agency that is currently active in Lesotho i.e. the Transformation Resource Centre (TRC). Purposive and simple random sampling methods were used to collect survey data from 204 households. Results show that respondents have high levels of factual knowledge about the threats to the sustainability of KWA. They also have attitudes, opinions, and perceptions that are receptive to a policy that improves the status quo. Mean WTP was M78.80 per household per month (UB M92.89 and LB M38.21) when the Ministry of Natural Resources was responsible for conservation management in KWA (equivalent to M 0.011 per litre or M0.21 per 20 litre jerry can), and M83.09 per household per month (UB M98.00 and LB M32.94) when TRC was responsible for conservation management in KWA (equivalent to M0.011 per litre or M0.22 per 20 litre jerry can). The null hypothesis of equality of the two mean WTP values was rejected at the 1 % level (t= 4.34 and p = 0.000), suggesting that institution responsible for conservation management in KWA significantly influences households' WTP. Double bounded models differentiated by institution responsible for conservation management in KWA were used to econometrically determine factors that influence households' WTP. Results show that WTP was positively related to the following variables: income, age, education, whether households had experienced seasonal water shortages, knowledge of health risks associated with water shortages, and gender (males had higher WTP). WTP was found to be negatively related to household size (the more the household members, the lower the WTP). These results were consistent with prior expectation and literature. Considering, also, that this study further used secondary sources to estimate that households, on average, spend about M300 per month on water (equivalent to M0.04 per litre or 0.80 per 20 litre jerry can), three key recommendations follow. First, subject to extensive stakeholder consultations, the Water and Sewerage Authority (WASA) of Lesotho should consider adding to the regular charge a resource conservation tax amounting to at least M0.011 per litre of water delivered to customers, i.e. instead of charging M0.04 per litre of water delivered, WASA should charge customers at least M0.051 per litre of water delivered. Second, WASA should consider instituting a policy that isolates the conservation charge from the M0.51 per litre, and explicitly invest it in mitigating the resource conservation challenges in KWA (i.e. the charge should be used to support activities that secure the sustainable water provisioning ecosystem services from KWA). Finally, WASA should consider engaging TRC directly in converting the proceeds from the conservation charge to tangible resource conservation outcomes in KWA, given that households expressed higher WTP when TRC was responsible for its conservation management. / Dissertation (MSc (Agric))--University of Pretoria, 2017. / Agricultural Economics, Extension and Rural Development / MSc (Agric) / Unrestricted

Background: Ecosystem services and disservices research from urban ecological infrastructure currently remain under-explored areas in global literature. Community gardens comprise an even rarer part of this research with few previous studies, as emphasis in research is placed on the ‘big and tangible’ urban green spaces like urban forests and parks, and more recently allotment gardens. Community gardens, however, are an important ecological infrastructure as they provide a range of ecosystem services to urban residents, and act as key spaces for meeting social and environmental objectives in urban development plans and policies. Considering cities are the predominant domain of human habitation, it is important that more research goes into better identifying ecosystem services and disservices from urban green space types, in light of global and local sustainable urban development goals. Methods: Using the cities of Berlin and Cape Town as case studies, this study inventories the range of ecosystem services and disservices provisioned by urban community gardens. A total of 26 gardens across both cities were assessed using in-depth field surveys based on indicators derived from the literature and a ranked-scale questionnaire was answered by 46 participants. Results: Community gardens provide important ecosystem services such as food provisioning, local climate regulation, high species richness of vascular plants, are valued highly by gardeners and local residents for their numerous recreation, tourism and social activities, and foster new principles of socio-environmental thinking and practice in neighbourhoods. Gardens are also found to deliver a few disservices that may influence human health like increasing potentials for allergy problems caused by the spread of pollen from the urban nature in them, and can cause economic impacts if the vegetation damages garden infrastructure. It is important to recognise both the benefits and detriments from these urban green spaces so as to better manage them and