160
3 eThekwini’s Green and Ecological Infrastructure Policy Landscape
concluded that we need to follow the same rational choice route. It is scientifically acceptable to follow the construction and implementation of the infrastructure
types of these developed countries. Green and ecological infrastructures have ‘resurrected’ nature (Guzzini 2000: 157) to show that, through empiricism and rational
choice, we will be able to make it work, and this legitimises the green and ecological
infrastructure discourse and projects in the eyes of the public.
Therefore, green and ecological infrastructures consist of shared epistemological
beliefs about what they both mean and, in so doing, they are purposeful concepts
for the decision-making actors. It is no coincidence that most of the people that
were interviewed shared SANBI’s definition of what an ecological infrastructure is,
and that some, like Respondent 3 (p. 90), have moved away from green infrastructures, in preference for ecological infrastructures. Both concepts give meaning to
the epistemic community, both inside and outside of the municipality, by relating
a knowledge of green and ecological infrastructures as an adaptation initiative to
climate change and as an empirical reality. The treatment of this specific ontology
provides a reason for their actions (James 2007), namely, to use green and ecological infrastructures as adaptation tools. In other words, the social construction of the
concepts, when linked with purposeful actors and actions, constitutes the various
practices that are manifested in competent performances (Adler and Pouliot 2011),
which can be measured empirically. The conceptualisation of the infrastructure types
has the capacity to inform the ideas and identities of social relations, networks
and institutions (Carpenter 2003; Grant 2018) that are found in eThekwini’s policy
landscape.
From Table 3.5, we can see that there is an agential constructivism (Grant 2018)
at play in eThekwini’s green and ecological infrastructure policy landscape. Grant
(2018: 256) described this type of constructivism as the ‘…rationalist variant of
constructivism that is particularly apposite in providing the conceptual framing for
understanding not only how norms influence state (and non-state) behaviour but also
how these actors influence the dynamics of…norms’. In other words, norms influence
non-state and state actors, and vice versa (Grant 2018).
From the definitions of green and ecological infrastructures (pp. 3–4), we can see
that the concepts are widely used in other parts of the world. It is, therefore, safe to
say that the concepts, as well as the discourse around them, constitute a transnational
norm, although we can observe differences in their conceptualisation. As with the
standards of appropriate behaviour, green and ecological infrastructure projects are
practices that outline how local governments must adapt to climate change and bring
about positive problem-solving techniques for urbanisation and the separation of
people from nature in urban centres.
Returning to the concepts of green and ecological infrastructures as the shared
beliefs of purposeful actors, the agential constructivism that emanates from the
conceptualisation and use of the two infrastructure types, shows that rational actors,
as the developers and implementors of such projects, shape the political, institutional
and social environments in which they operate (Grant 2018). That said, the structures
within which they operate, such as the EPCPD and the UEIP, are not less important
3 eThekwini’s Green and Ecological Infrastructure Policy Landscape
concluded that we need to follow the same rational choice route. It is scientifically acceptable to follow the construction and implementation of the infrastructure
types of these developed countries. Green and ecological infrastructures have ‘resurrected’ nature (Guzzini 2000: 157) to show that, through empiricism and rational
choice, we will be able to make it work, and this legitimises the green and ecological
infrastructure discourse and projects in the eyes of the public.
Therefore, green and ecological infrastructures consist of shared epistemological
beliefs about what they both mean and, in so doing, they are purposeful concepts
for the decision-making actors. It is no coincidence that most of the people that
were interviewed shared SANBI’s definition of what an ecological infrastructure is,
and that some, like Respondent 3 (p. 90), have moved away from green infrastructures, in preference for ecological infrastructures. Both concepts give meaning to
the epistemic community, both inside and outside of the municipality, by relating
a knowledge of green and ecological infrastructures as an adaptation initiative to
climate change and as an empirical reality. The treatment of this specific ontology
provides a reason for their actions (James 2007), namely, to use green and ecological infrastructures as adaptation tools. In other words, the social construction of the
concepts, when linked with purposeful actors and actions, constitutes the various
practices that are manifested in competent performances (Adler and Pouliot 2011),
which can be measured empirically. The conceptualisation of the infrastructure types
has the capacity to inform the ideas and identities of social relations, networks
and institutions (Carpenter 2003; Grant 2018) that are found in eThekwini’s policy
landscape.
From Table 3.5, we can see that there is an agential constructivism (Grant 2018)
at play in eThekwini’s green and ecological infrastructure policy landscape. Grant
(2018: 256) described this type of constructivism as the ‘…rationalist variant of
constructivism that is particularly apposite in providing the conceptual framing for
understanding not only how norms influence state (and non-state) behaviour but also
how these actors influence the dynamics of…norms’. In other words, norms influence
non-state and state actors, and vice versa (Grant 2018).
From the definitions of green and ecological infrastructures (pp. 3–4), we can see
that the concepts are widely used in other parts of the world. It is, therefore, safe to
say that the concepts, as well as the discourse around them, constitute a transnational
norm, although we can observe differences in their conceptualisation. As with the
standards of appropriate behaviour, green and ecological infrastructure projects are
practices that outline how local governments must adapt to climate change and bring
about positive problem-solving techniques for urbanisation and the separation of
people from nature in urban centres.
Returning to the concepts of green and ecological infrastructures as the shared
beliefs of purposeful actors, the agential constructivism that emanates from the
conceptualisation and use of the two infrastructure types, shows that rational actors,
as the developers and implementors of such projects, shape the political, institutional
and social environments in which they operate (Grant 2018). That said, the structures
within which they operate, such as the EPCPD and the UEIP, are not less important