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

Ekosystemtjänster är ett relativt nytt begrepp inom fysisk planering och kan beskrivas som de olika gratistjänster människan får från jordens olika ekosystem. Utan dessa gratistjänster skulle jorden inte vara en beboelig plats för människan. Därför är tjänsterna vi får från naturen livsavgörande för vår och andra arters existens. Men trots att ekosystemtjänster är av oerhört värde för mänskligheten och dess socioekonomiska samhälle saknas det idag kunskap om detta område - inte minst inom fysisk planering. Dessa tjänster saknar, vad man kallar, ett marknadsvärde vilket har lett till att det är svårt att uppskatta det ”riktiga värdet” av de tjänster vi får från naturen. Hur sätter man ett värde på exempelvis fördelarna med pollinering, stadsodlingar, de psykiska och fysiska fördelarna med urbana grönytor samt den naturliga vatten- och luftrening som ständigt sker? Det är ingen lätt fråga att besvara. Okunskap om ekosystemens olika tjänster kan få förödande konsekvenser i en allt mer globaliserad värld med ekonomier som ständigt växer. Där majoriteten av världens befolkning bor i städer som växer både på bredden och på höjden samtidigt som jorden står inför globala klimatförändringar med varmare klimat, kraftigare nederbörd et cetera. Ekosystemtjänster har visat sig användbara i många av dessa fall, om de används på rätt sätt. Ekosystemtjänster renar exempelvis vår luft i täta städer, de reglerar temperaturer i städer, de kyler byggnader under heta sommardagar, de har ett rekreativt värde för människor och har även visat sig effektiva för att motverka stress och andra psykiska sjukdomar. Fördelarna är många och kunskap om hur de kan användas på bästa sätt kan ge stora samhällsvinster. Fysisk planering är ett av de främsta medlen för att kunna hantera och nyttja ekosystemtjänsterna på lämpligast sätt. Men trots detta saknas det idag kunskap bland planerare inom detta område. Med min uppsats hoppas jag därför kunna bidra till att väcka fler planerares, arkitekters, politikers och andra aktörers intresse för att förstå värdet av att använda ekosystemtjänster inom stadsplanering. / Ecosystem services are a quite new notion within urban planning and it can be described as those services the human get for free from the Earth´s different ecosystems. Without these free services the Earth would have been uninhabitable. Thereof the services we get from the nature are vital for our own and for other species existence. However, despite the great value and impact ecosystem services have to humanity and our socioeconomic society there is lack of knowledge within this field  and urban planning is not an exception. Ecosystem services do not have any market value and this has lead to difficulties to understand the ”real value” of the services we get from the nature. For instance, how do we value pollination, the benefits of urban farming, the physical and mental benefits of urban green areas or the value of natural purification of water and air et cetera? It is not an easy question to answer. Lack of people´s knowledge regarding the benefits of ecosystem services can have devastating consequences. Especially in a globalised world where the majority of the people in the world live in cities and at the same time when the Earth is facing global warming. However, ecosystem services have proved to be very efficient if they are used the right way. For example, ecosystem services purify the air from impurities and regulate the temperature in our cities, cooling down buildings during hot summer days, they also have a recreational value and have proved to cure stress and other diseases. The benefits are many and if we possess the knowledge of these services and are able to control them in the very best way it can give back social benefits. Urban planning is one of the main means to manage and use the ecosystem services in the best way. Despite this, many urban planners don´t have enough with knowledge within this field. My wish with this dissertation is to contribute and share my knowledge to other planners, architects, politicians and other operators who work with urban planning in a daily basis. I want to grow a seed of interest and write about the importance of why we shoud be using ecosystem services within urban planning.