Are people responsive to a more sustainable, decentralized, and user-driven management of urban metabolism?:
- Chelleri, Lorenzo, Kua, Harn W, Rodriguez Sanchez, Juan P, Nahiduzzaman, Kh M, Thondhlana, Gladman
- Authors: Chelleri, Lorenzo , Kua, Harn W , Rodriguez Sanchez, Juan P , Nahiduzzaman, Kh M , Thondhlana, Gladman
- Date: 2016
- Language: English
- Type: text , article
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10962/144299 , vital:38329 , https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8253-0264
- Description: Smart, green, and resilient city paradigms have been mainly promoted through top-down and technocratic approaches. However, based on the notion to return to “the right to the city”, emerging community-driven initiatives are providing self-managed infrastructures contributing to urban sustainability transitions. This paper explores the relevance of the behavioral aspects of people-centered approaches in dealing with two different facets of urban metabolism: physical infrastructure (involvement with the management of decentralized infrastructures) and consumption patterns (involvement in proactive reduction of resources used). In the first case we assessed community perceptions about the roles, benefits, and willingness to proactively engage in the management of decentralized green infrastructures in Bogotá City, Colombia. For the second facet, we measured the effectiveness of change agents in re-shaping energy consumption decisions within urban social networks in South Africa and Saudi Arabia. This paper’s results show that pre-determined and standardized strategies do not guarantee positive, nor homogeneous, results in terms of meeting sustainability targets, or promoting community involvement. Hence, a better integration of people-centered and top-down approaches is needed through context-dependent policies, for enhancing both users’ appreciation of and commitment to urban metabolism participative management.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2016
- Authors: Chelleri, Lorenzo , Kua, Harn W , Rodriguez Sanchez, Juan P , Nahiduzzaman, Kh M , Thondhlana, Gladman
- Date: 2016
- Language: English
- Type: text , article
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10962/144299 , vital:38329 , https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8253-0264
- Description: Smart, green, and resilient city paradigms have been mainly promoted through top-down and technocratic approaches. However, based on the notion to return to “the right to the city”, emerging community-driven initiatives are providing self-managed infrastructures contributing to urban sustainability transitions. This paper explores the relevance of the behavioral aspects of people-centered approaches in dealing with two different facets of urban metabolism: physical infrastructure (involvement with the management of decentralized infrastructures) and consumption patterns (involvement in proactive reduction of resources used). In the first case we assessed community perceptions about the roles, benefits, and willingness to proactively engage in the management of decentralized green infrastructures in Bogotá City, Colombia. For the second facet, we measured the effectiveness of change agents in re-shaping energy consumption decisions within urban social networks in South Africa and Saudi Arabia. This paper’s results show that pre-determined and standardized strategies do not guarantee positive, nor homogeneous, results in terms of meeting sustainability targets, or promoting community involvement. Hence, a better integration of people-centered and top-down approaches is needed through context-dependent policies, for enhancing both users’ appreciation of and commitment to urban metabolism participative management.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2016
Land acquisition for and local livelihood implications of biofuel development in Zimbabwe
- Authors: Thondhlana, Gladman
- Date: 2016
- Subjects: Biomass energy -- Government policy -- Zimbabwe Biomass energy -- Economic aspects -- Zimbabwe Biomass energy -- Environmental aspects -- Zimbabwe
- Language: English
- Type: text
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10962/49940 , vital:25944
- Description: In recent years, proponents of 'green and clean fuel' have argued that the costs of overreliance on fossil fuels could be reduced through transition to biofuels such as bio-ethanol. Global biofuel discourses suggest that any transition to biofuel invariably results in significant benefits, including energy independence, job creation, development of agro-industrial centres at local level and high revenue generations for the state with minimum negative impacts on the environment. With many risks and costs associated with traditional 'dirty' fuels, it is likely that many countries, particularly African countries, will move towards the 'green and clean fuel' alternative. However, until recently research has arguably paid limited attention to the local livelihood impacts related to land acquisition for biofuel development or the policy frameworks required to maximise biofuel benefits. With regards to biofuel benefits, some recent studies suggest that the much bandied potential for greater tax revenue, lowered fuel costs and wealth distribution from biofuel production have all been perverted with relatively little payoff in wage labour opportunities in return (e.g. Richardson, 2010; Wilkinson and Herrera, 2010). Based on work done in Chisumbanje communal lands of Zimbabwe (Thondhlana, 2015), this policy brief highlights the local livelihood impacts of biofuel development and discusses policy implications of the findings. By highlighting the justifications of biofuel development at any cost by the state, the study sheds some light on the conflicts between state interests and local livelihood needs.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2016
- Authors: Thondhlana, Gladman
- Date: 2016
- Subjects: Biomass energy -- Government policy -- Zimbabwe Biomass energy -- Economic aspects -- Zimbabwe Biomass energy -- Environmental aspects -- Zimbabwe
