that there is a need to shift current planning approaches in municipalities to develop better urban systems through incorporating GI principles. The expert insights (Chapters 3, 4 and 5) present the process required to develop a GI approach from different perspectives, and focus in particular on mainstreaming GI, green asset and ES valuation, and opportunities for implementing GI in municipal planning. Furthermore, the experts build the understanding of and learn from other attempts at incorporating GI into municipal and government planning and budgeting. These expert insights were presented and discussed at the GI CityLab.
6.2.1. Reflecting on Cape Town’s
ecosystem services valuation exercise
In the first expert piece, Cartwright and Oelofse outline the City of Cape Town Metropolitan Municipality’s (CoCT) motivation for conducting a total economic valuation of GI and the process that the city followed to reach the relevant values. The CoCT Environmental Resource Management Department’s (ERMD) intention was to provide evidence for the value of the natural assets in the city, and consequently motivate for these assets to be awarded higher prioritisation in planning and for additional budget for the ERMD. Despite the large financial values that emerged from the total economic valuation exercise, the results did not have the policy impact nor did they bring about the change that had been anticipated. In exploring why the impact of this exercise had been unsuccessful, it was revealed that the total economic value of GI is less valuable for a city than individual projects, where the benefits provided by GI projects can be demonstrated in comparison to other existing or potential projects.The authors emphasise that the argument for investing in GI should be financially sound and comply with the relevant legislation and procedures. However, they posit that investment in GI needs to be undertaken in collaboration with the municipal finance department to ensure the financial soundness of the projects and buy-in from the finance decision- makers. The piece further highlights that the economic benefit of investing in GI is unlikely to be successful
in shifting policy unless packaged and communicated effectively. Establishing the value of GI is therefore likely to gain most traction through demonstrating the benefits of GI projects in terms of job creation (in particular low-skilled and location-based jobs), cost savings and risk reduction. In addition, any GI plan or project needs to address the cross-boundary nature of GI in terms of departmental functions and legislative boundaries.
The piece shows that although CoCT’s initial attempt at mainstreaming GI through financial means was unsuccessful, the underlying GI concepts were applied to a broader green economy argument. This has gained some traction in the City. Four green economy pilot projects were identified, and are currently being used to build the evidence base for green projects. These projects relate to dune rehabilitation, waste picking in informal settlements, composting toilets and biodiversity offsets. The City’s approach has thus shifted from attempting to initiate a systemic realignment of the municipal planning approaches, towards building the evidence base of green economy projects and initiating incremental changes in the system. The authors also highlight that buy-in for GI projects is most probable if they are fully conceptualised and costed (‘shovel-ready’ projects), and complement existing municipal projects and plans.
6.2.2. Valuing green assets through a
social learning process
The second expert piece draws on Mander’s experience and describes methods for establishing the value of GI through a social learning process within municipal departments and planning. He posits that stakeholder acknowledgement of the value of green assets and their services is more important than the accuracy of financial values. He further emphasises that there is a need to develop an understanding, or appreciation, of the services provided by green assets within the urban environment and that ES can be leveraged to fulfil service delivery mandates. He reviewed projects from eThekwini and Knysna municipalities in South Africa, and described how a social learning process was followed from the start of these projects. This process provided the necessary opportunity for stakeholders to acknowledge the benefits and services provided by green assets, and to identify the number
of people that benefit from these services. This type of co-produced understanding empowers decision- makers with tools to make more accurate assessments of GI investments as the benefits and services derived from green assets become clear. A strong argument can be made for a GI approach through this process as it frames green assets in terms of the benefits and services that they provide society. This is particularly important where the financial values cannot easily be assessed.
