The Implementation of Urban Agriculture in the City of Tshwane: A Case of Region 1
Presenter's country
South Africa
Start Date
28-5-2016 2:05 PM
End Date
28-5-2016 3:10 PM
Location
Hall II
Submission type
Presentation
Abstract
Public policy implementation in South Africa is allocated to the municipality level, even though it was decided at the national and provincial levels. This paper examined the challenges affecting the implementation of urban agriculture policies in the City of Tshwane region 1, South Africa.
The study used both qualitative and quantitative research approach in the form of a case study, face to face interviews, observation, literature reviews using empirical literature, and questionnaires involving a target group of councillors, municipality employees, community and farmers as respondents. This paper builds up on the findings of a previous study on policy implementation in the CoT (Toona, 2014: 47-77). For the purpose of this paper, the present study follows a three pillar model approach consisting of:
A literature review ; Qualitative and quantitative methods in form of interviews, observations, and predesigned questionnaires with senior municipal employees, ward councillors and the communities in the CoT’s (Region 1) which includes Mabopane, Ga-Rankuwa, Soshanguve, Winterveldt, Joe Slovo, Annlin and Orchards.
Using a stratified sampling method to guarantee that representatives of all the different areas of the CoT’s (Region 1) were covered, three sets of questionnaires were distributed to 29 respondents: communities and farmers (23), ward councillors (3) and senior municipal employees (3). The communities and farmers’ questionnaire consisted of 20 questions and all the 23 questionnaires were returned, which ensured that out of all farms at least one representative answered. The questionnaire for municipal employees consisted of 12 questions and three of the six questionnaires were returned. Of seven ward councillors contacted in Region 1, four agreed to be approached and three of them responded to a questionnaire consisting of 16 questions. Interviews with two Directors within Urban Planning and Agriculture. A discussion and comparison of the current and the identified models in order to design and recommend a version tailored to the environment and needs of CoT UA.
The study validates the hypothesis as the budget was listed as one of the preventions for effective implementation of urban agriculture. About 96% of the respondents agreed that the lack of land and budget was on top of the list with regard to the barriers. Other challenges include context, contents, capacity, commitment, clients and coalition. Communication, and commitment.
The rationale of the study is that public policy implementation has been a challenge for many years. In addition to land and finance, the study discovered additional hidden barriers which could impact the effective implementation of UA policy. All policies should accommodate the “6 C Protocol” namely, Content, Context, Capacity, Commitment, and, Clients and Coalitions, and Communication.
Keywords
Urban Agriculture (UA); City of Tshwane (CoT); Integrated Development Plan (IDP); City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality (COTMM)
Full paper
The Implementation of Urban Agriculture in the City of Tshwane: A Case of Region 1
Hall II
Public policy implementation in South Africa is allocated to the municipality level, even though it was decided at the national and provincial levels. This paper examined the challenges affecting the implementation of urban agriculture policies in the City of Tshwane region 1, South Africa.
The study used both qualitative and quantitative research approach in the form of a case study, face to face interviews, observation, literature reviews using empirical literature, and questionnaires involving a target group of councillors, municipality employees, community and farmers as respondents. This paper builds up on the findings of a previous study on policy implementation in the CoT (Toona, 2014: 47-77). For the purpose of this paper, the present study follows a three pillar model approach consisting of:
A literature review ; Qualitative and quantitative methods in form of interviews, observations, and predesigned questionnaires with senior municipal employees, ward councillors and the communities in the CoT’s (Region 1) which includes Mabopane, Ga-Rankuwa, Soshanguve, Winterveldt, Joe Slovo, Annlin and Orchards.
Using a stratified sampling method to guarantee that representatives of all the different areas of the CoT’s (Region 1) were covered, three sets of questionnaires were distributed to 29 respondents: communities and farmers (23), ward councillors (3) and senior municipal employees (3). The communities and farmers’ questionnaire consisted of 20 questions and all the 23 questionnaires were returned, which ensured that out of all farms at least one representative answered. The questionnaire for municipal employees consisted of 12 questions and three of the six questionnaires were returned. Of seven ward councillors contacted in Region 1, four agreed to be approached and three of them responded to a questionnaire consisting of 16 questions. Interviews with two Directors within Urban Planning and Agriculture. A discussion and comparison of the current and the identified models in order to design and recommend a version tailored to the environment and needs of CoT UA.
The study validates the hypothesis as the budget was listed as one of the preventions for effective implementation of urban agriculture. About 96% of the respondents agreed that the lack of land and budget was on top of the list with regard to the barriers. Other challenges include context, contents, capacity, commitment, clients and coalition. Communication, and commitment.
The rationale of the study is that public policy implementation has been a challenge for many years. In addition to land and finance, the study discovered additional hidden barriers which could impact the effective implementation of UA policy. All policies should accommodate the “6 C Protocol” namely, Content, Context, Capacity, Commitment, and, Clients and Coalitions, and Communication.