152
3 eThekwini’s Green and Ecological Infrastructure Policy Landscape
Green and ecological infrastructures are natural assets that can be commodified in
terms of performing a certain function or service, such as flood attenuation and
water purification at an estuarine level (p. 89 and 127), in order to benefit human
well being. These functions have either a direct or imbedded economic value; they
are direct, when the economic value of the infrastructure can be measured, and
they are imbedded, when these resources decrease the risks and create economic
opportunities. Therefore, the productive function of the infrastructure relates to the
economic realm of sustainability, since these purposes have a certain market value;
for instance, green and ecological infrastructures provide agricultural products, such
as food, animal feed, fibre, biofuel and medicinal resources. Sustainability occupies
the intersection of the environmental, economic and social pillars (Lovell and Taylor
2013), and in this intersecting realm, green and ecological infrastructures provide
opportunities for delivering environmental, social and economic benefits (Mell 2008;
Wright 2011). It is within the ambit of sustainability thinking that we find a green and
ecological infrastructure becoming an economic value proposition to society (Roe
and Mell 2013). Benedict and McMahon (2002) asserted that a green infrastructure is the ecological framework that a society needs for environmental, social and
economic sustainability. Dunn (2010) makes a similar argument when he said that,
‘Green infrastructure is an economically and environmentally viable approach for
water management and natural resource protection in urban areas’. The ontological
foundation of these arguments is grounded in the negative impact of urbanisation
on the socio-economic and environmental conditions that affect not only the health
of city dwellers (Dunn 2010), but also their economic well-being, which manifests
itself in poverty. From an economic perspective, green and ecological infrastructures
have an economic function, as they provide an attractive and economically useful
environment that entices business, tourism, an improved quality of life and increased
property prices (Roe and Mell 2013). It is within the ambit of sustainability thinking
that Respondents 1 and 2 conceptualised their definition and purpose of green and
ecological infrastructures (p. 89 and 127).
With regard to the ‘need for’ and ‘value of’ wetlands, Respondent 2 refers not so
much to their economic need and value, but to the need to protect them against risks,
since wetlands purify water through natural, instead of technological, processes.
Furthermore, ontologically, wetlands provide direct and indirect benefits to people,
in the form food and water. Often, people take these benefits for granted and promote
the technologies that successfully provide water, sanitation (Horwitz and Finlayson
2011) and food through a grey epistemology (p. 3). However, when compared with
the coast, wetlands are perceived as being less of an economic resource than the
beaches, which attract tourists (Fig. 3.18). The development of the coast also relates
to technological advances through the construction of so-called hard infrastructure,
such as buildings, roads, walkways and storm-water systems, (Fig. 3.25) and it is
within this ‘hard infrastructure’ ontology that people place estuaries and their role
in purifying water, before it enters the sea.
Not only are green and ecological infrastructures performing certain market functions that are linked to sustainable development, but governments and business
3 eThekwini’s Green and Ecological Infrastructure Policy Landscape
Green and ecological infrastructures are natural assets that can be commodified in
terms of performing a certain function or service, such as flood attenuation and
water purification at an estuarine level (p. 89 and 127), in order to benefit human
well being. These functions have either a direct or imbedded economic value; they
are direct, when the economic value of the infrastructure can be measured, and
they are imbedded, when these resources decrease the risks and create economic
opportunities. Therefore, the productive function of the infrastructure relates to the
economic realm of sustainability, since these purposes have a certain market value;
for instance, green and ecological infrastructures provide agricultural products, such
as food, animal feed, fibre, biofuel and medicinal resources. Sustainability occupies
the intersection of the environmental, economic and social pillars (Lovell and Taylor
2013), and in this intersecting realm, green and ecological infrastructures provide
opportunities for delivering environmental, social and economic benefits (Mell 2008;
Wright 2011). It is within the ambit of sustainability thinking that we find a green and
ecological infrastructure becoming an economic value proposition to society (Roe
and Mell 2013). Benedict and McMahon (2002) asserted that a green infrastructure is the ecological framework that a society needs for environmental, social and
economic sustainability. Dunn (2010) makes a similar argument when he said that,
‘Green infrastructure is an economically and environmentally viable approach for
water management and natural resource protection in urban areas’. The ontological
foundation of these arguments is grounded in the negative impact of urbanisation
on the socio-economic and environmental conditions that affect not only the health
of city dwellers (Dunn 2010), but also their economic well-being, which manifests
itself in poverty. From an economic perspective, green and ecological infrastructures
have an economic function, as they provide an attractive and economically useful
environment that entices business, tourism, an improved quality of life and increased
property prices (Roe and Mell 2013). It is within the ambit of sustainability thinking
that Respondents 1 and 2 conceptualised their definition and purpose of green and
ecological infrastructures (p. 89 and 127).
With regard to the ‘need for’ and ‘value of’ wetlands, Respondent 2 refers not so
much to their economic need and value, but to the need to protect them against risks,
since wetlands purify water through natural, instead of technological, processes.
Furthermore, ontologically, wetlands provide direct and indirect benefits to people,
in the form food and water. Often, people take these benefits for granted and promote
the technologies that successfully provide water, sanitation (Horwitz and Finlayson
2011) and food through a grey epistemology (p. 3). However, when compared with
the coast, wetlands are perceived as being less of an economic resource than the
beaches, which attract tourists (Fig. 3.18). The development of the coast also relates
to technological advances through the construction of so-called hard infrastructure,
such as buildings, roads, walkways and storm-water systems, (Fig. 3.25) and it is
within this ‘hard infrastructure’ ontology that people place estuaries and their role
in purifying water, before it enters the sea.
Not only are green and ecological infrastructures performing certain market functions that are linked to sustainable development, but governments and business