Lefebvrian analysis of livestock keeping in Fingo Village, Makhanda (Grahamstown), South Africa

Public nuisance caused by livestock has resulted in many local governments having a designated area to keep them, called commonages. In Makhanda, livestock owners often do not effectively utilize commonages; they let animals wander in the streets and keep them in the backyards, which is against municipal regulations. This study uses Lefebvre's production of the space-spatial triad, which provides a holistic understanding of why bylaws are circumvented in Fingo Village. The focus is on the dialectic process in the spatial triad between representational space and representations of space to understand spatial patterns. Purposive sampling methods were used to select ten household plots in Fingo Village. Primary data was collected using semi-structured interviews. The study's findings reveal that bylaws are circumvented because there are spatial contradictions between the conceived land use designations of the Makana Municipality and the lived experiences of the users/inhabitants. Three issues were noted: conceived ideas were not inline with cultural beliefs about livestock keeping in backyard kraal; commonage geographic location was not ideal as it's not visible to residential areas so users can see them while grazing, which increased chances of livestock theft; and Makana Municipality not effectively enforcing regulations and administering commonages.


Introduction
Urban agriculture refers to agricultural practices involving livestock keeping, cultivation, and aquatic.Hayson notes that urban agriculture is increasing in many North and South cities. Cities in developing countries use urban agriculture as one of the food and income-generating strategies, while in developed countries, it is regarded as a recreational activity (Gallaher & Njenga, 2019).
Many urban farmers worldwide operate without formal recognition and need more structural support from proper municipal policies and legislation, which needs to be revisited.This study focuses on urban livestock keeping, which often operates under strict regulations that started in Europe in the nineteenth century, then spread worldwide by colonies.Animal regulations are usually found under land use ordinances, describing size, animal housing, sex, numbers, and type of species (Gallaher & Njenga, 2019).
In South Africa, livestock keeping is another common land-use activity in urban townships.Urban livestock keeping refers to the domestication S. Memela (*) Rhodes University, Makhanda, South Africa e-mail: s.memela@ru.ac.za of animals on urban plots for food and cash, including the keeping of cattle, goats, sheep, chickens, pigs, geese, donkeys, turkeys, and ducks (Rogerson, 1993;Thornton & Nel, 2007).According to Rogerson (1993), the rapid increase in poverty and urbanization in South Africa and other developing countries has led many poor urban dwellers to depend on livestock for consumption, previously regarded as a rural land use activity.Livestock products, such as meat, eggs, and milk, are used for consumption and are sold in the market.Livestock are traded for additional income to pay medical expenses and school fees.The cattle are slaughtered during a ceremony such as weddings, ritual male circumcision ceremonies, or funerals, and also used to pay the bride price (Ansell, 2001;Shackleton et al., 2005).Animals are also slaughtered for spiritual purposes, installing ancestral spirits and connecting with ancestors.Gandini and Villa (2003) regard livestock such as cattle as having cultural value because they are essential in preserving traditional practices, folklore, and religious practices.Keeping animals for social status demonstrates how wealthy you are, and the more you have livestock, the more community members respect you, as it symbolizes wealth (Gandini & Villa, 2003).
Keeping livestock in Black urban townships is not a new phenomenon.Beavon and Elder (1991) argue that in the first two decades of the twentieth century, Johannesburg was dominated by backyard dairies.During the 1940s, livestock such as poultry was kept in the backyard, hidden away from the health inspectors, as the then-urban planning policies disapproved of livestock keeping in urban areas (Rogerson, 1993).Keeping livestock in urban land has always been criticized because residential plots are small, and there is limited access to pastures and water service; all these aspects are crucial when raising livestock (Rogerson, 1993;Thornton & Nel, 2007).Another challenge is that if animals are kept close to humans, they can spread diseases and destroy the urban environment, so zoning policies adopted by many government municipalities do not allow it.The South African National Spatial Planning and Land Use Management Act of 2013, which guides municipal bylaws, disapproves of land uses with adverse health and environmental impacts.Though livestock has these negative impacts, urban dwellers still keep them for a different purpose.
South African urban areas have commonages areas to be used by urban dwellers for agricultural purposes, which also includes livestock keeping.According to Kepe et al. (2015), commonages and town development in South Africa were established in the 1800s.It's usually a piece of land in the outer skirt of the city, which belong to city dwellers but is managed local municipality.The 1997 White Paper on South African Land Policy outlines the purpose of commonages to include food gardens, ecotourism, pasture, and other natural resources.Even Makhanda has commonage areas of about 6689 ha (Kepe et al., 2015), yet the town is known for having stray livestock animals wandering the streets, causing public nuisances.Thondhlana et al. (2022) list some problems relating to livestock keeping in Makhanda, including noise, bad smells, the transmission of diseases, drop dung, road accidents, forage rubbish bins, and damage to lawns and parks.
Makana Municipality has designated areas for livestock keeping and different bylaws to regulate and control livestock, which need to be more effectively implemented, such as the Commonage Bylaw of 2007, Prevention of Public Nuisance and Keeping of Animal Bylaw of 2007 and Impoundment of Animals Bylaw of 2007.This study uses the production of space ideas to analyze urban livestock keeping and why bylaws are circumvented by users, using a case study of Fingo Village.This paper will first discuss the conceptual framework that guides this study-the production of the space-spatial triad.The second section describes the study area and historical production of Fingo Village space.The third section is a methodology, followed by results and a conclusion.