minimise their impacts and trade-offs to human well-being. Conclusion: Outcomes of this research identify new ecosystem services and disservices inventories and make the net benefit of community gardens explicitly known, which gives credence to their value as a legitimate urban land-use by planners and related decision-makers. Findings show community gardens have a very relevant place in German and South African urban ecosystems research, and this project can significantly impact future work by strengthening the foundation from which we base our understanding – the collection and interpretation of new data. Finally, conclusions show that community gardens can contribute to sustainable urban development in local contexts, and promote Great Transition thinking.:Table of Contents Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………...i Declaration………………………………………………………………………………….ii Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………..……...iii Table of Contents…......…………………………………………………………………..iv List of Tables……………………………………………………………………………….xi List of Figures …………………………….……………………………………………..xiv Chapter One: Introduction……………………………...………………………………...1 1.1. Problem contextualisation …………………………………………..………………1 1.1.1. The changing environment ……………………………………………….....…...1 1.1.2. Ecosystems as the foundation of life ……………………………………………1 1.1.3. Century of the city …………………………………………………………………2 1.1.4. Sustainable Development and the Great Transition ………………………..…4 1.2. Problem statement ……………………………………………….………………….7 1.2.1. Ecosystem services …………………………………………………......………..7 1.2.2. Ecosystem disservices ………………………………………………......……….9 1.2.3. Urban ecosystems and ecological infrastructure .....………………………….11 1.2.4. Aim and objectives ……………………...…...…………………………………..13 1.3. Thesis overview …………………………………………………………..………..14 Chapter Two: State of Research …………………………………………………...….16 2.1. Introduction ……………………………………………………...………………….16 2.2. The role and function of community gardens as urban ecosystems ………....16 2.2.1. Definition of community gardens …………………………………………….....16 2.2.2. Historical context and multi-functional purposes of community gardens …..17 2.2.3. Ecosystem services in community gardens ………………………………......18 2.2.4. Community gardens as the assessment unit for this project ……………......19 2.3. Integrating ecosystem services and disservices concepts into urban planning, environmental management and governance …………………………………….....19 2.3.1. The role of ecosystem services and disservices in urban planning ………..20 2.3.2. The role of ecosystem services and disservices in urban environmental management …………............................................................................................21 2.3.3. The role of ecosystem services and disservices in urban governance …….23 2.4. Research on urban ecosystem services and disservices …………….......…...25 2.4.1. Urban ecosystem services research ……………..………………………........26 2.4.1.1. Categories of ecosystem services in the literature …………………….......26 2.4.1.2. Types of ecological infrastructure in ecosystem services research ……...29 2.4.1.3. Research perspectives in ecosystem services literature ……………….…29 2.4.1.4. Methodology used in ecosystem services research ……………….....…...31 2.4.2. Urban ecosystem disservices research ………………………..……………...33 2.4.2.1. Categories of ecosystem disservices in the literature ………………..……33 2.4.2.2. Types of ecological infrastructure in ecosystem disservices research ......34 2.4.2.3. Research perspectives in ecosystem disservices literature ………………35 2.4.2.4. Methodology used in ecosystem disservices research …………..………..37 2.4.3. Summary of results ………………………………………………………………38 2.5. Research on urban ecosystem services and disservices: Germany and South Africa ……………………...................................................................................…...39 2.5.1. Germany ……………………………………………………..……………………39 2.5.2. South Africa ………………………………………………………………….…...42 2.5.3. Summary of results ………………………………………………………………44 2.6. Research on ecosystem services and disservices from urban gardens with an emphasis on community gardens ……………………………………………………..45 2.6.1. Allotment gardens ………………………………………………………………..45 2.6.2. Home gardens ……………………………………………………………………47 2.6.3. Community gardens ………………………………………………………...…...48 2.6.4. Synthesis ………………………………………………………….………………50 2.7. Conclusions …………………………………………………..…………………….51 Chapter Three: Methods ……..………………………………………………….....…..53 3.1. Introduction ………………………………………………………………………….53 3.2. Case study analysis ………………………………………………………………..55 3.2.1. Case study design ………………………………..……………………………...55 3.2.2. Case study selection …………………………………...………………………..55 3.2.3. Case study methods ……………………………………..………………………56 3.3. Quantification of community garden share ………………………………….…..57 3.3.1. GIS methods ……………………………....……………………………………..57 3.4. Ecosystem services and disservices assessments …………………………….58 3.4.1. Indicator analysis ………………………………………………………………...58 3.4.2. Field protocol ……………………………………….....………………………….65 3.4.2.1. Site walkover procedure and field protocol checklist …………….