1. General information
Location and description of the intervention
City or FUA
Johannesburg
Region
Africa
Short description of the intervention
South Africa is struggling to provide services to the millions of poor people migrating to the major centres and living in informal settlements (shanty towns), built on land that was formerly used for agriculture or pasturage. Vegetation is sparse and the open spaces between the houses are generally of beaten earth. These areas face persistent challenges that undermine health and everyday well-being and increased disaster risk due to their poor design and lack of green infrastructure. Moreover, informal settlements are very vulnerable to flooding events, which affect the quality of life of the people living in them. Such a case is Diepsloot, a settlement in Johannesburg, where a team of researchers implemented a sustainable urban drainage system with the purpose of alleviating poor water infrastructure and addressing issues related to land erosion and environmental degradation. This research has been benefiting from the support of the local population through adaptive co-management and joint implementation of the intervention. (1,2)
Address

Johannesburg
2189
South Africa

Type of area before implementation of the NBS
Timeline of intervention
Start date of the intervention (planning process)
unknown
Start date of intervention (implementation process)
2013
End date of the intervention
2014
Present stage of the intervention
Goals of the intervention
Diepsloot is highly susceptible to flooding due to its location in the Jukskei River floodplain. The area is also densely populated, fully covered with impervious surfaces and has very little green space, all characteristics that exacerbate flood risk. As such, the goals of the intervention were the following:
1. To adopt a green infrastructure (GI) approach – a holistic urban planning approach deliberately incorporating natural and man-made ecological systems into infrastructure planning and development in a similar way to traditional grey infrastructure. The scope is to help restore biodiversity and the provision of ecosystem services.
2. To address issues related to erosion and flooding, specific during summer thunderstorms - this places severe stress on formal and informal stormwater systems and regularly results in flooding, an aspect of particular concern in informal settlements where the dwellings are vulnerable to collapse.
3. To address the phenomenon of rapid densification that led to the removal of vegetation, straining therefore the natural ecosystem of the area.
4. To create a sustainable drainage system that will also help with the improvement of the water quality in the area. (1,2,3)
Quantitative targets
Targeting 2 sites in the informal settlement of Diesploot
Targeting indirectly a population of approx. 140k people, inhabitants of the settlement
(1,2)
Monitoring indicators defined
Number of people benefiting from the intervention;
Number of sites targeted for the implementation (1,2).
What types of restoration goals are / were defined for the NBS intervention?
Implementation activities
The research team, including a resident who is a member of a local community plumbing organisation, carried out a broad survey to identify surface water ‘hotspots’. A 600 m stretch of the south bank of the Jukskei River was selected, representing one of the least formal parts of the settlement. The resident team member did a door-to-door survey to assess householders’ interest in the project. From this, 2 sites were chosen, each with 4 to 8 households. The chosen sites are located within the river floodplain, in which years of illegal dumping have created a berm between the flowing water and dwellings. Both sites had rudimentary drainage constructed by residents, which leads through the dumpsites before percolating into the river. The elements chosen were simplifications of standard SuDS, namely previous channels, semi-vegetated channels, soakaways and a miniature bio-retention area. A bio-retention pond was built from broken brick to create a porous base, and water-tolerant indigenous vegetation was planted on the periphery of the paving. Each day’s work was then evaluated on the subsequent work-day in discussion groups of 4 to 8 residents, which explored adaptations to previous work. (1,2)
NBS domain and interventions
Ecological domain(s) where the NBS intervention(s) is/are implemented
Green areas for water management
Swales and filter strips
Sustainable urban drainage systems
What is the level of innovation / development of the NBS related to water management?
