Imagining the Future Phuthaditjhaba—Vision 2121

Abstract

The following issues need to be clarified before an approach is formulated which will facilitate the planning of a sustainable Phuthaditjhaba, South Africa: What is the essence of a long-term vision? How long is long-term? It is suggested that the short time horizons used in Integrated Development Plans (IDPs) and Spatial Development Frameworks (SDFs) are much too immediate and it is proposed that 100-year planning and a vision which corresponds to that time span should be employed. ‘Backcasting’, as a method to formulate such a vision, is proposed. This idealised strategy is counterpoised with current planning practice and the socio-spatial constraints of Phuthaditjhaba. Phuthaditjhaba’s Integrated Development Plan (IDP) and Spatial Development Framework (SDF) are analysed and an assessment made whether these two tools address or impede sustainable development.

What is meant by a sustainable city/community? A comparative analysis of the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are made with three case study approaches to sustainable development. From this, a synthesis of substantive principles is proposed. It is also proposed that communities—rather than towns or cities—be acknowledged as the building blocks of sustainability. How then should a community be defined? Defining and demarcating communities based on people’s perceptions and experiences of their spatial environments is proposed, leaning on the methodology of Image and Place studies. Recommendations for planning are made whereby it is hoped that Phuthaditjhaba could become its vision as a sustainable montane city in Africa.

12.1 Introduction

Phuthaditjhaba is a remote montane city, located in the south-western corner of the Maluti-a-Phofung municipality in the Free State Province of South Africa. It is bordered by Lesotho, Golden Gate Highlands National park and the KwaZulu-Natal province (see Fig. 12.1). This chapter explores the planning of Phuthaditjhaba in a reference framework provided by the United Nations’ Sustainability Development Goals (SDGs). This is done through a visionary imagining of Phuthaditjhaba as a sustainable mountain city, one hundred years hence. The vision will be brought to fruition through a tailored planning approach, focussed on sustainable communities.

Fig. 12.1

Source AuthorFootnote

All maps drawn and rendered by the author. Settlement distribution gleaned from Google Earth, SA 1:50 000 topo-cadastral maps, the Phuthaditjhaba Spatial Development Framework (2013), various views in https://spisys.co.za/ and personal observations.

Map showing the area of Greater Phuthaditjhaba and its surrounding administrative areas.

The exploration begins with the formulation of a hundred-year vision and an explanation of the method used to draft the vision. There are, however, two impediments which can thwart attainment of the idealised vision, firstly, Phuthaditjhaba’s geographical setting and socio-political dynamics and secondly, the existing planning regime. These two impediments are then unpacked, with a focus on the shortcomings of the current planning regime. The SDGs are then contextualised by a comparative analysis with three case studies (a sustainability rating tool, a municipal Spatial Development Framework [SDF] and a theoretical set of sustainability principles for community planning).

Thereafter—and flowing from it—substantive principles for sustainable communities are described and the case is made that sustainability must be tackled at a community scale; that sustainable communities must form the building blocks for city-wide sustainability to be attained.

How such communities could be identified and spatially demarcated, follows. It is postulated that—in the fragmented urban conglomeration that is Phuthaditjhaba—communities based on spatial identity or image (vested in place), may be the appropriate method of identification.

Lastly, recommendations and proposals are made which should facilitate the planning of Phuthaditjhaba for the 2121-vision.

12.2 Vision 2121

Our vision for Phuthaditjhaba is described 100 years in our future, for the year 2121:

Phuthaditjhaba, the city of the warrior of the mountains. Maluti, Drakensberg and Red mountain ranges envelop the city. Ancestral land of the San, historical land of the Basotho, conquered land of the Boers, annexed by the British, now South Africa. All now living under the same crisp blue sky with snow underfoot in winter and verdant crops in summer. To tourists, space to roam, rocks to climb, rivers to raft, antelope to view, rock art to wonder at. Fresh water from the mountains to savour, indigenous flowers to appreciate, friendly, happy, industrious people to commune with.

The city is nestled in series of valleys, diverse with fauna and flora, consisting of compact communal villages surrounded by intensely cultivated fields and orchards. Natural capital has been restored to pre-colonial health, supporting a thriving tourism industry. Livestock farming has decreased significantly, now only practiced under strict control on veld with the appropriate carrying capacity. Crop farming has also decreased, but has intensified and inter-cropping is the norm: grains interspersed with indigenous marogo (a wild spinach) and herbs, rendering insecticides unnecessary. In general, organic agricultural practice is once again the norm. The functional urban areas are zoned according to permaculture norms, with intensive gardening, raising fowl (largely guinea fowl), small livestock, flowers and orchards surrounding communities. In the following concentric zone, grains are grown, interspersed with forestry and aquaculture. Beyond that is the wild, zoned and rotated for tourism, hunting and conservation.

Phuthaditjhaba is a service centre of high order, an educational, research, commercial and manufacturing hub, the latter intensely involved in beneficiation of the district’s agricultural produce. Phuthaditjhaba does not import any of its food from external sources, with the exception of some luxury items.