Lefebvre's production of social space
Lefebvre, a French Marxist philosopher, developed the production of space as a critique of Marxist thinking.He advanced abstract Marxism and capitalism by focusing on analyzing spaces of everyday life by involving humans.Lefebvre argued that the organization of human activities in space is not only a product of capitalism, accumulation of wealth or state, but also lived experiences of the user/inhabitants (Elden, 2007;Lefebvre, 1991;Prudham & Heynen, 2011).He argued that social space is a social product, which means that it is produced by the social practices that exist in society (Lefebvre, 1976(Lefebvre, , 1991)).Space is appropriated and dominated so it can be managed, used, and exploited using different methods in response to particular events (Lefebvre, 1976;Thift, 2006).Lefebvre used his notion of a spatial triad (spatial practice, representational and representations of space), as shown in Fig. 1, to explore and understand the complexity of space, production, power distribution, and its utilization by society (Hansen, 2013;Lefebvre, 1991).
Lefebvre first introduced spatial practice as the physical space, which relates to the deciphering of space by society and its physical space constructed by humans (Lefebvre, 1991).Spatial practice is an actual design of routes and localities buildings, infrastructure, fencing, daily routines, routes, and networks linking work, private life, and leisure, organizing everyday life by town and country planning (Hansen, 2013;Leary-Owhin, 2015;Lefebvre, 1991).The routines and activities conform to representations of space.Leary-Owhin (2015) argues that spatial practice is linked to the physical, material city and its routine maintenance.
Lefebvre's second realm is the representations of space: a space of experts such as scientists, planners, urbanists, technocratic subdividers, and social engineers (Lefebvre, 1991).They conceive the space and present it in maps and images, which lead to the formulation of codes and policies creating the dominant representations of space, which are then imposed on users as a guide to how space should be used (Lefebvre, 1991).Leary-Owhin (2015) argues that the experts will create official representations of space.The most notable visual representations: are "policy documents, zoning schemes, maps, plans, drawings, photographs, and artistic impression"(Leary-Owhin, 2015: 1).These representations may impose meaning on urban space by stating how it should be used or not used and by whom.Space is seen as abstract, which means it is mentally constructed and imagined, then presented (Elden, 2007).Lefebvre (1991) views representations of space as a dominant space in society, identifying what is lived and perceived.Representations of space entail the dominant group having the power to mold dominated space, organizing and instrumentalizing social space to achieve its interests.
Representational space includes all meanings, values, needs, human experiences, signs, symbols, diverse cultural practices, and creative potential of everyday life, which can produce and reproduce space (Lefebvre, 1991).It's a space lived by the users or inhabitants, who are not informed much by representations of space but by associated cultural memories, symbols, and images inspired by cultural meanings (Leary-Owhin (2015); Lefebvre, 1991,.It is transmitted between generations or from generation to generation through habit formation, observational and social learning.The space also involves emotional and artistic representations or interpretations of the space by poets, writers, and painters.It is dominated and molded by representations of space.However, Leary-Owhin (2015) notes that this space is valued in a way that contradicts the dominant representations of space.
During the production of social space, there are dynamic interactions, relationships, and mutual dependency between the elements of the spatial triad, which Lefebvre termed dialectical interaction.Understanding the interlink between the layers of the spatial triad is the key to analyzing how space is produced by the attempt of the dominant space (representations) to shape what is lived (representational space) and perceived (spatial practice).Lefebvre also identifies spatial contradictions or conflicts between dominant and dominated space.The dominated space might resist following what they are being told or how to act or accept what is imposed.Instead, they would want to live, use, inhabit, and colonize the space by setting their meanings, values, culture, identity, and uses on a space, which might conflict with and contest representations of space.Dominant spatial forms can only mold space provided that regulatory measures are consistent with how the users plan to use the space or there are no competing ideas and values.

