198
3 eThekwini’s Green and Ecological Infrastructure Policy Landscape
For him, the municipality must also address policy deficiencies by using systematic
scientific knowledge, and thus he quotes Duncan Hay’s observations of what is
happening in the uMngeni River.
Since problem-solving theories are dominant, and the critical approaches are
virtually absent, what can we do about this state of affairs? I agree with Brown
(2013), who states that there is a need for a critical problem-solving theory or a
‘…theory that relates directly to real-world problems, but approaches them from the
perspective of the underdog [critical theory]’. Therefore, when it comes to climate
change, green and ecological infrastructures and water insecurity, there does not need
to be a balance between the critical and problem-solving theories. What is essential,
however, is to observe what is happening in the real world, and then to suggest
solutions that are informed by critical theory approaches. I base this argument on the
notion that the natural sciences offer an inadequate model for the practice of social
disciplines (Skinner 1985; Brown 2013) and, by default, for solving the problems
that face society.
Many of the respondents have already hinted at what ‘could be done’. Respondent
1, for instance, said that engineers ‘like to get rid of things quickly’ and that ‘this is
not always the right thing to do’. This indicates that there is not only an alternative
to the engineering way of doing things and solving problems, but an alternative way
of thinking within the engineering fraternity. Respondent 7 indicated that the public
does not understand the benefits of green and ecological infrastructure projects, due
to inadequate communication. He noted that there must be more transparent communication about the benefits of the projects. Transparency is a normative and ethical
matter that will not only help to raise awareness about the projects, but it will also
give eThekwini’s residents an idea of their existence and of who will benefit the most.
This links back to the criticism in Chap. 1 of the misinterpreted multifunctionality of
green infrastructures and the argument that such infrastructures often do not benefit
the poor (p. 6). Respondent 8, just like Respondent 1, alluded to doing things differently to what they had previously been done, namely, in traditional and technical
ways. He spoke about the Citizen Science project in Amanzimtoti that contributed to
less flooding in October 2017; the storm-water system was not blocked and clogged
by solid municipal waste because the people had not littered. Even so, we need to be
cautious about interpreting this as the argumentation of a critical theory; the Citizen
Science project is still a discursive and ideational causal mechanism that is based
on empiricism and positivism. The predominant focus is on the way that science is
conducted, instead of on emancipation through structural realignment. In this sense,
it would be interesting to know how the Citizen Science project contributes to the
day-to-day survival of residents living in Durban’s poorer areas. Respondent 11
was quite critical of the municipality’s green infrastructure initiatives and proposed
ways of improving the way things are done, like introducing more grey engineering
initiatives to retrofit storm-water systems and water treatment works, which would
influence the ongoing environmental degradation. By invoking the same grey epistemology as in Chap. 1, he is also not arguing from a critical theory worldview, but
from a problem-solving paradigm.
3 eThekwini’s Green and Ecological Infrastructure Policy Landscape
For him, the municipality must also address policy deficiencies by using systematic
scientific knowledge, and thus he quotes Duncan Hay’s observations of what is
happening in the uMngeni River.
Since problem-solving theories are dominant, and the critical approaches are
virtually absent, what can we do about this state of affairs? I agree with Brown
(2013), who states that there is a need for a critical problem-solving theory or a
‘…theory that relates directly to real-world problems, but approaches them from the
perspective of the underdog [critical theory]’. Therefore, when it comes to climate
change, green and ecological infrastructures and water insecurity, there does not need
to be a balance between the critical and problem-solving theories. What is essential,
however, is to observe what is happening in the real world, and then to suggest
solutions that are informed by critical theory approaches. I base this argument on the
notion that the natural sciences offer an inadequate model for the practice of social
disciplines (Skinner 1985; Brown 2013) and, by default, for solving the problems
that face society.
Many of the respondents have already hinted at what ‘could be done’. Respondent
1, for instance, said that engineers ‘like to get rid of things quickly’ and that ‘this is
not always the right thing to do’. This indicates that there is not only an alternative
to the engineering way of doing things and solving problems, but an alternative way
of thinking within the engineering fraternity. Respondent 7 indicated that the public
does not understand the benefits of green and ecological infrastructure projects, due
to inadequate communication. He noted that there must be more transparent communication about the benefits of the projects. Transparency is a normative and ethical
matter that will not only help to raise awareness about the projects, but it will also
give eThekwini’s residents an idea of their existence and of who will benefit the most.
This links back to the criticism in Chap. 1 of the misinterpreted multifunctionality of
green infrastructures and the argument that such infrastructures often do not benefit
the poor (p. 6). Respondent 8, just like Respondent 1, alluded to doing things differently to what they had previously been done, namely, in traditional and technical
ways. He spoke about the Citizen Science project in Amanzimtoti that contributed to
less flooding in October 2017; the storm-water system was not blocked and clogged
by solid municipal waste because the people had not littered. Even so, we need to be
cautious about interpreting this as the argumentation of a critical theory; the Citizen
Science project is still a discursive and ideational causal mechanism that is based
on empiricism and positivism. The predominant focus is on the way that science is
conducted, instead of on emancipation through structural realignment. In this sense,
it would be interesting to know how the Citizen Science project contributes to the
day-to-day survival of residents living in Durban’s poorer areas. Respondent 11
was quite critical of the municipality’s green infrastructure initiatives and proposed
ways of improving the way things are done, like introducing more grey engineering
initiatives to retrofit storm-water systems and water treatment works, which would
influence the ongoing environmental degradation. By invoking the same grey epistemology as in Chap. 1, he is also not arguing from a critical theory worldview, but
from a problem-solving paradigm.