12
1 Green and Ecological Infrastructures and Water Security …
of not investing in it. By linking social-ecological resilience with the urban infrastructure transition perspectives, Schäffler and Swilling (2013) show how a green infrastructure can be a response to challenging urban environments. They argue that since
many South African metropolitan municipalities are experiencing service delivery
protests, the risk exists that municipal officials might overlook green infrastructure
investment during their planning and that they might focus exclusively on service
provision. Despite this negative political landscape that has hampered the acceptance
of a green infrastructure, Schäffler and Swilling (2013) recommend several policy
interventions for change. For public officials to properly understand what a green
infrastructure is and what its benefits are, they need to mix their thinking on socialecological systems with infrastructure dynamics and a transition theory. There is a
need to evaluate ecosystem services at a local government level, as there is a paucity
of knowledge about them. Lastly, such an appraisal needs to take into consideration
the unique circumstances and conditions of a municipality (Schäffler and Swilling
2013). An interesting observation was made regarding research on environmental
issues at a city level:
Writing from a developing country, we are sensitive to the particular dynamics that characterise Southern African cities, where research into, and planning around, environmental
issues in general are both in their infancy. In these cities, environmental concerns are largely
absent from academic, policy and even civil society activist discourse, being dwarfed by
the seemingly more pressing matters of service delivery deficits, economic exclusion and
poverty (Schäffler and Swilling 2013: 2).
This argument emphasises the role of increased knowledge as a facilitative tool
for policy change, as it enhances the benefits of a green infrastructure for all, through
policy change and improvement.
In related research, Lennon and Scott (2014) proposed the re-scoping of planning
policies and processes and that they be incorporated into green infrastructure thinking
and practice. For them, the ecology, ecosystem services and environmental risks need
to become the central concerns in local government planning practices. They also
advocate the identification of ecological principles by local government officials, in
order to inform spatial planning strategies and practices. Furthermore, they argue that
the green infrastructure approach gives local government planners an effective way
of operationalising the ecosystem service concept when conducting spatial planning.
Facilitating the latter does not merely entail a recalibration of the current modes of
spatial planning, thinking and practice, but it also involves the transformation of
spatial planning structures and how spatial planners view the world in which they
operate and act (Lennon and Scott 2014).
Regarding the latter recommendation, Mell (2014) identified the localised interpretation of the green infrastructure concept within a variety of delivery approaches
of urban planning. This adds to the level of epistemological complexity when
developing green infrastructure policy instruments and investments.
Similarly, Finewood (2016) noted that the intention of green and ecological infrastructure approaches is to expand water governance practices and public participation
in city planning enterprises. Nevertheless, he argued that local government officials frame green infrastructure methods through a dominant ‘grey epistemological
1 Green and Ecological Infrastructures and Water Security …
of not investing in it. By linking social-ecological resilience with the urban infrastructure transition perspectives, Schäffler and Swilling (2013) show how a green infrastructure can be a response to challenging urban environments. They argue that since
many South African metropolitan municipalities are experiencing service delivery
protests, the risk exists that municipal officials might overlook green infrastructure
investment during their planning and that they might focus exclusively on service
provision. Despite this negative political landscape that has hampered the acceptance
of a green infrastructure, Schäffler and Swilling (2013) recommend several policy
interventions for change. For public officials to properly understand what a green
infrastructure is and what its benefits are, they need to mix their thinking on socialecological systems with infrastructure dynamics and a transition theory. There is a
need to evaluate ecosystem services at a local government level, as there is a paucity
of knowledge about them. Lastly, such an appraisal needs to take into consideration
the unique circumstances and conditions of a municipality (Schäffler and Swilling
2013). An interesting observation was made regarding research on environmental
issues at a city level:
Writing from a developing country, we are sensitive to the particular dynamics that characterise Southern African cities, where research into, and planning around, environmental
issues in general are both in their infancy. In these cities, environmental concerns are largely
absent from academic, policy and even civil society activist discourse, being dwarfed by
the seemingly more pressing matters of service delivery deficits, economic exclusion and
poverty (Schäffler and Swilling 2013: 2).
This argument emphasises the role of increased knowledge as a facilitative tool
for policy change, as it enhances the benefits of a green infrastructure for all, through
policy change and improvement.
In related research, Lennon and Scott (2014) proposed the re-scoping of planning
policies and processes and that they be incorporated into green infrastructure thinking
and practice. For them, the ecology, ecosystem services and environmental risks need
to become the central concerns in local government planning practices. They also
advocate the identification of ecological principles by local government officials, in
order to inform spatial planning strategies and practices. Furthermore, they argue that
the green infrastructure approach gives local government planners an effective way
of operationalising the ecosystem service concept when conducting spatial planning.
Facilitating the latter does not merely entail a recalibration of the current modes of
spatial planning, thinking and practice, but it also involves the transformation of
spatial planning structures and how spatial planners view the world in which they
operate and act (Lennon and Scott 2014).
Regarding the latter recommendation, Mell (2014) identified the localised interpretation of the green infrastructure concept within a variety of delivery approaches
of urban planning. This adds to the level of epistemological complexity when
developing green infrastructure policy instruments and investments.
Similarly, Finewood (2016) noted that the intention of green and ecological infrastructure approaches is to expand water governance practices and public participation
in city planning enterprises. Nevertheless, he argued that local government officials frame green infrastructure methods through a dominant ‘grey epistemological