Fingo Village township
The study focuses on land use decisions in a marginalized settlement in an urban setting: Fingo Village is one of the poorest townships in Makhanda (Grahamstown), Eastern Cape Province, South Africa (Fig. 2).Statistics South Africa ( 2011) is home to approximately 4015 people, with an employment rate of 19%.Most residents are unemployed or earning less than R801 monthly, largely dependent on social grants.Urban agriculture has the potential to become one of the poverty-alleviating strategies.Most houses are dilapidated, and there needs to be better infrastructure and service delivery due to past legacies (Claassens & Cousins, 2008;Kingwill, 2011).It is the only Black township with large plots that average about 1 000 square meters.There is no doubt that the size of the landholding is essential.For example, in most real estate marketing, information on the plot size gives potential buyers an idea about what they can use it for (Williams, 2016).Henri Lefebvre's production of space theory provides experts with a comprehensive understanding of the interaction between physical spaces, lived experiences, and space governance; it offers good insight into understanding all power dynamics involved.
This study intends to address a gap in the literature and contribute to the growing body of knowledge on Fingo Village township and similar urban cases in South Africa and other countries where you can observe land and poverty alongside each other.At the same time, scholars have examined the history, land tenure, and registration of large residential plots in the township (Claassens & Cousins, 2008;Kingwill, 2011Kingwill, , 2014;;Roux & Barry, 2010).Other studies have only focused on livestock keeping and food gardening, covering all the Makhanda townships (Thornton, 2008).Fingo Village has a very different setting from these townships, is unique, and has a reputation or history of resisting being governed on how to use this space.The following paragraph discusses the history of Fingo Village, trying to show how residents have always resisted or were in conflict with the dominant space, clearly showing representational space domination in history.