The city is energy-independent. Fossil-free electricity is generated at source, from solar and hydro-electric: micro-hydro generating plants in the Namahadi, Kgotjwane, Metsi-Matsho and other rivers provide the base-load for the city. One hundred percent rooftop solar coverage was achieved in 2030 (made compulsory through a municipal bylaw enacted in 2025). A system of mini-grids was established throughout Phuthaditjhaba by 2033, fed by the solar and hydro schemes. Green hydrogen plants piggy-back on each hydro-electric generating installation: the water dammed by the weirs plus the abundant sunshine are the resources for the manufacturing of hydrogen, which is distributed via pipelines to the various hydrogen filling stations located in Phuthaditjhaba (similar to the 2010’s practice developed in Freiburg, Germany).

The city’s population growth has stabilised; the population is 100% literate with an 80% matriculation rate. The Gini-coefficient is 0.5. Birth fatalities have declined to 0.02% and the HIV-infection rate is zero. All households have security of tenure with fully serviced dwellings. Full employment reigns.

Each community is self-governing, with communal representation at city level for the governance of shared facilities, roads, tourism, disaster management and regional development issues.

The vision was given form by formulating and implementing a hierarchy of actions (translated from the SDGs). For instance, SDG 7 (affordable and clean energy) ‘was attained’ through the goal: energy-independence, which was taken from: No resource import (see the paragraph on sustainability principles).

• 1. No resource import

  • a. Energy independence

    • i. Mandatory roof-top solar for all new buildings from 2023.

    • ii. Mandatory roof-top retrofit on all buildings by 2035.

    • iii. Smart electricity meters installed for all users by 2025.

    • iv. Demand-management programme in force by 2025.

    • v. Micro hydro-electrical potential study to be finalised by 2022 and generation, operational by 2035.

    • vi. Hydrogen-based generation feasibility done by 2022 and operational by 2030.

  • b. Food-self-sufficiency

    • i. Fallow public land to be converted (as garden allotments) into productive agricultural units by 2030.

    • ii. Residents encouraged (through rates discounts) to cultivate back-yard vegetable/fruit gardens (from 2023 onwards).

The sustainability principles should be refined into achievable actions with dated programmes, as proposed by the bullet-points above.

Following this pattern, the vision is made operational via the hierarchy of goals. The further down the hierarchy, the more specific the goals become. For Phuthaditjhaba, the goals were formulated by local communities, assisted by planners. The SDGs were the frame of reference for the goals.

The reasoning behind such a long-term view is discussed in the next paragraph, wherein a vision for 100 years hence is formulated, employing the Backcasting method.

12.3 500-Year Planning

The limited time-frames held in both Integrated Development Plans (IDPs) and Spatial development Frameworks (SDFs—see discussion below on ‘Impediments’)- hamper longer term strategic planning. For sustainability to be effectively facilitated, longer timeframes must be held: at least 50 years but preferably 100 years. Tonn (1986) argues for a much longer time horizon than the norm. He says that even a 50 year time-frame cannot address issues which may become permanent problems. He argues for a 500-year time-frame because typical 500-year planning problems “…entail a causal loop that runs from society to the physical/natural system back to society” and are “…those that (1) take centuries to develop or show their full effects, or both, and (2) either take centuries to solve or require centuries of continued effort to forestall” (Tonn 1986, p. 187).

Problems which typically arise are of biodiversity and natural resource nature, such as: species extinction/biodiversity loss, climate change, groundwater contamination, soil erosion, surface water pollution and bush encroachment. Socio-economic issues include structural unemployment, poverty and intergenerational inequities. The structure of the local government management system may be inadequate to deal with change and need to be redesigned. Urban sprawl requires long-term solutions to be countered. Biophysical issues can and must be tackled with a 500-year view, but socio-economic problems have to be solved within a shorter time-horizon—arguably within 100 years. Longer-term strategies may become just too abstract to be of interest for the current generation to initiate.

IDPs and SDFs typically start off with a municipal vision and mission statement pre-formulated by officialdom. Mostly, the visions are nothing more than rhetoric and slogans, or even wish lists. They are seldom tied to a date or time-frame. In rare cases the envisaged future is twenty years hence, to run concurrent with South Africa’s National Development Plan (NDP 2012) or the SDGs.

Robinson (2014, p. 85) declares that a development vision should be a statement indicating the long-term development path which a city would like to follow, including an idealised end-state. A well-stated vision is logical, has its roots in the present but reaches into the medium to long-term future, and provides an indication of achievable steps. He also implies that the envisaged future will be longer than 20 years.

Tonn (1986, pp. 185–186) is of the opinion that because of the limited time horizon of our goals, added to the dearth of advocacy from any profession for very long-term planning, we will probably fail to ensure healthy habitats for future generations, nor will we be able to prevent environmental catastrophes—and he was writing almost four decades ago. Advances in science have shown the eco-climate crises to have exponentially worsened since Tonn’s 1986 paper. Tonn does not try to predict the future with 500-year planning, but he proposes a framework whereby we should attempt to maximise human socioeconomic development. He says that we must set policies which target the critical systemic elements, such as the nature of economic activities. Tonn’s proposal is not without some moral dilemmas. He recognises his dilemma, but at least he raises the issue that our planning time-horizon must be extended—beyond that of the current norm.