The chapter also highlights that many people are unaware of their individual dependence on ES and GI within the urban setting. It was only by going through a process of identifying the ES and modelling the impact of losing these services that many of the stakeholders involved in the process realised the value of the green assets in question. Typically people take ES for granted and, as a result, the financial values calculated for ES tend to be discarded because they present a high cost for services that are considered to be free. For planning purposes, cost-benefit comparisons are more appropriate than comparing the financial value of GI with other land uses (e.g. a park versus a commercial development). In order to overcome these concerns, Mander’s piece explored a possible methodology for building a human development index that acknowledges the number of people and the level of benefit they receive from a particular asset or investment. This approach, which accounts for the social impact, is also more likely to gain political support, and is easier to appreciate and act on than straight financial valuation. In
addition, when prioritising green spaces a focus on services and the benefit for communities is less likely to meet opposition compared to biodiversity conservation arguments.
The methodology used to build consensus and cross-departmental appreciation of ES was presented in the eThekwini case study (Section 4.2), and provides important lessons for the GCR context. In particular, it is critical to include officials from the full range of departments not only for developing a consistent understanding of GI, but also for ensuring credibility of joint outcomes and decisions. A solutions-based discussion can be orchestrated from exploring a range of future scenarios and service-level changes, based on combined input. This type of discussion is less likely to result in apportioning blame, and instead allows stakeholders to consider and internalise alternatives without pressure or consequence. Mander stresses that developing an appreciation of the value of GI in municipalities requires champions to embed the concept into municipal processes. In addition, case studies are identified as critical for creating an evidence base that supports the GI argument.
6.2.3. Design and uptake of combined
grey-green engineered solutions
in the GCR
The third expert piece, written by Dunsmore from an engineering perspective, focuses primarily on the stormwater services derived from GI. In this piece, stormwater is considered to be a potential Photograph by Brenden Gray
breakthrough sector for the GCR within the context of an existing global evidence base and GI design standards. The piece highlights that traditional approaches to stormwater management have significant limitations, whereas evidence suggests that new approaches that include GI are increasingly important for overcoming these limitations – such as Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) and Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD). The piece identifies the significance of a GI network and that planning at a system-wide scale is necessary to maximise the impact of GI in urban areas. Similar to the traditional infrastructure approach, the value of GI is based on the whole system functioning together, not as a collection of isolated projects. Deliberate planning and designing of infrastructure with ES in mind is necessary for GI to perform effectively, and thus the piece stresses the role of spatial and strategic planning of GI, including the importance of incorporating GI into the plans of all departments.
The piece further identifies the potential for building on the existing base of green assets in the GCR and developing innovative projects that support a range of cross-departmental mandates. GI planning should start by incorporating green assets into existing municipal asset registries, which are currently designed to record only grey infrastructure assets. Including green assets in an asset registry establishes that they have value for municipalities and should help to motivate for GI networks to be protected and extended through increased investment. The asset registry would further assist with motivating for sufficient budget to maintain green assets. A fundamental risk for the rollout of GI projects is poor maintenance, which can jeopardise the long-term success and the level of services that can be derived
from these investments. There is thus a strong need to establish long-term maintenance programmes in the project conceptualisation phase and ensure that sufficient operations budget is allocated to GI projects.
Dunsmore also highlighted some of the governance challenges that exist in the GCR and concluded that although the multi-functional nature of GI provides potential benefits for a range of departments, a GI approach requires commitment from and co-ordination between departments, and greater level of co-operative governance. Currently there are significant challenges related to overlapping and misaligned departmental mandates, which result in a lack of maintenance and potential system failure. In order for the GI approach to be successfully implemented, these existing challenges need to be addressed.
The author emphasised that developing and adopting design standards for GI options (in both municipal planning and the engineering sector) would speed up procurement processes and the implementation of GI projects. These standards should include various engineering, landscaping, licencing and maintenance requirements, as well as the relevant departments and processes that should be included in GI design solutions. The development of such standards and guidelines requires that an evidence base be developed through a set of case studies that quantify how various GI options perform within the GCR context. In addition, GI needs to be understood and applied by various departments, information regarding GI needs to be available in a range of forms, and it needs to be packaged in a way that speaks to the specific requirements and focuses of each relevant department.