- Language: English
- Type: text
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10962/49940 , vital:25944
- Description: In recent years, proponents of 'green and clean fuel' have argued that the costs of overreliance on fossil fuels could be reduced through transition to biofuels such as bio-ethanol. Global biofuel discourses suggest that any transition to biofuel invariably results in significant benefits, including energy independence, job creation, development of agro-industrial centres at local level and high revenue generations for the state with minimum negative impacts on the environment. With many risks and costs associated with traditional 'dirty' fuels, it is likely that many countries, particularly African countries, will move towards the 'green and clean fuel' alternative. However, until recently research has arguably paid limited attention to the local livelihood impacts related to land acquisition for biofuel development or the policy frameworks required to maximise biofuel benefits. With regards to biofuel benefits, some recent studies suggest that the much bandied potential for greater tax revenue, lowered fuel costs and wealth distribution from biofuel production have all been perverted with relatively little payoff in wage labour opportunities in return (e.g. Richardson, 2010; Wilkinson and Herrera, 2010). Based on work done in Chisumbanje communal lands of Zimbabwe (Thondhlana, 2015), this policy brief highlights the local livelihood impacts of biofuel development and discusses policy implications of the findings. By highlighting the justifications of biofuel development at any cost by the state, the study sheds some light on the conflicts between state interests and local livelihood needs.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2016
Unpacking Pandora’s box: Understanding and categorising ecosystem disservices for environmental management and human wellbeing
- Shackleton, Charlie M, Ruwanza, Sheunesu, Sinasson Sanni, Gisele, Bennett, S, De Lacy, Peter, Modipa, Rebone D, Mtati, Nosiseko, Sachikonye, Mwazvita T B, Thondhlana, Gladman
- Authors: Shackleton, Charlie M , Ruwanza, Sheunesu , Sinasson Sanni, Gisele , Bennett, S , De Lacy, Peter , Modipa, Rebone D , Mtati, Nosiseko , Sachikonye, Mwazvita T B , Thondhlana, Gladman
- Date: 2016
- Subjects: To be catalogued
- Language: English
- Type: text , article
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10962/182113 , vital:43801 , xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-015-9952-z"
- Description: Research into the benefits that ecosystems contribute to human wellbeing has multiplied over the last few years following from the seminal contributions of the international Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. In comparison, the fact that some ecosystem goods and services undermine or harm human wellbeing has been seriously overlooked. These negative impacts have become known as ecosystem disservices. The neglect of ecosystem disservices is problematic because investments into the management or reduction of ecosystem disservices may yield better outcomes for human wellbeing, or at a lower investment, than management of ecosystem services. Additionally, management to optimise specific ecosystem services may simultaneously exacerbate associated disservices. We posit that one reason for the neglect of ecosystem disservices from the discourse and policy debates around ecosystems and human wellbeing is because there is no widely accepted definition or typology of ecosystem disservices. Here, we briefly examine current understandings of the term ecosystem disservices and offer a definition and a working typology to help generate debate, policy and management options around ecosystem disservices. We differentiate ecosystem disservices from natural hazards and social hazards, consider some of their inherent properties and then classify them into six categories. A variety of examples are used to illustrate the different types of, and management strategies to, ecosystem disservices.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2016
- Authors: Shackleton, Charlie M , Ruwanza, Sheunesu , Sinasson Sanni, Gisele , Bennett, S , De Lacy, Peter , Modipa, Rebone D , Mtati, Nosiseko , Sachikonye, Mwazvita T B , Thondhlana, Gladman
- Date: 2016
- Subjects: To be catalogued
- Language: English
- Type: text , article
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10962/182113 , vital:43801 , xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-015-9952-z"
- Description: Research into the benefits that ecosystems contribute to human wellbeing has multiplied over the last few years following from the seminal contributions of the international Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. In comparison, the fact that some ecosystem goods and services undermine or harm human wellbeing has been seriously overlooked. These negative impacts have become known as ecosystem disservices. The neglect of ecosystem disservices is problematic because investments into the management or reduction of ecosystem disservices may yield better outcomes for human wellbeing, or at a lower investment, than management of ecosystem services. Additionally, management to optimise specific ecosystem services may simultaneously exacerbate associated disservices. We posit that one reason for the neglect of ecosystem disservices from the discourse and policy debates around ecosystems and human wellbeing is because there is no widely accepted definition or typology of ecosystem disservices. Here, we briefly examine current understandings of the term ecosystem disservices and offer a definition and a working typology to help generate debate, policy and management options around ecosystem disservices. We differentiate ecosystem disservices from natural hazards and social hazards, consider some of their inherent properties and then classify them into six categories. A variety of examples are used to illustrate the different types of, and management strategies to, ecosystem disservices.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2016
- «
- ‹
- 1
- ›
- »