90
3 eThekwini’s Green and Ecological Infrastructure Policy Landscape
of biodiversity since they are living creatures, in continuous interaction with the environment, and dependent on biodiversity for their survival. Biodiversity produces the oxygen we
breathe, regulates water supplies, sequestrates greenhouse gases and thus is responsible for
regulating climate, provides food, such as fish, shellfish, and (bush)meat, and also provides
products, such as timber or raw materials for pharmaceutical industries, constitutes a source
of genetic material of use to maintain the long-term productivity of our agricultural crops
(themselves also being part of biodiversity), is a source of inspiration, recreation and greatly
contributes to the quality of our day-to-day lives.
Several of these characteristics of the concept ‘biodiversity’ lend themselves to its
measurable outcomes, such as the targets envisaged in the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The other normative aspects, such as inspiration, recreation and
quality of life, are less measurable, although they are still part of the description of
what constitutes biodiversity and how it functions and gives meaning to human existence. It is interesting to note that none of the respondents mentioned these intangible
and non-measurable biodiversity functions.
Regarding the measurement of biodiversity, Bilderbeek et al. (2016) stated that
worldwide biodiversity loss is not only threatening food security and human health,
but it is also hostile towards the sustainable development agenda itself. According
to biodiversity experts, because of these threats, it is important to mainstream biodiversity into sustainable development policies, the effective implementation of the 14
(life below water) and 15 (life on land) SDGs, as well as the Aichi targets of the
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). Note that three of the structures of rule
that Bilderbeek et al. (2016) mentioned contain measurable elements (SDGs 14 and
15 and the Aichi targets). Even biodiversity loss can be quantified, although it is
declining rapidly (Possingham and Wilson 2005), which enables governments and
non-state entities to set targets for reducing biodiversity losses (Scholes and Biggs
2005). In fact, Scholes and Biggs (2005) advocated that their proposed ‘Biodiversity Intactness Index (BII)’ helps to assess the progress of biodiversity forfeiture
targets. According to them, the BII is ‘simple and practical—but sensitive to important factors that influence biodiversity status—and which satisfies the criteria for
policy relevance set by the Convention on Biological Diversity’.
Biodiversity is, therefore, a concept that can be described as a concrete reality that
is apprehensible (Lincoln et al. 2018) and measurable, not only in terms of its ‘real’
characteristics, but also regarding its reduction and consequent improvement from a
reduced biodiversity state and its negative impact on humankind. This is what Lincoln
et al. (2018) call ‘raw realism’, or the pretended ‘hard science’, where the researcher
and reality are separate, and the purpose of research is to control and predict (through
logical deduction) nature and its influence on people. This type of science is steeped
in empiricism and positivism, with objectivism being the central feature. It is within
the nature of reality (ontology) that the respondents frame eThekwini’s green or
ecological infrastructure initiatives.
Interpretivism/Constructivism
When contemplating the results of the PULSE
3 paradigm assessment (Fig. 3.3), it
is important to note the prominence of the interpretivism/constructivism paradigm.
3 eThekwini’s Green and Ecological Infrastructure Policy Landscape
of biodiversity since they are living creatures, in continuous interaction with the environment, and dependent on biodiversity for their survival. Biodiversity produces the oxygen we
breathe, regulates water supplies, sequestrates greenhouse gases and thus is responsible for
regulating climate, provides food, such as fish, shellfish, and (bush)meat, and also provides
products, such as timber or raw materials for pharmaceutical industries, constitutes a source
of genetic material of use to maintain the long-term productivity of our agricultural crops
(themselves also being part of biodiversity), is a source of inspiration, recreation and greatly
contributes to the quality of our day-to-day lives.
Several of these characteristics of the concept ‘biodiversity’ lend themselves to its
measurable outcomes, such as the targets envisaged in the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The other normative aspects, such as inspiration, recreation and
quality of life, are less measurable, although they are still part of the description of
what constitutes biodiversity and how it functions and gives meaning to human existence. It is interesting to note that none of the respondents mentioned these intangible
and non-measurable biodiversity functions.
Regarding the measurement of biodiversity, Bilderbeek et al. (2016) stated that
worldwide biodiversity loss is not only threatening food security and human health,
but it is also hostile towards the sustainable development agenda itself. According
to biodiversity experts, because of these threats, it is important to mainstream biodiversity into sustainable development policies, the effective implementation of the 14
(life below water) and 15 (life on land) SDGs, as well as the Aichi targets of the
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). Note that three of the structures of rule
that Bilderbeek et al. (2016) mentioned contain measurable elements (SDGs 14 and
15 and the Aichi targets). Even biodiversity loss can be quantified, although it is
declining rapidly (Possingham and Wilson 2005), which enables governments and
non-state entities to set targets for reducing biodiversity losses (Scholes and Biggs
2005). In fact, Scholes and Biggs (2005) advocated that their proposed ‘Biodiversity Intactness Index (BII)’ helps to assess the progress of biodiversity forfeiture
targets. According to them, the BII is ‘simple and practical—but sensitive to important factors that influence biodiversity status—and which satisfies the criteria for
policy relevance set by the Convention on Biological Diversity’.
Biodiversity is, therefore, a concept that can be described as a concrete reality that
is apprehensible (Lincoln et al. 2018) and measurable, not only in terms of its ‘real’
characteristics, but also regarding its reduction and consequent improvement from a
reduced biodiversity state and its negative impact on humankind. This is what Lincoln
et al. (2018) call ‘raw realism’, or the pretended ‘hard science’, where the researcher
and reality are separate, and the purpose of research is to control and predict (through
logical deduction) nature and its influence on people. This type of science is steeped
in empiricism and positivism, with objectivism being the central feature. It is within
the nature of reality (ontology) that the respondents frame eThekwini’s green or
ecological infrastructure initiatives.
Interpretivism/Constructivism
When contemplating the results of the PULSE
3 paradigm assessment (Fig. 3.3), it
is important to note the prominence of the interpretivism/constructivism paradigm.