Bridging the Green-Value-Gap: A South African Approach

‘Green’ spaces might be very attractive, but where are the economic benefits? What value do nature and landscape have for us? What difference will it make to jobs, health and the economic strength of areas struggling with deprivation and social problems? [1].There is a need to consider green spaces from a different perspective. Green planning is not just about flora and fauna, but also about planning for economic benefits [2]. It is worth trying to quantify the value of green spaces since nature and landscape are crucially important to our quality of life and sustainable development. The reality, however, is that urban development often takes place at the expense of green spaces. Urbanization is an ongoing process throughout the world; however, hyper-urbanization without environmental planning is destructive, not constructive [3]. Urban spaces are believed to be more valuable than other land uses, particular green areas, simply because of the market value connected to urban spaces. However, attractive landscapes can help raise the quality and value of the urban market even more. In order to reach these objectives of integrated planning, the Green-Value-Gap needs to be bridged. Economists have to understand the concept of Green-Planning and the spinoffs, and Environmentalists have to understand the importance of urban economic development and the benefits thereof to green planning. An interface between Environmental Management, Economic Development and sustainable Spatial Planning are needed to bridge the Green-Value-Gap. Keywords—Spatial Planning, Environmental Management, Green-Value-Gap, Compensation, Participation.