Vegetation Type
Amenities offered by the NBS
Services
Expected ecosystem services delivered
Provisioning services
Water (surface and ground water for drinking and non-drinking purposes)
Regulating services
Local climate regulation (temperature reduction)
Flood regulation
Water purification / filtration
Habitat and supporting services
Habitats for species
Scale
Spatial scale
Sub-microscale: Street scale (including buildings)
Beneficiaries
Governance
Governance arrangements
Non-government actors
Non-governmental organisation (NGO) / Civil society / Churches
Researchers, university
Please specify the roles of the specific government and non-government actor groups involved in the initiative
The intervention was led by a core team of researchers that included Anne Fitchett of the School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of the Witwatersrand, Lerato Monama of WASSUP Diepsloot and Jennifer van den Bussche of Sticky Situations. The core researchers were assisted through collaboration and knowledge exchange by the various residents in the two study sites described in this report. (2)
Key actors - Other stakeholders involved (besides initiating actors)
Non-government organisation/civil society
Citizens or community group
Researchers/university
Policy drivers
NBS intervention implemented in response to an Regional Directive/Strategy
No
Please specify the "Regional Directive/Strategy"
The intervention was not implemented as a response to a EU Directive however, from an international perspective the process of selection was modelled on the USA Environmental Protection Agency’s (USEPA, 1993) Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention and Control Planning handbook. (1)
NBS intervention implemented in response to a national regulations/strategy/plan
Yes
Please specify the national regulations/strategy/plan
South Africa has ratified the Paris Climate Agreement of 2015, and this particular intervention is mentioned in a plan developed by the Province of Gauteng Government that aims applying green infrastructure in the Gauteng city region. (2)
NBS intervention implemented in response to a local regulation/strategy/plan
Yes
Please specify the "local regulation/strategy/plan"
The intervention is included in the City of Johannesburg - Climate Action Plan of 2021. (3)
Mandatory or voluntary intervention
Voluntary (spontaneous)
Enablers
Presence of specific city-level GI/NBS vision/strategy/plan - mentioned in connection to the project
Yes
Please specify
City of Johannesburg - Climate Action Plan of 2021 which includes the intervention in Diepsloot as a good example in implementing SuDS. (3)
Presence of specific city-level GI/NBS section/part in a more general plan - mentioned in connection to the project
Unknown
If there is a relevant strategy or plan, please specify the theme / type of the plan.
Presence of city network or regional partnerships focused on NBS - mentioned in connection to the project
Unknown
Presence of GI / NBS research project - mentioned in connection to the project
Unknown
Subsidies/investment for GI / NBS in the city - mentioned in connection to the project
No
Co-finance for NBS
Unknown
Co-financing governance arrangements
Unknown
Was this co-governance arrangement already in place, or was it set up specifically for this NBS?
Financing
Total cost
What is/was the Cost/Budget (EUR) of the NBS or green infrastructure elements?
Unknown
What are the total amount of expected annual maintenance costs?
Unknown
What is the expected annual maintenance costs of the NBS or GI elements?
Unknown
Please specify cost savings
Unknown
Please specify total cost (EUR)
Unknown. The intervention was funded by the Gauteng City-Region Observatory but specific costs were not mentioned.
Source(s) of funding
Please specify other source of funding
Research institution (1)
Type of fund(s) used
Non-financial contribution
Yes
Type of non-financial contribution
Which of the involved actors was motivated by this model?
Type of innovation
Please specify social innovation
The implementation of the intervention was done through adaptive co-management which is an innovative governance strategy that aims to sustain socioecological systems. This approach exercises the concept of ‘learning by doing’, where learning is facilitated through feedback. Social and institutional learning is important in adaptive co-management and requires collaboration, joint decision-making and multi-stakeholder arrangements. (2)
Please specify novelty level of the innovation
The process of selection was modelled on the USA Environmental Protection Agency’s (USEPA, 1993) Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention and Control Planning handbook. (1)
Replicability/Transferability
Please specify Replicability/Transferability
It was understood that the intervenation might be transferred to new initiative throughout other informal settlements of Johannersburg. (3)
Impacts, benefits
Description of environmental benefits
Improvement to water quality: Results of water testing exploring pH, nitrates, phosphates and dissolved oxygen tentatively indicate promising improvements. The pH after the interventions increases when compared to the corresponding initial readings, from an average of 7.9 to 8.3. (1) Moreover, the outcomes of this intervention documented in the study by Fitchett, Anne. “SuDS for Managing Surface Water in Diepsloot Informal Settlement, Johannesburg, South Africa” testify on the effects on the social amenity through the reduction of surface water; and the improvement in quality of life through improved water quality. (1)
The undisclosed type of vegetation was planted with many benefits to consider: the vegetation helped to retain and stabilise the silt during a rainstorm, and the roots absorb more of the water than an unplanted sandbank would. The introduction of vegetation was expected to reduce the water velocity, further reducing the erosion and allowing more contact time between the soil area, which encourages infiltration. The plants also act as a filter for debris that is carried by runoff water. (2)
Water analysis has been carried out, with several tests meant to quantify the influence of the SUDS intervention on runoff management and quality at the specific site. (1,2)
The pH values are higher (more alkaline) throughout the entire system at both sites after the introduction of the SuDS, suggesting that the pH of the catchment as a whole is increasing, with the tap reading at Site 1 increasing from 7.76 to 7.81, and from 7.51 to 7.53 at Site 2.(1)
Other benefits reported included: environmental advantages beyond surface water management, such as evapotranspiration (evaporation from plants and soils), shade, absorption of carbon dioxide and other pollutants, and the enhancement of urban amenities.(2)
As the SuDS themselves involve the support of plants and grass, indigenous vegetation was planted on the periphery of the paving of the bio-retention pond, therefore increasing the green space area in the settlement. (1)
Economic impacts
Description of economic benefits
Unknown
Description of social and cultural benefits
Local residents are responsible for monitoring litter accumulation and structural damage, which is critical for the effective functioning of the system. The routine cleaning of litter by local residents resulted in the emergence of a ‘SUDS champion’ who now manages this activity. Moreover, the adaptive co-management process encouraged social learning and the development of technical skills through interactions with the researchers. (3)
Throughout the participation in the intervention, it was expected that the inhabitants of the settlements would acquire knowledge of the local ecosystem and contribute significantly to the upkeep of the SuDS - this has been mentioned as a success at Site 1, and the action has been named as a good practice in the Climate Action Plan of Johannesburg from 2021. (2,3)
The NBS is also expected to have positive impacts on improving the quality of life of residents through improved water quality. (1)
Type of reported impacts
Indicators
pH, nitrates, phosphates and dissolved oxygen concentrations (1)
Analysis of specific impact categories
Job creation: The NBS created ...