Historical production of Fingo space
Fingo Village is a township located on the periphery of Makhanda city.Makhanda was occupied by amaXhosa inhabitants before early colonial settlers invaded the area.In 1811, Lieutenant Colonel John Graham led a mass displacement of amaXhosa inhabitants; they burnt their houses and crops and seized their cattle (Cock, 2018).In January 1812, about 20,000 natives were displaced and driven across the Fish River, and the stragglers were shot (Cock, 2018).
The British colony took the land and molded it for colonial expansion.Using their conceived ideas, they designed the town, including buildings, road networks, and townships, to accommodate inhabitants servicing the colonial government.The city was established in August 1812; it became the focal point for British colonial settlers in 1820 and the Eastern Cape administrative capital in 1828 (Davenport, 1980).The number of job seekers increased in 1822 because of the ivory and skin trading markets (Davidson, 1985).In the mid-1850s, the military role of the city declined: initially, it became a service center for surrounding communities and subsequently an educational center (Davidson, 1985).Today, it is characterized by white-owned commercial farms, small service centers, and minimal industrial development (Makana Municipality, 2016).
The British colonial government conceptualized Fingo's spatial practices through ordering, dividing the space, and identifying what is perceived.Figure 3 shows the first Fingo Village location plan of 1826 that was surveyed in 1856 (Kingwill, 2008) with the allocation of plots to people in 1857 by the British colonial state's representations of space (Roux & Barry, 2010).320 freehold title deeds, with large parcels of an average size of 1000 square meters, were rewarded to the Fingo (amaMfengu) clan for serving the colonial government.In addition, provision was made for churches, schools, and cemeteries (Kingwill, 2014;Sulter, 1984).
The British colonial state's representations of space imposed a European land ownership system.The 320 freehold title deeds (see Fig. 3) granted to the amaMfengu people were based on Sir George Grey's land tenure system (Davenport, 1980).Grey was the governor of the Cape from 1854 to 1861 (Kingwill, 2014).His land tenure system introduced western political ideas, including land ownership and registration to indigenous people.Land purchased under the freehold system was not restricted in terms of size.It aimed to promote individual landholding amongst Africans to limit the chief's authority over land and tax those acquiring title deeds (Kingwill, 2014).Fingo Village residential plots were larger than those allocated in urban areas.On 5 March 1855, George Grey issued title deeds to the amaMfengu clan in the name, and on behalf, of British Queen Victoria.Fingo Village was excluded from government policing regulations such as the Cape Native Reserve Location Act of 1902 and the Native Urban Areas Act of 1923 (Sulter, 1984).
The users appropriate the space for their needs and values without compliance.Local authorities regretted not having strict rules in Fingo Village.The municipal manager recommended that Fingo freehold titles be expropriated and replaced by restricted municipal housing (Sulter, 1984).Over the years, Fingo residents stopped updating their details when transferring the land, and current landowners were unknown by the Deeds Office.They then recognized land ownership through social acknowledgment (Kingwill, 2014).In 1935, the Municipality reported that Fingo residents could not pay municipal rates.In 1941, housing, infrastructure, and health deteriorated, and about 12 to 15 people lived on one property in Fingo Village (Manona, 1987), resulting in conflict when inhabitants did not follow municipal regulations.In this case, the users in the dominated space resist following what is imposed on them, which conflicts with representations of space.We are also seeing the production of space changing over time.
In 1957, the Municipal Group Areas Board, responsible for separating areas based on designated racial groups, presented official representations of the space, rezoning Makhanda using the Group Areas Act.Racial segregation ensured the dominant group maintained and controlled economic and political advantage.Fingo Village was rezoned as a Coloured area with a small section for Indian and Chinese residents (Manona, 1987;Sulter, 1984).As a result, Black African people were evicted from Fingo Village to their designated area out of Town to Ciskei homeland side of the Fish River in Peddie district, 50 km from Makhanda (Davenport, 1980;Manona, 1987;Sulter, 1984).The second conflict arose when the users refused representations of space regulations to expropriate land.The local authorities were challenged by Black opposition groups (Manona, 1987).Protests and resistance on the part of residents were motivated by the following factors (Sulter, 1984): • Residents were worried about their future and felt disoriented and confused.They were used to an urban lifestyle and were concerned that it would be difficult to adapt and live in a rural area; • Residents were afraid of losing their jobs since a 50 km relocation from Makhanda would render it impossible to do daily commute causing financial and family problems; • Residents were also concerned about the security of tenure in the new location; • Property owners were worried about unfair compensation; • Residents were unwilling to resettle in an undeveloped rural area and rebuild their lives in an unestablished community; • Residents distrusted authorities, felt the relocation was unfair, and deprived them of property rights.
Eviction attempts failed, leading to the government announcing that Fingo Village would continue as a designated area for Black people in the 1980s Fig. 3 Fingo Village 1826 plan (adapted from the hand-drawn map found in Rhodes University's Cory Library) (Kingwill, 2014;Sulter, 1984).This was the second time they dominated space, resisting to follow what was imposed on them.Fingo Village township was the only area where Black where users of the space fought the dominance of representations of space during the apartheid era and continued to use the space based on their needs and values (Kingwill, 2014).The size and number of Fingo Village plots changed over the years.Manona (1987) notes that the number of properties increased due to population growth caused by the influx of labour migrants working on farms and the railways and internally displaced people due to conflict.Throughout history, the use of space by inhabitants has been in conflict with and contest with ideas of representations of space, which happened violently.It is in the interest of the study to understand why and how Fingo space is produced now, using a case study of livestock keeping.

