4.3 Reality
239
4.3 Reality
4.3.1 Empiricism
In the pages that follow, I will highlight the empirical and normative aspects that
I have discovered during my analysis. An empirical or ‘what is’ perspective asks
how stakeholders are currently acting in terms of eThekwini’s green and ecological
infrastructure policy landscape? Figure 3.3 shows that they are perceiving and acting
from a predominantly empirical or ‘what is’ point of view, due to the dominance
of positivism throughout the interviews. With respect to this empirical focus, the
role of a green infrastructure in promoting biodiversity came out strongly. Not only
did the respondents link green and ecological infrastructures with the concept of
‘biodiversity’, but they also linked them to the function of biodiversity, namely, to
retain flood waters and clean water resources for human services, as well as to the
function of natural ecosystems.
Therefore, if one follows Slootweg (2005) (p. 87), we see that the respondents
frame their ontology, or the essence of their reality, around the concept of biodiversity, where ‘biodiversity’ becomes an ‘uncomplicated concept’, which means that it
creates a sort of comfort zone in which to implement green and ecological infrastructures. In relation to this, Kaennel (1998) notes that biodiversity is a mental construct
and, in my opinion, it is one that is widely accepted by society to promote the benefits
of the infrastructure types. No-one would argue that the promotion of biodiversity,
or sustainability for that matter, is bad because the opposite, namely, the loss of
biodiversity and unsustainable practices, could be threatening to human existence
(Bilderbeek et al. 2016); it would therefore be risky to promote biodiversity loss and
unsustainable practices, both epistemologically and ontologically. These notions of
biodiversity protection and sustainable development structure the ontology in which
the respondents practice their research initiatives and various vocations, from implementing green infrastructures, to SuDS and the establishment of, and participation
in, local and global governance network structures.
Having said this, it does not mean that biodiversity is creating an uncomplicated
environment in which the practitioners can operate. I also uncovered a great deal
of social constructivism around the concept of green and ecological infrastructures,
when the respondents noted that, for them, these are from a certain perspective, like
storm-water management or coastal protection, or something specific, like the black
fly larvae, buffer zones, estuaries and wetlands. Therefore, an epistemology-informed
objective reality exists that is beyond the human mind (Lincoln et al. 2011, 2018;
Meissner 2017).
239
4.3 Reality
4.3.1 Empiricism
In the pages that follow, I will highlight the empirical and normative aspects that
I have discovered during my analysis. An empirical or ‘what is’ perspective asks
how stakeholders are currently acting in terms of eThekwini’s green and ecological
infrastructure policy landscape? Figure 3.3 shows that they are perceiving and acting
from a predominantly empirical or ‘what is’ point of view, due to the dominance
of positivism throughout the interviews. With respect to this empirical focus, the
role of a green infrastructure in promoting biodiversity came out strongly. Not only
did the respondents link green and ecological infrastructures with the concept of
‘biodiversity’, but they also linked them to the function of biodiversity, namely, to
retain flood waters and clean water resources for human services, as well as to the
function of natural ecosystems.
Therefore, if one follows Slootweg (2005) (p. 87), we see that the respondents
frame their ontology, or the essence of their reality, around the concept of biodiversity, where ‘biodiversity’ becomes an ‘uncomplicated concept’, which means that it
creates a sort of comfort zone in which to implement green and ecological infrastructures. In relation to this, Kaennel (1998) notes that biodiversity is a mental construct
and, in my opinion, it is one that is widely accepted by society to promote the benefits
of the infrastructure types. No-one would argue that the promotion of biodiversity,
or sustainability for that matter, is bad because the opposite, namely, the loss of
biodiversity and unsustainable practices, could be threatening to human existence
(Bilderbeek et al. 2016); it would therefore be risky to promote biodiversity loss and
unsustainable practices, both epistemologically and ontologically. These notions of
biodiversity protection and sustainable development structure the ontology in which
the respondents practice their research initiatives and various vocations, from implementing green infrastructures, to SuDS and the establishment of, and participation
in, local and global governance network structures.
Having said this, it does not mean that biodiversity is creating an uncomplicated
environment in which the practitioners can operate. I also uncovered a great deal
of social constructivism around the concept of green and ecological infrastructures,
when the respondents noted that, for them, these are from a certain perspective, like
storm-water management or coastal protection, or something specific, like the black
fly larvae, buffer zones, estuaries and wetlands. Therefore, an epistemology-informed
objective reality exists that is beyond the human mind (Lincoln et al. 2011, 2018;
Meissner 2017).