“The goals of 500-year planning are (1) to safeguard the physical/natural system for future generations and (2) to protect present and future populations from health and safety risks caused by misuse of the environment as well as from environmental catastrophes that would restrict the future human race by cutting off certain possible futures” (Tonn 1986, p. 186).

Such an approach requires a comprehensive (re-)formulation of a community’s developmental vision, with much more substance than the standard, one-line slogans common to IDPs and SDFs. A visionary approach, formulated as part of The Natural Step (TNS) proposed by Cook (2004), is a method called ‘backcasting’. In the process of Backcasting we formulate a future-oriented vision by placing ourselves in the future and imagining that we have achieved success. We then look back and ask the question: “How did we achieve this?” (Cook 2004, p. 39). Backcasting was used to formulate a proposed vision for the Thabo Mofutsanyana District Rural Development Plan by this author (2016). It is replicated here in amended format, tailored for Phuthaditjhaba. It is quite long (refer to Vision 2121 above), following Robinson’s view (2009, p. 84) that typical defects of vision statements are the tendency to produce single paragraph visions, bland and devoid of substance.

12.4 Impediments to Planning a Visionary, Sustainable Phuthaditjhaba

12.4.1 Phuthaditjhaba’s Geo-Socio-Political Regime

Phuthaditjhaba is not like many other cities: it has no identifiable centre, no higher-density districts, no ‘older’ neighbourhoods. The conglomeration collectively known as Phuthaditjhaba is the result of a merging of tribal villages and social housing tracts. See Fig. 12.2.

Fig. 12.2

Source author

A map of Phuthaditjhaba showing formally established built-up areas (yellow) and informal and traditional settlements (green).

Under Apartheid, it was designated as the capital of QwaQwa, the ‘homeland’ of South Africa’s seSotho-speaking people. Now Phuthaditjhaba is the seat of the local municipality, Maluti-a-Phofung (at 4338km², about two-and-a-half times the size of Johannesburg). Phuthaditjhaba officially refers to the formally established town: its various office and industrial areas, suburbs, shopping centres and public facilities. Over time, new formal suburbs were established adjacent to tribal land, interspersed with traditional villages. This aggregation grew together more-or-less as a non-city: no real centre and no sense of place. Gertrude Stein’s derisive comment about suburbia in general, is apt here: “The trouble… is, whenever you get there, there is no there there” (undated). Phuthaditjhaba has no definite centre nor historical core, as one would expect from a city. The official central business district (CBD) is a mall in the vicinity of the municipal offices. Phuthaditjhaba is subsumed in this large municipal area, typified by a discrete urban landscape and different tribal and civic authorities vying for power. Given this context, emphatic, participatory planning is a challenge. The question is: how can the uniqueness of Phuthaditjhaba be recognised and celebrated through planning?

12.4.2 The Current Planning Regime

South Africa’s statutory base for municipal planning requires three legs: the Integrated Development Plan (IDP), Spatial Development Framework (SDF) and Land Use Schemes (LUS). The latter is not strategic in function and is not pertinent to this discussion. The IDP and SDF of Maluti-a-Phofung (MAP) local municipality is analysed with reference to the United Nations’ SDGs—to ascertain how (and if) the IDP and SDF formulate strategies which could enable sustainable communities in MAP’s jurisdiction, specifically in Phuthaditjhaba, in line with the SDGs. MAP’s current SDF dates from 2013. The 2018–2019 IDP was analysed for this study, being the latest IDP available at the time of writing.

The current time-horizon for IDPs is five years: municipal IDPs are formulated every five years, during the inaugural term of office of a new council (De Lille 2017, p. 188) and reviewed annually. IDPs are typically focused on the municipal budget, not on actual development planning strategy. Spatial Development Frameworks also have a five-year time horizon, being the time-frame of statutory required review-cycles. In practice though, an SDF is reviewed every eight-to-ten years. The time horizon for spatial planning trending and strategizing rarely extends further than twenty years. Furthermore, postulated alternative scenarios (in the Phuthaditjhaba case and generally) usually only cover two possibilities: current status quo extended and a high-growth scenario, with the latter usually chosen as the preferred.

The Maluti-a-Phofung’s IDP starts off with rather typical vision-mission-strategic goals statements:

• Vision: “To be a sustainable, service oriented, tourist destination of choice” (IDP, 2018/19, p. 12).

• Mission: “To collectively provide sustainable and quality municipal services” (IDP, 2018/19, p. 12).

In Section B of the IDP (2018/19, pp. 36–38), the SDGs are listed but not prioritised, so one has to assume that all are regarded equally important for MAP. The spatial vision for MAP is noted as “An ecologically and socially sustainable urban and rural spatial development pattern focussed on providing quality livelihoods” (IDP 2018/19, p. 59). Other than these statements, the IDP does not elaborate on achieving sustainability.