Methods
Approximately ten households were selected to be part of the study.They were all involved in livestock keeping.Purposive sampling was used to determine households with livestock.Denzin and Lincoln (2000) define purposive sampling as a process where a researcher selects or identifies a sample that can provide the required information for the research project.These households were approached, and residents with land tenure rights (use, inhabit, control, and transfer rights) were interviewed; only residents above the age of 18 were invited.Few households participated in this study because of the following reasons.Since properties are regarded as family plots, several people with land tenure rights were not primary residents of Makhanda (Grahamstown) but stayed in Namibia, Pretoria, and Port Elizabeth, refused to participate through other communication networks or did not want interviews to be conducted in their absentia.Another challenge was that the land question continues to be a critical and sensitive topic among Black South Africans due to the country's history of dispossession.People are land-hungry; it is hard to find respondents willing to participate in this research project.

Livestock keeping at representational spaces
Based on the research sample, the most common livestock were cattle (six households), chickens (five households), and donkeys (four households).Only one household had all three types; five had cattle only; three had chickens and donkeys, and one had only chickens (See Table 1 below).Six occupied households kept cattle, five chickens, and four donkeys.Five households in the study kept indigenous, free-range chickens called umleqwa (in isiXhosa).In this study, only two households sold umleqwa chickens.The supplement income generated from selling chickens was used to buy prepaid electricity.Another participant noted that raised chickens provide meat and eggs for the family.This narrative shows that chickens are not only a source of income but supply food for poor households in South Africa.Other studies have shown this is true in many developing countries (Rogerson, 1993;Wong et al., 2017).Afolabi (2013) discusses the importance of indigenous chickens in Africa, including one explained above, but adds that they are also used for cultural purposes during ceremonies or festivals and to honour visitors.
A study conducted in Makhanda (Grahamstown) revealed that cattle are rarely used for daily consumption but are essential for cultural reasons (Thornton, 2008).The participants' responses also endorse Thornton's (2008) finding that cattle are not kept for random use, such as dietary requirements.However, they are used if something important and urgent is needed.For example, cattle can be sold to buy housebuilding material or slaughtered for a funeral, wedding, or male circumcision ceremony.The other cattle benefit included fresh milk produced, sold, or consumed by the family.Donkeys are kept because the income they generate plays an essential role in livelihood strategies.According to Hanekom (2018), donkeys are used as pack animals to pull a load on a cart or wagon to deliver groceries, water, manure, and maize in South Africa.In addition to what donkeys can transport listed by Hanekom (2018), Fingo residents also used donkeys to transport furniture and wood from the bushes.Donkeys are also essential to township tourism, with some tourists visiting the Fingo township to experience a donkey cart ride.One participant added that donkeys are also hired for local ceremonies.