………...66 3.4.3. Questionnaire …………………………………………………………………….67 3.5. Data-synthesis, -results and -conclusions …………....…………………………70 3.5.1. Quantitative data …………………………………………....……………………70 3.5.2. Qualitative data …………………………………………………………………..70 3.5.3. Burkhard-type matrices ………………………………………………………….71 3.6. Data reliability ………………………………...…………………………………….72 3.7. Data validity …………………………………………………………………………73 3.8. Ethical considerations ………………………………………….………………….73 3.9. Conclusions ……………………………………......……………………………….74 Chapter Four: Case Study Cities ………………………………….……….......……...75 4.1. Introduction …………………………...…………………………………………….75 4.2. Case study: Berlin ………………………..………………………………………...75 4.2.1. Geographical location and demographic set-up ……………………..……….75 4.2.2. Landscape and climate …………………….....………………………………...76 4.2.3. Administrative structure and governance …………………………...………...77 4.2.4. Socio-economic contextualisation …………………………………..………….78 4.2.5. Urban green …………………………………....………………………………...79 4.2.6. Urban gardening regulations ……………………………………….…………..80 4.3. Case study: Cape Town …………………………………………………………...81 4.3.1. Geographical location and demographic set-up …………………………..….81 4.3.2. Landscape and climate ……………………………..…………………………...82 4.3.3. Administrative structure and governance …………………………...………...84 4.3.4. Socio-economic contextualisation ……………………………………..……….85 4.3.5. Urban green ……………………………………....……………………………...85 4.3.6. Urban gardening regulations ……………………………….…………………..86 4.4. Conclusions ………………………..……………………………………………….87 Chapter Five: Results ………………………………………………………….………..88 5.1. Introduction ………………………………………………………………………….88 5.2. Community garden share ………………………………………………………….88 5.3. Ecosystem services assessments ……………………………………....……….92 5.3.1. Provisioning services …………………………………………………………….92 5.3.1.1. Food …………………………………………………………………....……….92 5.3.1.1.1. Crops ……………………………………………………….....……………...92 5.3.1.1.2. Livestock …………………………………………………….....…………….96 5.3.1.2. Raw materials ………………………………………………………......……...98 5.3.1.3. Fresh water supply ………………………………………………….…………99 5.3.1.4. Medicinal resources …………………………………………….....…………102 5.3.2. Regulating services ………………………...…………………………………..104 5.3.2.1. Local climate regulation ………………………………………………….….104 5.3.2.2. Local air quality regulation ……………………………………………….….109 5.3.2.3. Moderation of extreme events: rain and wind storms, flood prevention........................................................................................................…..112 5.3.2.4. Water flow regulation and runoff mitigation ……………....………………..114 5.3.2.5. Erosion prevention and maintenance of soil fertility ……………………...116 5.3.3. Habitat/Supporting services …………………………………..……………….118 5.3.3.1. Maintenance of genetic diversity ……………………………………………118 5.3.4. Cultural services ………………………………………………………………..128 5.3.4.1. Recreation and mental and physical health …………………....………….128 5.3.4.2. Tourism………………………………....……………………………………...131 5.3.4.3. Aesthetic appreciation and inspiration for culture, art, design …......……133 5.3.4.4. Spiritual experience and sense of place ……………………………...…...135 5.3.5. Discussion of major ecosystem services findings …………………..………138 5.4. Ecosystem disservices assessments ……………………...…………………...142 5.4.1. Ecological impacting disservices ……………………………….....………….142 5.4.1.1. Displacement of native by invasive species that cause harm …………...142 5.4.2. Economic impacting disservices …………………………………….………..145 5.4.2.1. Damage to infrastructure by nature ………………………….....………….145 5.4.2.2. Costs associated with repairs and maintenance of urban vegetation/nature ………...................................................................................................................146 5.4.3. Health impacting disservices ……………………………..…………………...148 5.4.3.1. Allergies/respiratory problems caused by the spread of pollen …….…...148 5.4.3.2. Wild or semi-wild animals in urban green spaces that cause anxiety over fear of attack, safety or inconvenience ……………………………………………...151 5.4.4. Psychological impacting disservices …………………………………………153 5.4.4.1. Certain smells, sounds or behaviours from people, plants and animals may be considered a nuisance or cause annoyance ………………………………........153 5.4.4.2. Aesthetic and hygiene impacts due to animal excrement …………….…155 5.4.4.3. Aesthetic unpleasantness due to dense/overgrown vegetation …………156 5.4.4.4. Psychological feelings of insecurity/fear associated with overgrown or dark urban green spaces ………….………………………………………………………..157 5.4.4.5. Vegetation blocking views ………………………………….....…………….159 5.4.5. General impacting disservices on human well-being ……………….……...161 5.4.5.1. Presence of protected species can restrict the uses of an area, hindering benefit of those seeking to enjoy nature ………………………….…………………161 5.4.6. Discussion of major ecosystem disservices findings ……………….………162 5.5. Final assessment of results using Burkhard-type matrices …………….…….165 5.5.1. Ecosystem services …………………………......……………………………..166 5.5.2. Ecosystem disservices ……………………………..