With regards to the SDF, the Terms of Reference (ToR) for the consultants who were appointed to draft the SDF make no reference to the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), which were in effect at the time. The term “sustainability” also does not appear in the ToR. To their credit, the consultants endorsed “sustainable development” as an underlying principle to their approach: “An integrated and holistic systems approach is necessary to ensure the long-term sustainability of development of the planning area.” (SDF 2013, p. 15). This is reiterated in ‘Strategic Interventions’ (SDF 2013, p. 17).

The MAP SDF’s definition of sustainable development is quoted from the Brundtland (1987) report (SDF 2013, p. 47). The goals of Agenda 21 is also quoted, stating that these are pertinent to the SDF (2013, p. 48). One of these is particularly relevant to this study: “Managing fragile ecosystems: sustainable mountain development”, in reference to Phuthaditjhaba which is surrounded by mountains, and borders the uKhahlamba Drakensberg World Heritage Site and forms part of the Maloti-Drakensberg Transfrontier Conservation Area (TFCA) (Fig. 12.3).

Fig. 12.3

Source https://www.peaceparks.org/tfcas/maloti-drakensberg/

Maloti-Drakensberg Transfrontier Conservation Area.

Sustainable development is deemed important in the planning approach of the SDF, substantiated by references in its ‘Growth & development pillars’ (SDF 2013, pp. 56–57) to sustainable jobs and sustainable rural development. Subservient to that, the ‘Drivers’ in the SDF identify sustainable human settlements and tourism, as an oblique aside to the mountainous setting.

The stated scenarios (SDF 2013, Sect. 5.3 Development Strategies, pp. 352 onwards) are very much economy-based. The only reference to sustainability is made in scenario 2 (‘High-Growth’) and there it implies ‘economic/financial’ sustainability of the municipality. A 15 to 20 year time-frame is taken here. The ‘economic growth’ paradigm of the SDF is understandable, due to pressing poverty-related issues like unemployment. Economic growth is perceived as the solution to all problems. This is also evident in the Strategic Objective 1: Economic development and job creation supporting and guiding development, focussed on concentrating economic activities along movement corridors and diversifying the MAP economy (agriculture, manufacturing, transport, tourism, wildlife).

The SDF (2013, p. 397) does acknowledge the importance of the biophysical environment, as is evident by the formulation of Strategic Objective 5: Protect biodiversity, water & agricultural resources. The SDF for Phuthaditjhaba ticks all the boxes required by national, governmental and district spatial planning policies. It follows the set guidelines for ‘sustainable spatial urban form’ and addresses social, economic and biophysical concerns.

However, what the SDF does not do is acknowledge Phuthaditjhaba as a unique montane city with different characteristics and concerns than those of a non-montane city; it does not link the development strategies to the Millennium Development Goals (reminder: this SDF was written before the SDGs were formulated) nor does it entertain the notion of sustainable communities (although it does allude to the enabling/support of communities via its call for the creation of precincts/neighbourhoods).

Issue has to be taken with the IDP’s fixation on ‘economic growth’, which is grounded in a neo-liberal economic paradigm—not favoured in sustainability circles. The term ‘economic development’ is more apt: sustainable development’s objective is not to enhance consumerism, but rather to ensure happy lives; not to attain an affluent lifestyle but rather to enhance the quality of life (Dresner 2008, pp. 74–80).

The special characteristics (if any) of a montane city need to be identified—how it differs from other cities with specific issues which apply to a montane city, but not elsewhere. Some characteristics and suggested solutions:

• Geomorphology: extreme slopes; erosion; challenging storm water management; less buildable space; concentrated settlements; higher net densities; more natural areas; more obvious ecological corridors, thus more urban open space.

• Transportation: more onerous accessibility; difficulty for pedestrians/cyclists; alternative modes of transport (e.g. cable cars, funiculars); long commuting times. Solution: Promote localised employment to obviate the need for commuting.

• Services: the higher cost of infrastructure due to the difficult topography; Solution: localised water and sanitation mini-networks.

• Legibility: does the landform facilitate higher imageability or does the topography promote insular communities?

• Vicinity to catchment headwaters: maintenance of water quality is imperative. Solution: effective erosion prevention schemes.

• Mountain landscapes: Tourism opportunities abound thanks to spectacular landscape.

To recap, specific factors which can inhibit the planning of Phuthaditjhaba as a sustainable montane city are the lack of a long term view of its future, the challenging landscape, dispersed urban form and concurrent, discrete, socio-political context.

Given these existing impediments to planning for sustainability, alternatives to overcome—or rather replace—current practice must be found. In the following paragraph, precedents which point to better solutions are compared to the SDGs (to ascertain to what extent they comply). An alternative approach is then distilled from this comparative analysis.