Livestock shelter
Households that participated in the study were keeping livestock in the backyard.They will build a separate shelter for each livestock.They have a small poultry house to keep chickens.Chicken theft at night in Fingo Village has resulted in placing a dog house next to the poultry house.Wong et al.'s (2017) literature review on poultry farming shows that theft has led some rural people to keep their livestock inside human dwellings overnight to prevent them from being stolen.The current study found that dogs are used to guard chickens so they can bark and chase thieves away.
Household farming cattle and donkeys had separate kraals to accommodate them.It is an African norm to have livestock (enclosed) in the backyard at night, something that the residents learned from growing up in rural areas (Munyai, 2012;Phalafala, 2013).Having a kraal in the yard is also essential for communicating with the ancestors, performing cultural rituals when there are ceremonies, and as a place to slaughter animals.This corroborates Abdulai's (2009) and Collium and Van der Merwe's (2017) findings.Setting aside space for cultural purposes stems from the fact that land is perceived as part of one's identity, as this is where the spirit of the ancestors resides.Collium and Van der Merwe (2017) note that the kraal is also used to bury the head of the family, introduce the new bride and family meetings are usually hosted near the kraal.Thus, sociocultural factors influence how land is used in Fingo Village.Even if livestock are shepherded to grazing areas during the day, the belief is that they have to be kraaled at night in the homestead (Munyai, 2012).
It was noted that cattle kraal had more significant cultural importance than donkey kraal.Cultural activities were performed in the cattle kraal, influenced by cultural significance.As Gandini and Villa (2003) pointed out, cattle are essential in preserving traditional practices, folklore, and religious practices.Phalafala (2013) explains that cattle connect those living and their ancestors, so they should be kept in the liminal space between people and their ancestors, not far away as in the commonage area.Again, there is limited access to cattle kraal to all female strangers as female family members during menstruation periods.
The participants were aware of the commonage areas and that keeping large livestock is prohibited on household residential plots.The findings contrast with Thornton's (2008) finding that many residents were unaware of the commonage.The results of the current study suggest that residents resist the Makana Local Municipality's rules on how they should use their residential plots.The following discussion focuses on livestock regulations in the official representations of space.Makana municipality Prevention of Public Nuisance and Keeping of Animals of 2007, any conduct that interferes with comfort, convenience, freedom, and peace and has an adverse safety impact on people is a public nuisance.Creating public nuisance amounts to an offense where you can be convicted or fined.Livestock presence has a negative effect, as explained in the introduction: stray animals cause public nuisances, noise, bad smells, the transmission of diseases, drop dung, road accidents, forage rubbish bins, and lawn damage and parks (Thondhlana et al., 2022).The Makana Municipality has a designated area-commonage where livestock can be kept and protected.Makana Municipality Commonage bylaw of 2007 deals with administering and controlling animals in the commonage area.Commonage areas are managed by the Municipality and set aside for animal grazing.The idea is that livestock owners should utilize these spaces to avoid a situation where livestock roam the streets.There are two commonage categories in Makhanda, emergent black and subsistence farming, shown in Fig. 4 below.

Spatial
Fingo Village is located adjacent to Old commonage subsistence farming; theoretically, this is where they should be keeping livestock.The failure to keep livestock in comanage areas or keep them off the public space, the Impoundment of Animals of 2007 gives the authority to any person to pound any abandoned, lost, or stray animal to a pounding center designated by Municipality.The following section discusses spatial contradiction between representations of space and representational space.

Spatial triad-dialectical interactions
The spatial triad-dialectical interaction explains why bylaws for regulating livestock were circumvented Fig. 4 Makhanda Commonages (Puttick, 2008: 12) Vol:.( 1234567890) in Fingo Village.Based on the Commonage bylaw, residents should keep livestock in one of the commonages instead of being kept in residential areas and roaming the streets.The study shows a spatial contradiction between the conceived land use designations of the Makana Municipality and the lived experiences of the users/inhabitants.The users are ignoring livestock regulations, and it is the interest of the study to understand why residents were resisting being regulated.
The first challenge is the geographical location of the Makhanda (Grahamstown) east commonage area, which is not visible from Fingo Village household plots as a steep hill obstructs the site.Residents cannot keep an eye on their livestock while they graze.There is also a forest in the commonage which makes it easy for livestock to be stolen.Theft from commonages was reported by Palmer (2005) and Puttick (2008), causing some residents of Fingo Village to continue keeping livestock in the residential area.
The second issue is a cultural belief that livestock should be in the household backyard, which clashes with the conceived ideas of keeping large livestock in commonage areas.
The third concern, which was not raised by participants, but by other readers; Palmer (2005) and Puttick (2008), is the lack of palatable grass caused by overgrazing and the fact that there is no fence to keep the livestock from wandering onto the road in Makhanda.The Makana Municipality's role is to ensure that commonages are well managed.
The fourth concern raised by participants was that the Makana Municipality was not effectively enforcing policies that let residents keep livestock in residential areas though they know it's wrong.The participants will also let their livestock roam the township street because the Makana Municipality Impoundment of Animals bylaw implementation is lacking in the township.Participants argued that the last impoundment operation was confined to the town and was not carried out in the township.The number of stray livestock has increased in the township due to inconsistent pounding operations.Maclennan (2017) notes that the pound was not open in 2016 because of a lack of resources, including proper fencing, shelter, drainage, water, and electricity.Towards the end of 2017, when operations resumed, Fingo Village residents ensured their livestock did not stray into town.A participant noted that: When donkeys are impounded, it is a challenge because I have to pay the fine or else I do not get my cattle and donkeys.However, before the impoundment, I usually get a notification from one of my neighbors working for Makana Local Municipality.I ensure I do not let my livestock out, so they stay in the backyard.The above statement shows that policing through impounding livestock somewhat enhances governance.However, once the impounding operation is over, livestock roams the open spaces, the township, and the streets in town.The situation calls for regular impoundment exercises.The challenge is the cost of housing impounded animals (Maclennan, 2017).
The participants also revealed that confining livestock impoundment only in town sent a wrong message to some township residents.They now believe that animals are allowed to roam the township and people are similarly authorized to rear livestock.
If keeping livestock in urban residential areas is inappropriate behaviour, the Makana Local Municipality should enforce bylaws (impounding stray animals) in the township as in town and also conduct daily inspections until it is understood that this activity is prohibited.The challenges of enforcing regulations have resulted in the users not abiding by the rules and using the land in a way that suits them.For example, Makana Municipality's inability to ensure that livestock are kept in commonages has resulted in landowners keeping livestock in residential plots.In other words, people make land use decisions knowing that the Makana Municipality will not impose any sanctions.Also, there is an issue of theft in commonages, fences in a state of disrepair, and a lack of palatable grazing, which also needs the Makana Municipality's intervention.

