CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 36Land Use and Ecosystem ServicesUrban Planning and Landscape DesignUrban Arborization and Environmental Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 39 of the 39 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Towards resilient African cities: Shared challenges and opportunities towards the retention and maintenance of ecological infrastructure

Open access
O'Farrell, Patrick, Anderson, Pippin, Culwick, Christina, Currie, Paul, Kavonic, Jessica, McClure, Alice, Ngenda, Gertrude, Sinnott, Eoin, Sitas, Nadia, Washbourne, Carla-Leanne, Audouin, Michelle, Blanchard, Ryan, Egoh, Benis, Goodness, Julie, Kotzee, Ilse, Sanya, Tom, Stafford, William, Wong, Gien·2019·Global Sustainability
DOI 10.1017/sus.2019.16
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Non-technical summary: There are significant challenges to retaining indigenous biodiversity and ecological infrastructure in African cities. These include a lack of formal protection and status for remnant ecologically functional patches rendering them open to ad hoc human settlement, which is in part linked to weak governance and management emerging from complex histories, and competing crisis-ridden demands. Persistent gaps in knowledge and practice mean that the social, economic, development and well-being benefits of ecological infrastructure are not understood or demonstrated. Addressing these challenges requires the adoption of multiple top-down government interventions and bottom-up community and neighbourhood actions. The development of detailed case studies that engage with knowledge generation and sharing at multiple scales through co-learning practices will also help create a much-needed deeper understanding of development options within this context.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/sus.2019.16

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Across Africa, there is need for evidence drawn from NbS-related practices since the region needs clarity on NbS efficacy under diverse conditions and additional research to understand ecological, social, and economic outcomes.

    “Across Africa, there is need for evidence drawn from NbS-related practices since the region needs clarity on NbS efficacy under diverse conditions and additional research to understand ecological, social, and economic outcomes (89).”

    From Global synthesis and regional insights for mainstreaming urban nature-based solutions (2025) · cites this paper as [89]

    The Introduction (page unavailable) calls for case studies of ecological infrastructure in African cities to show which interventions succeed, under what circumstances, and where they fail. It also identifies gaps in ecological and social indicators and in understanding economic and social value. The claim extends this urban ecological-infrastructure focus to NbS practices across Africa more generally. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Engagement with communities for planning NbS in Africa is especially time-sensitive and time-demanding where poverty and service delivery direct responsive action alongside histories of dispossession, sociopolitical instability, weak governance, and corruption that hinders policy implementation.

    “This is especially the case where poverty and service delivery direct responsive action alongside histories of dispossession, sociopolitical instability, weak governance, and corruption that hinders policy implementation (89).”

    From Global synthesis and regional insights for mainstreaming urban nature-based solutions (2025) · cites this paper as [89]

    Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. 2013, State of the World's Cities 2012/2013: Prosperity of Cities
  2. 2014, A Framework for Investing in Ecological Infrastructure in South Africa
  3. 2012, Urbanization, Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services: Challenges and Opportunities: A Global Assessment
  4. Allen, 2016, Untamed Urbanisms. Routledge Advances in Regional Economics, Science and Policy
  5. Cartwright, 2016, A Framework for a Green Infrastructure Planning Approach in the Gauteng City-Region (GCRO Research Report), 40
  6. Culwick, 2016, A Framework for a Green Infrastructure Planning Approach in the Gauteng City-Region (GCRO Research Report)
  7. Musango, 2017, Urban Metabolism for Resource Efficient Cities: From Theory to Implementation

Cited by

Sorted by citations

  • Global synthesis and regional insights for mainstreaming urban nature-based solutions

    McPhearson, T., Frantzeskaki, N., Ossola, A., Diep, L., Anderson, P. M. L., Blatch, T., Collier, M. J., Cook, E. M., Culwick Fatti, C., Grabowski, Z. J., et al. (2025) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2315910121 · Cited by 47

    “Such approaches can include social learning through code - sign, cocreation, and cogovernance approaches such as through Living Labs, which have been expanding beyond proliferation in European cases to LAC ( 61 ).”
    Self-citation

Related

Metadata

Authors
O'Farrell, P., Anderson, P., Culwick, C., Currie, P., Kavonic, J., McClure, A., Ngenda, G., Sinnott, E., Sitas, N., Washbourne, C.-L., Audouin, M., Blanchard, R., Egoh, B., Goodness, J., Kotzee, I., Sanya, T., Stafford, W., & Wong, G.
Affiliations
  • University of Cape Town (ZA)
  • Stellenbosch University (ZA)
  • University of Zambia (ZM)
  • World Wildlife Fund (US)
  • University College London (GB)
  • Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (ZA)
  • University of California, Irvine (US)
  • Stockholm Resilience Centre (SE)
ORCID
Venue
Global Sustainability
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Published
2019
Volume
2
ISSN
2059-4798 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1017/sus.2019.16
OpenAlex
W2978171543
Cited by
36
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 2
FWCI
2.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Global Sustainability (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • SUNScholar (Stellenbosch University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Natural Environment Research Council (NE/M020347/1)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Land Use and Ecosystem Services
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law › Urban Planning and Landscape Design
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law › Urban Arborization and Environmental Studies
Keywords
ecological infrastructure, urban biodiversity, African cities, urban resilience, urban sprawl, urban governance, community-based conservation, co-learning, knowledge sharing, urban development

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review