12.5 Alternative Approaches for Sustainable Community Planning: A Comparative Analysis

The SDGs imply certain substantive traits inherent to communities which purport to be sustainable. To identify appropriate traits (and deduce substantive principles), three different approaches to sustainable community planning are compared to the SDGs. How they correlate with the SDGs and translate into principles of substance is then deduced. The three approaches investigated are: The EcoDistricts Protocol® (EDP); the Grabouw Pilot project* (Grabouw is a town in the Western Cape province of SA); and Herbert Girardet’s view on sustainable cities.

The SDGs are discussed to establish a baseline, followed by EDP. Grabouw and Herbert Girardet are discussed very briefly (readers are referred to the sources).

12.5.1 UNDP’s Sustainable Development Goals

The United Nations Development Programme’s (UNDP) Sustainable Development Goals, 2015 (SDGs) is the beacon of this book. Seventeen SDGs were formulated in 2015, with the objective for humanity of attaining all by 2030.The focus of this book is SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities. A critical look at the SDGs reveal that there are overlap and repetition, and differentiation between goals of substance and of procedure is not always clear. However, a proficient planning team should be able to view the SDGs through a montane filter and use the applicable SDG indicators in their planning analyses and proposals.

12.5.2 EcoDistricts Protocol®

Although the EDP is procedural in essence, it is based on substantive principles. It was developed to enable spatially defined districts to self-assess with regard to sustainability, with the aim of being accredited as sustainable urban districts. The Protocol requires complete buy-in by most (if not all) stakeholder groups within a district and it demands continuous participation during implementation of the Protocol.

For the Protocol to be initiated, it is mandatory for a district to commit to the three (sustainability) imperatives (EDP 2018, p. 8), namely Equity, Resilience and Climate protection. These three imperatives cover the whole spectrum of sustainability concerns. The Imperatives are supported by six priority areas (EDP 2018, pp. 9–14), namely Place (create inclusive and vibrant communities), Prosperity (support education and economic opportunities that build prosperity and accelerate innovation), Health and well-being (nurture people’s health and happiness), Connectivity (build effective connections between people and places), Living infrastructure (enable and connect to flourishing ecosystems) and Resource regeneration (work towards net positive energy, water and waste).

Each priority area consists of a number of objective categories. The performance of each of the objective categories and their subservient objectives are measured against the three imperatives. To follow the Protocol towards sustainability and certification, four steps are to be successfully completed by a district. These are: Commitment to the imperatives, Formation of a collaborative governance structure, Roadmap (a performance-based action plan—approved by EcoDistricts) and Performance (assessment and—if successful—certification). To retain certification, assessment must be successfully repeated every second year (EDP 2018, p. 15).

The Protocol sets specific targets, for instance, to become a net-positive district with regards to water, waste and energy. This is a measurable goal. The EDP was designed to be applied in existing communities. However, the Imperatives, Priority Areas and Objectives can be used by planners as guiding substantive planning principles for new communities. The EDP suggests that any sustainability drive must be community-based: initiated and managed. It cannot be steered (with any legitimacy) by outside, centralised or distant authorities or entities. For this reason communities with common purpose must be identified and then equipped to ‘become sustainable’. For an EDP-type process to be successful in Phuthaditjhaba, we have to know who Phuthaditjhaba’s communities are so that they can be empowered to become sustainable. The EDPs’ imperatives and priority areas all align to the SDGs and are relevant for Phuthaditjhaba.

12.5.3 Grabouw Pilot Project

This study was conducted by the Development Bank of Southern Africa (DBSA) for the Theewaterskloof Municipality in the Western Cape, to formulate sustainability principles for developers who intend to invest in the town of Grabouw (for the sake of clarity, I refer to the study report as “Grabouw” instead of DBSA). The principles are as poetic as they are relevant. They all align with the SDG 11’s objectives and they are relevant to the Phuthaditjhaba context:

Sense of justice: means the meeting of fundamental human needs and participatory democratic governance.

Sense of limits: renewable energy, zero waste, sustainable transport, construction and water usage.

Sense of place: health, well-being, soulfulness, safety.

Sense of history: cultural diversity, community, memory.

Sense of craft: local economy, fair trade, equity, local food supplies, skills development.

Sense of nature: reverence for life, biodiversity and preservation, ecological approach.

(DBSA 2006, p. 26).

12.5.4 Herbert Girardet’s Vision for “Creating Sustainable Cities”

Girardet (1999, p. 72) quotes Richard Rogers (1998), from Cities for a Small Planet. Therein, Rogers states that the sustainable city is:

• A Just City, where justice, food, shelter, education, health and hope are fairly distributed;

• A Beautiful City, where art, architecture and landscape spark the imagination and move the spirit;

• An Ecological City, which minimises its ecological impact, where landscape and built form are balanced and where buildings and infrastructures are safe and resource efficient;

• A Creative City, where open-mindedness and experimentation mobilise the full potential of its human resources and allows the fast response to change;

• A City of Easy Contact and Mobility, where information is exchanged both face-to-face and electronically;

• A Compact and Polycentric city, which protects the countryside, focuses and integrates communities within neighbourhoods and maximises proximity;

• A Diverse City, where a broad range of overlapping activities create animation, inspiration and foster a vital public life.

