3.4 Analysis
129
infrastructure practices, but also the concept of an ecologhical infrastructure. We see
this in the press release when eThekwini launched the UEIP (p. 5).
This means that eThekwini is not only utilising grey infrastructure (p. 8) for water
security purposes (e.g. water quality and quantity provisioning, flood attenuation and
storm-water drainage), but it is also tapping into green and ecological infrastructures
as part of its hydraulic mission. Moreover, storm-water utilisation for the Botanical
Gardens (Respondents 6 and 13) is a typical example of a grey hydraulic mission that
serves a green infrastructure. In this respect, we can identify a grey hydraulic mission
working in tandem with a green and ecological infrastructure hydraulic mission.
When considering the specific use of green and ecological infrastructures, Poff
et al. (2016) noted that, in the face of climate and hydrological uncertainty, humanity
is required to manage its freshwater resources in a novel way. Although water practitioners view the rehabilitation of an ageing infrastructure and new water supply
projects as a solution for reducing future climate risks, attaining the comprehensive
goals of freshwater sustainability requires an expansion of the current water management paradigm. This new worldview should incorporate socially valued ecosystem
functions and services and move away from the prevalent narrow economic criteria
of traditional water management practices (Poff et al. 2016).
From the discussion on liberal institutionalism below, we will see that, in the
face of climate uncertainty, eThekwini has embraced sustainability as a normative
direction-finding beacon for informing its policies and practices, with respect to green
and ecological infrastructures, that are linked with water resources management. In
this regard, eThekwini is practicing a form of participatory co-engineering that is
intentional and purposeful (Daniell et al. 2010).
In their research, Daniell et al. (2010) moved away from the mechanical notion of
engineering and stress that it is a creative process that synthesises and implements
knowledge and experience to enhance the welfare, health and safety of individuals
and communities, while taking the environment and sustainability into consideration.
Even though eThekwini is practicing co-engineering, it is only doing so to a certain
extent. eThekwini places a lot of emphasis on knowledge and experience, both within
and outside of the municipality, but what is absent from it’s particular style of coengineering is the analysis of social interactions, conflicts and negotiations (Von Korff
et al. 2012) among the project teams, as well as the particular green and ecological
infrastructure processes that are linked to stakeholder participation.
In Table 3.3, we see how the Hobbesian and Lockean forms of the hydrosocial
contract exemplify a limited notion of co-engineering. Respondent 16 noted this
when he said that, through the Palmiet River project, which is part of the UEIP,
there is a noticeable ecological infrastructure engineering component involving the
constructed wetlands downstream of the Quarry Road informal settlement. The focus
is on the uMngeni River and not the community. Later, that focus changed and the
relationship of the community with the river became the core part of the project
(p. 112). It is Hobbesian, since the river and the pollution problems are the central
concern, and it involves a Lockean-type contract, since the municipality is conscious
of, and informed by, its sustainability. The community was conscious that it was living
on the banks of a polluted and flood-prone river, but it did not play an influential
129
infrastructure practices, but also the concept of an ecologhical infrastructure. We see
this in the press release when eThekwini launched the UEIP (p. 5).
This means that eThekwini is not only utilising grey infrastructure (p. 8) for water
security purposes (e.g. water quality and quantity provisioning, flood attenuation and
storm-water drainage), but it is also tapping into green and ecological infrastructures
as part of its hydraulic mission. Moreover, storm-water utilisation for the Botanical
Gardens (Respondents 6 and 13) is a typical example of a grey hydraulic mission that
serves a green infrastructure. In this respect, we can identify a grey hydraulic mission
working in tandem with a green and ecological infrastructure hydraulic mission.
When considering the specific use of green and ecological infrastructures, Poff
et al. (2016) noted that, in the face of climate and hydrological uncertainty, humanity
is required to manage its freshwater resources in a novel way. Although water practitioners view the rehabilitation of an ageing infrastructure and new water supply
projects as a solution for reducing future climate risks, attaining the comprehensive
goals of freshwater sustainability requires an expansion of the current water management paradigm. This new worldview should incorporate socially valued ecosystem
functions and services and move away from the prevalent narrow economic criteria
of traditional water management practices (Poff et al. 2016).
From the discussion on liberal institutionalism below, we will see that, in the
face of climate uncertainty, eThekwini has embraced sustainability as a normative
direction-finding beacon for informing its policies and practices, with respect to green
and ecological infrastructures, that are linked with water resources management. In
this regard, eThekwini is practicing a form of participatory co-engineering that is
intentional and purposeful (Daniell et al. 2010).
In their research, Daniell et al. (2010) moved away from the mechanical notion of
engineering and stress that it is a creative process that synthesises and implements
knowledge and experience to enhance the welfare, health and safety of individuals
and communities, while taking the environment and sustainability into consideration.
Even though eThekwini is practicing co-engineering, it is only doing so to a certain
extent. eThekwini places a lot of emphasis on knowledge and experience, both within
and outside of the municipality, but what is absent from it’s particular style of coengineering is the analysis of social interactions, conflicts and negotiations (Von Korff
et al. 2012) among the project teams, as well as the particular green and ecological
infrastructure processes that are linked to stakeholder participation.
In Table 3.3, we see how the Hobbesian and Lockean forms of the hydrosocial
contract exemplify a limited notion of co-engineering. Respondent 16 noted this
when he said that, through the Palmiet River project, which is part of the UEIP,
there is a noticeable ecological infrastructure engineering component involving the
constructed wetlands downstream of the Quarry Road informal settlement. The focus
is on the uMngeni River and not the community. Later, that focus changed and the
relationship of the community with the river became the core part of the project
(p. 112). It is Hobbesian, since the river and the pollution problems are the central
concern, and it involves a Lockean-type contract, since the municipality is conscious
of, and informed by, its sustainability. The community was conscious that it was living
on the banks of a polluted and flood-prone river, but it did not play an influential