10
1 Green and Ecological Infrastructures and Water Security …
two ontologies (realities), namely, an ecological and a grey infrastructure, with the
ecological infrastructure supplementing the grey infrastructure.
Kotzé (2013), Pringle et al. (2015) and Jewitt et al.’s (2015) definitions of an
ecological infrastructure are in line with eThekwini’s conceptualisation. This is no
coincidence, since both Pringle, a former researcher at the INR and now an independent consultant, and Jewitt, formerly with the UKZN and now with IHE Delft
Institute for Water Education, the Netherlands, have produced extensive research on
the uMngeni River Basin and its ecosystems.
When one looks at the definitions that are conceptualised by other researchers
and those that are closely linked to the uMngeni River Basin, one can see that an
ecological infrastructure, in the global and Durban contexts, has a much narrower
function than that of a green infrastructure. Globally, researchers emphasise the
ecosystem service functioning capabilities of an ecological infrastructure, while,
in the case of eThekwini, this infrastructure has a closer relationship with water
security and is defined in terms of water quality and quantity. This brings me to the
‘misinterpreted multi-functionality’ of green and ecological infrastructures that has
been highlighted by research over the years.
1.3 Misinterpreted Multi-functionality
To reiterate the previous findings outlined above, green and ecological infrastructures,
coupled with built infrastructures, have inter-sectoral benefits that observers perceive
as transformative technologies, to mitigate the risks and enhance the opportunities of
ecosystem services. Municipalities promote green infrastructure projects because of
their multi-functionality, since they are attractive as a ‘… means of achievement of
several environmental, social, cultural and economic urban policy aims’ (Madureira
and Andresen 2014: 38).
Nevertheless, there is growing concern and criticism over the applicability of
green infrastructures (Madureira and Andresen 2014). They are typically sited by
local governments, based on their specific benefits, such as storm-water reduction
or climate change adaptation, ‘… rather than a suite of socio-economic and environmental benefits’ (Meerow and Newell 2017: 62). A point of contention revolves
around this alleged misinterpretation of the multi-functionality of a green infrastructure, as it narrows the perceptions of the planners regarding its use (Meerow
and Newell 2017). This ‘misinterpretation’ grows, in part, from ‘… the lack of
stakeholder-informed, city-scale approaches to systematically identify ecosystem
service tradeoffs, synergies and “hotspots” associated with green infrastructure and
its siting’ (Meerow and Newell 2017: 62).
If we consider the criticism of green infrastructures by Madureira and Andresen
(2014) and Meerow and Newell (2017), which is also applicable to an ecological
infrastructure because of its interdependent functionality with the former, it is evident
that such projects could contribute to inclusive socio-economic development. As
such, green and ecological infrastructures could not only serve urban or inner-city
1 Green and Ecological Infrastructures and Water Security …
two ontologies (realities), namely, an ecological and a grey infrastructure, with the
ecological infrastructure supplementing the grey infrastructure.
Kotzé (2013), Pringle et al. (2015) and Jewitt et al.’s (2015) definitions of an
ecological infrastructure are in line with eThekwini’s conceptualisation. This is no
coincidence, since both Pringle, a former researcher at the INR and now an independent consultant, and Jewitt, formerly with the UKZN and now with IHE Delft
Institute for Water Education, the Netherlands, have produced extensive research on
the uMngeni River Basin and its ecosystems.
When one looks at the definitions that are conceptualised by other researchers
and those that are closely linked to the uMngeni River Basin, one can see that an
ecological infrastructure, in the global and Durban contexts, has a much narrower
function than that of a green infrastructure. Globally, researchers emphasise the
ecosystem service functioning capabilities of an ecological infrastructure, while,
in the case of eThekwini, this infrastructure has a closer relationship with water
security and is defined in terms of water quality and quantity. This brings me to the
‘misinterpreted multi-functionality’ of green and ecological infrastructures that has
been highlighted by research over the years.
1.3 Misinterpreted Multi-functionality
To reiterate the previous findings outlined above, green and ecological infrastructures,
coupled with built infrastructures, have inter-sectoral benefits that observers perceive
as transformative technologies, to mitigate the risks and enhance the opportunities of
ecosystem services. Municipalities promote green infrastructure projects because of
their multi-functionality, since they are attractive as a ‘… means of achievement of
several environmental, social, cultural and economic urban policy aims’ (Madureira
and Andresen 2014: 38).
Nevertheless, there is growing concern and criticism over the applicability of
green infrastructures (Madureira and Andresen 2014). They are typically sited by
local governments, based on their specific benefits, such as storm-water reduction
or climate change adaptation, ‘… rather than a suite of socio-economic and environmental benefits’ (Meerow and Newell 2017: 62). A point of contention revolves
around this alleged misinterpretation of the multi-functionality of a green infrastructure, as it narrows the perceptions of the planners regarding its use (Meerow
and Newell 2017). This ‘misinterpretation’ grows, in part, from ‘… the lack of
stakeholder-informed, city-scale approaches to systematically identify ecosystem
service tradeoffs, synergies and “hotspots” associated with green infrastructure and
its siting’ (Meerow and Newell 2017: 62).
If we consider the criticism of green infrastructures by Madureira and Andresen
(2014) and Meerow and Newell (2017), which is also applicable to an ecological
infrastructure because of its interdependent functionality with the former, it is evident
that such projects could contribute to inclusive socio-economic development. As
such, green and ecological infrastructures could not only serve urban or inner-city