So, to glean the substantive principles required to guide communities towards sustainability, one needs to look wider than SDG 11, and even wider than all the SDGs. From this discussion and other studies, I have identified nine principles of substance for sustainable communities. These are described below.

12.6 Sustainable Community Principles

The substance of sustainability is that it has to nurture the triple bottom line—the environmental, social and economic domains. The sustainability requirements for each domain are (somewhat edited from the original description in Urban Green File 2007, pp. 18–23):

12.6.1 Environmental Principles

A healthy environment is in homeostasis—the rate of entropy is slow. A healthy ecosystem is diverse, non-polluted, non-compromised by invaders, generates enough energy for own use and recycles its waste as resource for the next metabolic level. In this scenario, natural capital is preserved. The same must apply to our making of habitats.

The first principle is Diversity. A prerequisite for healthy natural capital is an ecosystem which maintains the highest possible level of biodiversity. All human activities (extraction, construction and operation) must follow a nurturing programme to retain and restore ecological integrity and biodiversity. The level of local biodiversity must be ascertained during the planning process and benchmarks set, as is prescribed by the EDP. Grabouw calls it: ‘Sense of Limits’ and ‘Sense of Nature’ (DBSA 2006, p. 26). Girardet calls it ‘Ecological City’ (1999, p. 72). SDG 15 is the corresponding goal, but diversity is also addressed by SDGs 6, 7, 11 and 13.

The second principle is Zero Waste. Waste is actually a resource (Girardet 1999, p. 35; McDonough 2002, pp. 92–116). No waste must leave its source. Sewage and garden waste can become energy and compost. Solid household and commercial waste are (re)- manufacturing resources. The only waste which may be exported from source is hazardous waste—on condition that it be de-contaminated. EDP’s priority areas of ‘Living Infrastructure’ and ‘Resource Regeneration’ apply. The corresponding SDGs are 3, 6, 7, 9, 11 and 15 but these SDGs do not specifically address the principle of zero waste. Zero waste corresponds to Grabouw (2006, p. 26) and Girardet (1999, p. 72) as above.

Principle three: No Resource Import. Every place has some local, in situ natural resource which must be identified for potential utilisation: a clay or a dolerite deposit, good agricultural soil, a wetland, a forest, etc. Local natural resources (natural capital) must be used prudently. In fact, development must be limited to the supply available:

• Energy: a demand management programme must be entrenched. Local energy generation lessens demand from the grid. Solar, wind or bio-generation of electricity should be de rigueur in every settlement. Passive architecture, solar water heating and rooftop photo-voltaic panels must be mandatory. Communal mini off-grids or grid-feed-in must become the norm for electricity provision in settlement development.

• Water: South Africa is a water-stressed country. There is no logic behind our use of potable water for the flushing of sewage. Conversion to eco-sanitation alternatives, rainwater harvesting and grey water systems must be mandatory. Storm water must be ecologically managed. Water-wise gardening must be practised in all public spaces and encouraged in private gardens. Bulk potable water demand will decrease dramatically if all these water management metrics are implemented.

• Local materials: for building and for manufacturing (crafts), etc.

No SDG specifically prohibits resource import but it is sometimes implied. This principle corresponds to Grabouw’s ‘Sense of Craft’ and ‘Sense of Limits’ (2006, pp. 26), Girardet’s ‘non-importation’ (1999, pp. 27–46) and EDP’s ‘Resource Regeneration’ and ‘Living Infrastructure’ (2018, pp. 13–14).

12.6.2 The Social Principles

A resilient community is one which is diverse, safe, healthy, equitable, identifies with place and controls it.

Diversity (again—a continuation of principle one): the opportunity must be created for a variety of income groups to settle in a community, inter alia, to prevent the creation of ghettos. A variety of housing, tenure types and mixed land uses will provide support. To be a socially vibrant and economically viable community, people from all walks of life have to reside there.

Principle four is Safety and Health. It includes a healthy habitat: through zero waste and care for the environment, pollution will be prevented, ensuring clean air, water and soil. It will entail crime prevention by designing against it. A locally employed community is a resident community, imbuing the public domain with high levels of informal surveillance. For surveillance to be effective as crime-deterrent, the public domain must be well-made: visible from private domains, with a clear and permeable interface between public and private. This is facilitated by street-oriented buildings (perimeter-block built form) as opposed to pavilion-type buildings. Traffic safety also comes into play. Because commuting will be minimised, traffic volumes and peak-hours will be much less pronounced than currently, making streets friendlier for pedestrians, cyclists and children. Streets must be redesigned for non-auto activities. Lastly, under principle four is the issue of natural hazards. Flood lines must be respected, wetlands avoided, fire-breaks made; storm water systems maintained, etc.