Conclusion
The study used Lefebvre's production of the spacespatial triad, which provides a holistic understanding of why bylaws for regulating livestock are circumvented in Fingo Village.The findings reveal the following reasons: conceived ideas were not in line with cultural beliefs; users disapproved of commonage geographic location and livestock theft; and Makana Municipality not enforcing regulations and properly administering commonages.Lefebvre (1991) defines representations of space as a dominant space in society, which identifies what is lived and perceived, which was not the case in this study.Residents utilize the space based on what suits them, their needs, and their values.The power of Makana Municipality to govern land use decisions through regulations is neutralized by the power of the people resisting, which can be traced back in history, as it was excluded from the urban location rules set out in the Cape Native Reserve Location Act of 1902 and the Native Urban Areas Act of 1923.Enforcing apartheid laws was difficult as they resisted.Even to this day, the users/ inhabitants oppose the regulations of democratic government.As a result, users/inhabitants have the power to govern their human practices based on what land means to them, what they know, societal norms, and affordability.
The study calls for future studies to investigate other ways to accommodate African culture in urban planning.Practicing one's culture without discrimination is a human right enshrined in the South African Constitution (sections 30 and 31).It should be noted that the current planning of African cities is western ideology, which does not accommodate Africanity.
The study's findings have also shown that users were not following regulations because they were not enforced.Makana municipality was not adequately serving the commonage areas (repairing fences and ensuring palatable grazing).The study recommends that Makana Municipality fulfil its roles and responsibilities to make citizens more governable.
Funding Open access funding provided by Rhodes University.

Declarations
Ethical approval All procedures performed in study involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the Rhodes University Ethical Standards Committee, reference number 7226809.Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made.The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material.If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.To view a copy of this licence, visit http:// creat iveco mmons.org/ licen ses/ by/4.0/.

Fig. 2
Fig. 2 Fingo Village Locality Map Planning and Land Use Management Act 16 of 2013 provides a guiding framework for spatial planning and land use management in South Africa.It places local municipalities at the center of spatial planning and decision-making related to land use management.Spatial Planning and Land Use Management Act makes provisions for local municipalities to develop land use planning bylaws to meet their unique, local context.Makhanda has a problem of stray animals wandering the streets, which causes a public nuisance.The Makana Municipality has bylaws that, if enforced, can deal with the local situation.The discussion focuses on three bylaws: the Commonage Bylaw of 2007, Prevention of Public Nuisance and Keeping of Animal Bylaw of 2007 and Impoundment of Animals Bylaw of 2007.

Table 1
Types of livestock kept per plot 'X' indicates that the household plot has particular land use activities.The household plot does not have the stated land use activity; there are gaps or no 'X'