………………………….168 5.5.3. Synthesis ………………………………………………………………………..169 5.6. Conclusions ………………………..……………………………………………...170 Chapter Six: Discussion…………….………………………………………………….172 6.1. Introduction ……………...………………………………………………………...172 6.2. Meeting objectives ……………………………………..…………………………172 6.2.1. Calculate the quantitative share of urban community gardens in Berlin and Cape Town ………................................................................................................173 6.2.2. Identify suitable sampling community gardens in Berlin and Cape Town from which to assess existing ecosystems services and disservices ………………….174 6.2.3. Identify and assess which ecosystems services and disservices are provided by the chosen sampling community gardens in Berlin and Cape Town …….…...175 6.2.4. Demonstrate the relevance and contribution of community gardens to sustainable urban development and the Great Transition ……..………………….176 6.3. Limitations of the study …………….....………………………………………….178 6.3.1 Methods …………………………………..………………………………………178 6.3.2. Field work ……………………………………………..…………………………179 6.4. Outlook …………………………………………………………………………….180 6.4.1. Implications for research ………………………………………..……………..180 6.4.2. Implications for policy and practice ………………………………………..….182 6.5. Conclusions …………………………………………..…………………………...184 Chapter Seven: Conclusions …………………………………………………..……..186 7.1. Summary of thesis …………………………………………………….………….186 7.2. General conclusions …………………………………………………….………..187 7.3 Final insights …………………………………………………...…………………..189 References ………………………………...…………………………………………...190 Appendices ……………………………………………………………………………..223 Appendix A – Comprehensive lists of ecosystem services and disservices indicators derived from the literature ……………….………………………………..223 Appendix B – Field Protocol: site walkover procedure (A) and field protocol checklist (B) ……………...............................................................................…….231 Appendix C – Questionnaire disseminated in this study .………………………….238 Appendix D – Additional information for results of ecosystem services and disservices assessments …….........................................................................…..251 Appendix E – Full calculations of final assessment scores used in Burkhard-type matrices ……………….....................................................................................….320

As populations grow and the call for renewable energy increases, so does the demand for biomass. However, the sustainability of biomass production has been debated. Concerns involve both negative environmental impacts from agricultural production, as well as the effects of increased bioenergy use on food security. Multifunctional production systems are a potential solution to these issues where environmental benefits are promoted in addition to maintained or enhanced biomass output. This study investigates multifunctional production systems in Brazil, as well as incentives and barriers for implementation within the Brazilian context. A systematic literature review was used to identify previous research on multifunctional production systems in Brazil. The review was then complemented by semi-structured open-ended interviews with local experts. The study found that even though common terminology from the field of multifunctional production systems was not frequently used in the Brazilian context, the systems were both studied and implemented. It was also concluded that economic feasibility is a prerequisite for successful implementation. However, factors like environmental circumstances, farmers perceptions, knowledge, and traditions are also important. Thus, effective adoption requires strategies combining economic incentives, policy incentives as well as educational tools. / <p>2020-06-13</p>

Ecosystem services are the varied goods and benefits provided by ecosystems that make human life possible. This concept has fostered scientific explorations of the services that nature provides to people with the goal of sustaining those services for future generations. As the world becomes increasingly urban, ecosystems are reshaped, and services are degraded. Provisioning and regulating ecosystem services, landscape planning, decision making, and agricultural systems and technologies play a distinctive role in feeding and sustaining the expanding urban population. Hence, the integrated assessment of these coupled components is necessary to understand food security and sustainable development. Nevertheless, frameworks that incorporate ecosystem services, urbanization, and human wellbeing are still scarce due to several conceptual and methodological gaps that challenge this assessment. As a consequence, these frameworks are not operationalized, and ecosystem services rarely receive proper attention in decision making. This dissertation seeks to improve our understanding of the role of ecosystem services at the landscape level and provides an approach for operationalizing decisions that affect sustainable practices and human wellbeing.