Principle five is Equity. Five distinct types of equity are relevant here: Generational equity, which is probably the most overlooked aspect of community planning. In modern society the elderly is seen as superfluous. A sustainable community will facilitate participation of the elderly in communal life. Public places are designated for them to control and socialise in. The needs of children must be met by ensuring healthy, stimulating and safe playing facilities, explorable nature, places for socialising (hanging out), well-placed and accessible creches. Secondly is Gender equity—which is facilitated by ensuring equal opportunity for all genders to actively participate in community activities. Thirdly, care for the Handicapped. The public domain must be designed to ease access and movement for all manner of disabled persons. Institutional support programmes should abet communal care for the disabled. Fifthly, Land Tenure: Land occupancy must be made secure for all through provision of the full range of tenure types (full title, sectional title, leasehold and rental). Lastly, Access to facilities, schooling, training, nature and quietude adds to an equitable habitat.

Principle six: No Resource Import—nurture local social resources, such as Labour. The people who (are to) live in a (new) settlement must form the core of the labour pool. Training of the local labour force must be obligatory. Secondly, local knowledge and wisdom -local expertise and knowledge of crafts, the terrain, customs, traditions, symbols and the arts must be employed during planning and nurtured for the operational phase of the settlement.

Principle seven is Local Control. The ability for people to control their home environment is crucial. They must be able to influence the creation and management of their own habitats. Structures must be put in place whereby a local “Community Council”—accountable to the community and participated in by them—runs the local show, with delegated powers on all matters local. Such a council will be subordinate to City Council on wider urban matters, but City or regional councils may not overrule community councils on local matters.

Principle eight is Identity. The city and all community settlements’ spatial structures must be legible and imageable. “…if the environment is visibly organised and sharply identified, then the citizen can inform it with his own meanings and connections” (Lynch 1960, p. 92). Spatial planning can foster identity, reinforced by a hierarchy of visual clues: landmarks, nodes, edges, gateways and channels of circulation. However, place’s special qualities must be ‘discovered’: informed by ancestral graves, archaeological and symbolic artefacts and places or unique natural features. These elements must be incorporated into the design with the purpose of imbuing a unique sense of place. Genius Loci (spirit of place) is the embodiment of the quality of the whole place. A site’s genius has to be respected and celebrated in design. People want to identify with loci. If (their) place is special, people develop pride in it and care all the more for it. Spatial identity fosters communal identity.

The SDGs which are achieved under the ‘social’ heading are numbers 3,4, 5 and 11. Grabouw’s ‘Senses of Craft, History, Place and Justice’ (2006, p. 26) are all addressed, Girardet’s ‘Culture’ and ‘Participation’ (1999, pp. 70,71) are attended to and the EcoDistrict Protocol’s priority areas of ‘place, prosperity, health and connectivity’ (2018, pp. 9–12) are satisfied.

12.6.3 Economic

The economic paradigm followed here is vested in Aldo Leopold’s Land Ethic (Leopold 1949). Following from that, Natural Capitalism (Hawken et al. 1999), propose an alternative paradigm about the modern economy. It emphasises services rather than goods, zero waste and replenishing the earth’s natural capital (those environmental services which we take for granted and for free but which is becoming finite: clean water, fresh air, biodiverse ecosystems and healthy topsoil). The Steady-State Economy of Herman Daly (in Dresner 2002, pp. 28, 29) set the foundation for the concept of the Circular Economy, currently vying with Neo-Liberal Capitalism for our future. The stated intention here is to preserve Phuthaditjhaba’s natural capital within a socio-economic scenario of full employment with zero waste.

Local, diverse economic base (economic version of principle one):

Every community must be regarded as an independent entity (albeit part of a larger entity such as a city or region). It follows that such an entity should have an economic reason for its existence—it must be economically viable, otherwise it is parasitical. An economic base should preferably be based on the primary sector (agriculture, forestry, fisheries or mining). A concerted effort must be made to identify natural resources for the creation of a fledgling primary sector. The aim is to ‘grow’ the local economy, eventually to include all sectors. This underpins—yet again—the notion of diversity. A local, community economy will obviate the need for commuting. Eliminating the need for commuting is imperative to attain sustainability.

Local control (economic application of principle eight):

“Central…is the need to identify and optimally utilise the comparative advantages of the … area. Based on these comparative advantages, economic development opportunities can be identified. Furthermore, sustainable development requires specific institutional capacity. For the development process to be successful, communities must have capabilities to manage and maintain their own development programmes. This capacity must be structured and channelled into community institutions” (Urban Econ 2007). The importance of local, communal control over a local habitat and resources cannot be stressed enough.

Under the heading of ‘Economy’, the following SDG’s are satisfied: 1, 2, 8, 11, 16 and 17. The EcoDistrict Protocol’s ‘Prosperity and Resource Regeneration imperatives’ are satisfied (2018, pp. 10, 14); so are Girardet’s ‘Non-importation of Energy’ and ‘Popular Participation’ (1999, pp. 43–46, 71) and Grabouw’s ‘Senses of Justice, Limits, Craft and Nature’ (2006, p. 26).

Lastly, principle nine is taken directly from Girardet: a Compact and Polycentric Urban Form, especially relevant for Phuthaditjhaba: communities will live in compact villages or neighbourhoods, separated by ecological corridors to protect the countryside (and natural capital). Population growth should be accommodated in a combination of prudent densification and the establishment of new communities, to form a polycentric greater Phuthaditjhaba. This pattern of built form will also be better suited to this landscape.

