92
3 eThekwini’s Green and Ecological Infrastructure Policy Landscape
mountains, for instance, the purification and supply of water (Nel et al. 2013) through
natural processes (p. 91). This shows that scholars understand the concept of a ‘green
and ecological infrastructure’ not only within the disciplinary structures, but also in
terms of South Africa’s emphasis on inland water systems. Since these are prioritised,
they tend to be at the top of the water governance research agenda, which is not the
case with coastal aquatic systems. This implies that there is a hierarachy among
the research topics, with inland systems at the top of the list and coastal ecological
infrastructures at the bottom.
For some of the respondents, the answer to the question ‘What is your understanding of the concept “green infrastructure?”’ was not straightforward, which is
a further indication of the interpretivism/constructivism paradigm. Respondent 3,
from UKZN, answered in the following way:
When you say ‘green infrastructure’, it is always a bit difficult, because I think that people use
these terms interchangeably. Sometimes, green infrastructure is used…more in the policy
or applied fields. However, I tend to use ecological infrastructure more. I’ve learned about
it from a science point of view, which brings it into that space. In the work that we’re doing
in eThekwini, I am working with Graham [Jewitt] on a WRC project, and we have framed
it as an ‘ecological infrastructure’. So, for me, when it comes to green infrastructures, in
my mind I would think of when cities or planners are thinking of putting in green open
spaces to try and provide a whole lot of ecosystem services. However, the problem is also
that when you use the term ‘green infrastructure’, it immediately kind of ‘separates’ the
environment, in a sense… You know, if you go down that road of people having to defend a
[green infrastructure]…it sort of breaks that socio-ecological combination in some ways. I
think from a socio-political point of view, I would always be a bit weary ‘of saying [green
infrastructure]’ because people immediately jump onto that green bandwagon, and then it
becomes a battle for the environment again.
It is interesting to note that she defines an ecological infrastructure from a ‘scientific point of view’, which indicates the element of consensus that is mentioned
above. When it comes to a green infrastructure, she frames her answer from a political perspective, in that political formations are manifested in activism for green
infrastructures. Here we see a clean break: an ecological infrastructure is a scientific concept, and a green infrastructure leans more towards a political framing
that is embedded in a political context. In this sense, science frames an ecological
infrastructure with empiricism in mind.
According to Respondent 3, it is evident that the concept of a green infrastructure
can become a political tool that is informed by, and that informs, people’s norms
and interests. We see this in Respondent 4’s opinion of the concept of an ‘ecological
infrastructure’:
I have strong opinions around the concept of a green infrastructure and what we are trying to
sell. Let me offer an opinion. Well, for me, and this is about an ecological infrastructure, but
we are trying to reinvent the term nature to appeal to different audiences. So, we started out life
with nature. We then said we need to appeal to a whole bunch of economists. We got into all
these concepts like ecosystem services, and all these economic terms, like natural capital, and
bring all these economic terms into the nature debate. And then we said that we now needed
to appeal to an a whole bunch of engineers and, if we call it ‘infrastructure’, we can also bring
them into the pot. Now I can understand that strategy. But what I am objecting to is that we
are manufacturing terminology to suite other disciplines. It is, therefore, understandable that
3 eThekwini’s Green and Ecological Infrastructure Policy Landscape
mountains, for instance, the purification and supply of water (Nel et al. 2013) through
natural processes (p. 91). This shows that scholars understand the concept of a ‘green
and ecological infrastructure’ not only within the disciplinary structures, but also in
terms of South Africa’s emphasis on inland water systems. Since these are prioritised,
they tend to be at the top of the water governance research agenda, which is not the
case with coastal aquatic systems. This implies that there is a hierarachy among
the research topics, with inland systems at the top of the list and coastal ecological
infrastructures at the bottom.
For some of the respondents, the answer to the question ‘What is your understanding of the concept “green infrastructure?”’ was not straightforward, which is
a further indication of the interpretivism/constructivism paradigm. Respondent 3,
from UKZN, answered in the following way:
When you say ‘green infrastructure’, it is always a bit difficult, because I think that people use
these terms interchangeably. Sometimes, green infrastructure is used…more in the policy
or applied fields. However, I tend to use ecological infrastructure more. I’ve learned about
it from a science point of view, which brings it into that space. In the work that we’re doing
in eThekwini, I am working with Graham [Jewitt] on a WRC project, and we have framed
it as an ‘ecological infrastructure’. So, for me, when it comes to green infrastructures, in
my mind I would think of when cities or planners are thinking of putting in green open
spaces to try and provide a whole lot of ecosystem services. However, the problem is also
that when you use the term ‘green infrastructure’, it immediately kind of ‘separates’ the
environment, in a sense… You know, if you go down that road of people having to defend a
[green infrastructure]…it sort of breaks that socio-ecological combination in some ways. I
think from a socio-political point of view, I would always be a bit weary ‘of saying [green
infrastructure]’ because people immediately jump onto that green bandwagon, and then it
becomes a battle for the environment again.
It is interesting to note that she defines an ecological infrastructure from a ‘scientific point of view’, which indicates the element of consensus that is mentioned
above. When it comes to a green infrastructure, she frames her answer from a political perspective, in that political formations are manifested in activism for green
infrastructures. Here we see a clean break: an ecological infrastructure is a scientific concept, and a green infrastructure leans more towards a political framing
that is embedded in a political context. In this sense, science frames an ecological
infrastructure with empiricism in mind.
According to Respondent 3, it is evident that the concept of a green infrastructure
can become a political tool that is informed by, and that informs, people’s norms
and interests. We see this in Respondent 4’s opinion of the concept of an ‘ecological
infrastructure’:
I have strong opinions around the concept of a green infrastructure and what we are trying to
sell. Let me offer an opinion. Well, for me, and this is about an ecological infrastructure, but
we are trying to reinvent the term nature to appeal to different audiences. So, we started out life
with nature. We then said we need to appeal to a whole bunch of economists. We got into all
these concepts like ecosystem services, and all these economic terms, like natural capital, and
bring all these economic terms into the nature debate. And then we said that we now needed
to appeal to an a whole bunch of engineers and, if we call it ‘infrastructure’, we can also bring
them into the pot. Now I can understand that strategy. But what I am objecting to is that we
are manufacturing terminology to suite other disciplines. It is, therefore, understandable that