This thesis focuses on areas prone to inland floods and more specifically on the municipality of Acharnes, Attica, Greece. Usually, flood risk management strategies are treated as an engineering problem. Here, the floodplains/wetlands are going to be addressed as an asset and reveal the role of the landscape as a dynamic way for climate change mitigation and adaptation. Furthermore, such an approach can also offer potentials not only for water quality and management but also for benefiting the public spaces and open a discussion concerning awareness and engagement. Within the context of Attica, flood prone areas are not only ecologically deprived but also places of inequalities and loose social capacities. Acharnes is not an exception. Thus, the vision of this thesis is to investigate an alternative way for flood resistance by incorporating tools and methods capable of strengthening local communities. The thesis will investigate the following questions: •How can cities adapt to water issues and how can public space be used towards this end? •Can design for flood management be incorporated into a greater strategy connected to building relations?

The concept of ecosystem services is getting more used in planning. One important type of cultural ecosystem services is recreation, which has to be consumed where it is provided in contrast to services that can be transported to the beneficiaries. This creates a demand for users to move to the site of the service, making accessibility an important characteristic of the service. In a sustainable region the access to different services, including recreation, has to be considered in planning. With general transit feed specification data available, storing spatial information and time tables for public transport, the possibility to create time table dependent travel time models emerge. This study utilizes a prototype tool for a geographic information system software to create a network model using time tables to calculate travel times between different origins and water related, cultural ecosystem services via the public transport network in Stockholm County, Sweden. This allows for mapping of spatial variation of access within a region, and by combining this with current census data and population forecasts potential visitors to different recreational sites now and in the future can be estimated. By consulting regional planners in the design of the study the results were made useful for the study area Stockholm County as planning support system.

A majority of the world’s cities are situated in or near areas of high biodiversity. Rise in global urban population resulting in rapid urban expansions (larger cities) is a threat to urban biodiversity, which has implications for the ecological health and general well being of humans. The study exploits consistent global land use data to compare 102 cities across the globe on a measure of urban biodiversity, within 15 km and 30 km from the approximate centres of the cities. Cities with high population and higher percentage of land use dedicated to artificial infrastructure recorded lower percentage size reserved for natural habitat, and vice versa. Further testing in regression analysis with birds and plants species as response variables shows a relation with urban extent and size of natural habitat which seeks to promote sustaining ecosystems services. Since urban biodiversity has implications for human ecological health, its indicators must be constantly measured and monitored, while adhering to best practices that conserve nature.

The study explores the possibility that a transition zone can become a ‘filter’ that surrounds an urban core. As a filter, the transition zone can regulate and rehabilitate ecosystem services to support human well-being. The main research question focusses on how eco-systemic development can act as a filter while supporting human well-being. The two sub-questions concern (a) how architecture can become a buffer between urban and suburban areas in Pretoria, and (b) how architecture can aid in ecosystem rehabilitation to regenerate urban and human well-being. Through the research done in this study, it is evident that transitional zones around city centres are commonly derelict and unsafe. Human well-being is under pressure as a result of the increasing degradation of ecosystem services, which is brought about by human misuse and urban densification. As cities and human populations grow, urban cores expand. This expansion results in constant re-zoning as well as the demolition and degradation of existing spaces (Preston, 1966:240). Basic human well-being is dependent on successful ecosystem services and the biodiversity of urban environments (Bolund & Hunhammar, 1999:299). This study aims to identify, reintroduce and rehabilitate ecosystem services on an urban edge to facilitate the health and well-being of the community living there. The study addresses three main themes, namely: (1) urban zoning and development, (2) human well-being, and (3) ecosystem-service rehabilitation and reintroduction. By analysing the themes of urban development, well-being as well as social sustainability and ecosystem services, different theories and principles are identified to provide lenses through which the dissertation will be approached. The main lens is that of Vitruvius and the principles he sets out in Ten books on architecture, which relates all design decisions back to nature. Other theories, such as Ernest Burgess’ concentric circle model and the circular economy theory, and the guidelines of the Living Building Institute led to the selection of the site, the development of the urban framework and the design of the intervention. By combining these theories with a programmatic intervention, which was derived from the site and themes, the end result aims to revive the community, the well-being of its members and to reinforce the existing development while ensuring ongoing rehabilitation of the ecosystem services. This intervention aspires to become a catalyst according to which all transition zones in urban environments can be transformed from eye sores and barriers to filters and activators. / Mini Dissertation (MArch (Prof))--University of Pretoria, 2020. / Architecture / MArch (Prof) / Unrestricted