Environmental justice: The implementation of the NBS project resulted in ...
Negative impacts: Did the project cause any problems or concerns?
No information was found regarding negative impacts of the project
COVID-19 pandemic
Unknown. No information regarding Covid19 was mentioned in connection to the intervention as of April 29, 2022
Methods of impact monitoring
Evidence for use of assessment
Presence of an assessment, evaluation and/or monitoring process
Yes
Presence of indicators used in reporting
Yes
Presence of monitoring/evaluation reports
Yes
Availability of a web-based monitoring tool
No evidence in public records
Impact assessment mechanism
Name of any specific impact assessment tools
Unknwon
Use of GIS in mapping impacts
No
Citizen involvement
Citizens involvement in assessment/evaluation
Yes
Mode(s) of citizen involvement in evaluation/assessment
Citizens involvement in the analysis of the assessment/evaluation
Yes
Please specify
The site selection process ensured that there was a relatively high level of interest in exploring SuDS as a means of enhancing residents’ efforts at surface water management. At both of the chosen sites, female residents provided valuable insights and asked penetrating questions in the initial discussion group sessions but disengaged from the participatory process as the discussion and activities moved into more technical and physical aspects. Discussion on possible solutions was structured specifically to promote knowledge symmetry between the researcher and residents, with equivalent time spent discussing successful existing interventions, as in approaches derived from the formal body of knowledge on SuDS. (1)
Follow-up to the evaluation / assessment
Unknown
References
List of references
1. Fitchett, A. (2017a). SuDS for managing surface water in Diepsloot informal settlement, Johannesburg, South Africa. Water SA, 43(2), 310. https://doi.org/10.4314/wsa.v43i2.14 : https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/00b4/d60e97cea504c1e288d3c2ac6e3789249473.pdf?_ga=2.178275492.1829948679.1650970187-154202399.1650546662 (Accessed 25-04-2022)
2. GCRO (2019), TOWARDS APPLYING A GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE APPROACH IN THE GAUTENG CITY-REGION, available at https://cdn.gcro.ac.za/media/documents/GCRO_Applying_a_green_infrastructure_approach_in_the_GCR.pdf (accessed 25-04-2022)
3. City of Johannesburg (2021), Climate Action Plan, available at https://www.joburg.org.za/departments_/Documents/EISD/City%20of%20Johannesburg%20-%20Climate%20Action%20Plan%20%28CAP%29.pdf (accessed 25-04-2022)
4. City of Johannesburg (2013), City of Johannesburg: 2013/16 Integrated Development Plan (IDP)
“Implementing the Joburg 2040 Strategy”, available at https://www.joburg.org.za/Campaigns/Documents/2013%20Documents/2013-16%20IDP.pdf (accessed 25-04-2022)
Comments and notes
Additional insights
(dating to 1991, when the municipality of Johannesburg developed a layout plan to resettle people evicted from informal settlements on the northern periphery)
Public Images
Image
Location of the SuDS
Location of the SuDS
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/00b4/d60e97cea504c1e288d3c2ac6e3789249473.pdf?_ga=2.178275492.1829948679.1650970187-154202399.1650546662
Image
Before and after
Before and after
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/00b4/d60e97cea504c1e288d3c2ac6e3789249473.pdf?_ga=2.178275492.1829948679.1650970187-154202399.1650546662
Image
View of Diesploot after intervention
View of Diesploot after intervention
https://cdn.gcro.ac.za/media/documents/GCRO_Applying_a_green_infrastructure_approach_in_the_GCR.pdf
Image
Vegetation in the settlement
Vegetation in the settlement
https://cdn.gcro.ac.za/media/documents/GCRO_Applying_a_green_infrastructure_approach_in_the_GCR.pdf