1.4 Green and Ecological Infrastructures as Instrumental Policies
13
approach’ (Finewood 2016: 1000, 1001). He used the concept ‘grey epistemology
to indicate a specific way of knowing water that focuses on the technical, abiotic
aspects of a water system and the possibilities created by engineering as an objective
problem-solving tool (as opposed to a particular form of knowledge)’ (emphasis in
the original) (Finewood 2016: 1001). Regarding the meaning of the concept ‘grey
epistemology’, he goes on to say that:
Specifically, grey infrastructure (largely impervious surfaces made of asphalt and concrete,
such as pipes and sewers) provides a standard practice for capturing urban stormwater and
treating wastewater as quickly as possible. It provides an attributable set of public health benefits as well as a calculable number of gallons that can be managed under certain conditions.
Presumably these measurable characteristics provide an apolitical strategy for meeting urban
water challenges as they isolate water and manage it largely separate from social systems
and the messiness of day-to-day human interactions. (Finewood 2016: 1001–1002)
Finewood (2016) makes no excuses when he argues that such a grey epistemology was behind the unsuccessful US$2–4 billion Allegheny County Sanitary
Authority (ALCOSAN) proposal that was submitted to the United States’ Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to mitigate storm-water overload in the ALCOSAN
sewer system. That said, how we view the world through specific paradigms and theories influences our practices. For Finewood (2016), the proposal was unsuccessful
because it rested largely on grey infrastructures and the thinking of an epistemological community that consisted of conservative and risk-averse water utilities and
engineering companies. Based on this argument, Finewood (2016: 1000) went on
to argue that alternative and more creative forms of greening a city, as seen through
a grey epistemology, ‘may not necessarily represent a more democratic process,
but instead reproduce uneven urban landscapes under greener cover’. With this,
Finewood (2016) inferred that a green infrastructure may appear more democratic
because it involves a broader set of stakeholders, but if green infrastructures are
promoted by the same institutions, it only conceals the supremacy of prevailing
management arrangements and conventional practices. Furthermore, this signifies
that, although green and ecological infrastructures could bring about a host of positive consequences for both the environment and the people, city planners do not
consider the potential negative normative implications, such as the undemocratic
practices that do not consider public involvement and how the public views such
projects. There is, therefore, a dominant theory operating in such thinking, which
results in a one-sided rational focus on the engineering costs and benefits, while
ignoring the broader political processes.
Cousins (2017) reframes Finewood’s (2016) argument by saying that a preference
for science and data-driven green and ecological infrastructure approaches might be
instituted to reinforce the dominant and powerful planning ‘paradigms’, instead of
engaging in more experimental environmental governance arrangements. This entails
that green infrastructure approaches that are maintained by a grey epistemology, may
impede democratic processes because of their focus on the technicalities of water
governance and management (Cousins 2017).
Wachsmuth and Angelo (2018) argued along a similar line when they say that
there is an ideological tension between green and grey infrastructures, which makes
13
approach’ (Finewood 2016: 1000, 1001). He used the concept ‘grey epistemology
to indicate a specific way of knowing water that focuses on the technical, abiotic
aspects of a water system and the possibilities created by engineering as an objective
problem-solving tool (as opposed to a particular form of knowledge)’ (emphasis in
the original) (Finewood 2016: 1001). Regarding the meaning of the concept ‘grey
epistemology’, he goes on to say that:
Specifically, grey infrastructure (largely impervious surfaces made of asphalt and concrete,
such as pipes and sewers) provides a standard practice for capturing urban stormwater and
treating wastewater as quickly as possible. It provides an attributable set of public health benefits as well as a calculable number of gallons that can be managed under certain conditions.
Presumably these measurable characteristics provide an apolitical strategy for meeting urban
water challenges as they isolate water and manage it largely separate from social systems
and the messiness of day-to-day human interactions. (Finewood 2016: 1001–1002)
Finewood (2016) makes no excuses when he argues that such a grey epistemology was behind the unsuccessful US$2–4 billion Allegheny County Sanitary
Authority (ALCOSAN) proposal that was submitted to the United States’ Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to mitigate storm-water overload in the ALCOSAN
sewer system. That said, how we view the world through specific paradigms and theories influences our practices. For Finewood (2016), the proposal was unsuccessful
because it rested largely on grey infrastructures and the thinking of an epistemological community that consisted of conservative and risk-averse water utilities and
engineering companies. Based on this argument, Finewood (2016: 1000) went on
to argue that alternative and more creative forms of greening a city, as seen through
a grey epistemology, ‘may not necessarily represent a more democratic process,
but instead reproduce uneven urban landscapes under greener cover’. With this,
Finewood (2016) inferred that a green infrastructure may appear more democratic
because it involves a broader set of stakeholders, but if green infrastructures are
promoted by the same institutions, it only conceals the supremacy of prevailing
management arrangements and conventional practices. Furthermore, this signifies
that, although green and ecological infrastructures could bring about a host of positive consequences for both the environment and the people, city planners do not
consider the potential negative normative implications, such as the undemocratic
practices that do not consider public involvement and how the public views such
projects. There is, therefore, a dominant theory operating in such thinking, which
results in a one-sided rational focus on the engineering costs and benefits, while
ignoring the broader political processes.
Cousins (2017) reframes Finewood’s (2016) argument by saying that a preference
for science and data-driven green and ecological infrastructure approaches might be
instituted to reinforce the dominant and powerful planning ‘paradigms’, instead of
engaging in more experimental environmental governance arrangements. This entails
that green infrastructure approaches that are maintained by a grey epistemology, may
impede democratic processes because of their focus on the technicalities of water
governance and management (Cousins 2017).
Wachsmuth and Angelo (2018) argued along a similar line when they say that
there is an ideological tension between green and grey infrastructures, which makes