12.7 The Principles Summarised

In essence, sustainability is about demand management: demand for energy, water, material, land and capital. By reducing users’ demand on resources, the cumulative demand (pressure) on bulk service delivery is reduced, with consequent reduction of capital and maintenance costs. Through reduction of pressure on resources, entropy is slowed down; less energy is embedded in the process of the creation and maintenance of human habitation.

The modern, motorised society is so structured and biased against sustainability that an extraordinary change of mind-set has to happen to facilitate sustainable communities. We will have to accept drastic changes in lifestyle and a much more prudent usage of resources.

Nine substantive principles for sustainability have been identified. If applied appropriately, sustainable communities should be the outcome:

• 1. Diversity (biophysical, social and economic)

• 2. Zero waste

• 3. Local economic base

• 4. No resource import

• 5. Safety and health

• 6. Equity

• 7. Identity

• 8. Local governance

• 9. Compact and polycentric urban form

Once communities in Phuthaditjhaba have been identified and co-opted in the planning process, these principles must be workshopped with them. Every community must be capacitated to eventually become proficient with the principles and implement them in a system equating the EcoDistricts® Protocol model. The vexing question now arises: how do we identify these communities?

12.8 Identifying Communities

It appears from the discussion so far that planning for sustainability on a city-wide scale will probably not translate into success. The most appropriate approach would be from the bottom, up; from individual community scale, to groups of communities (tribes and urban districts), scaled up to the city as a whole. The identification of communities who would be able (and willing) to act in concert is imperative as the first step in the planning process.

It is my opinion that few residents of Phuthaditjhaba identify with it as a ‘place’ and few regard it as a city; people rather identify with their local, spatially-specific community. If so, it will facilitate sustainable community planning—two of the prerequisites for sustainable communities actually require that a community identify itself spatially as such, so as to enable self-government. It is also essential that actual communities be spatially identified so that metrics for the measurement of levels of sustainability can eventually be established. Identifying (and demarcating) a community in space may be attempted in a manner of ways:

• assume man-made boundaries such as highways or railway lines as defining elements of the community space;

• use tribal area boundaries (in this instance it will only provide partial answers, for large parts of Phuthaditjhaba lie outside the traditional tribal areas and some tribes will consist of more than one community);

• conduct image and place studies, based on the perception of residents, to identify perceived community spaces.

Image and place studies have been used in the past to determine the legibility of cities, to formulate strategies for urban design and to discover what please city-users visually and experientially (Lynch 1960; Appleyard 1976; Appleyard et al. 1964; Hester 1985; van Biljon 1986).Image studies attempt to describe how people visualise, conceptualise and eventually understand their physical habitats. “Imagebility: that quality in a physical object which gives it a high probability of evoking a strong image in any given observer” (Lynch 1960:9). This approach was introduced to the city planning world through Kevin Lynch’s seminal work, The Image of the City. “Image (and place) studies… focus on the physiological, psychological, and social dimensions of environments as they are used and experienced by people, and on how those do or should shape design and design solutions” and “…how people use, like, or simply behave in given environments” (Vernez-Moudon 1992: 339, 341).

To reiterate: the first prerequisite for a community to be or become sustainable is that it should have a distinct identity, a uniqueness which differentiates it from other communities, a trait or special place, something tangible or intangible as a common denominator amongst members. Surely some communities in the greater Phuthaditjhaba will have sense of identity with their local place of residence. This can be investigated, hopefully discovered and then ‘defined’. A common denominator may be discovered and applied to create an image of greater Phuthaditjhaba, as a gathering of communities. If such an image does not yet exist, one objective for planning then becomes to facilitate the emergence of one or more group images: “It is these group images, exhibiting consensus among significant numbers, that interest city planners…” (Lynch 1960, p 7). Lynch, et al. (1976), Hester (1985) and this author (1986) all used variations of imageability and place studies to ascertain residents’ urban image: group interviews were conducted after individuals in the groups were asked to draw mental maps of their living spaces.

These were combined with notations of image evoked in trained observers in the field. It is proposed that similar studies be conducted in Phuthaditjhaba (adjusted to purpose) so as to discover the ‘city’s’ image and identifiable communities. It is hoped that a clear picture emerges on how to link community with place in Phuthaditjhaba. Not only should it assist in spatially defining communities, but it should also give insights into temporal characteristics of Phuthaditjhaba which would otherwise not even be known. These insights will be of incalculable value in the planning of Phuthaditjhaba. “People can and do rebel against imposed environments by refusing to use them as intended…. For environmental professions such differences in perception and production are serious matters. They can unwittingly plan aspects of the environment that have no relevance to the population, while ignoring aspect that are critical” (Appleyard 1976, p. 2).

It is proposed that the planning process of Phuthaditjhaba be preceded by select image, place and environment-behaviour studies (IPEBS). It is expected that the outcomes will provide planners and decision-makers with a formidable palette of information to inform spatial planning of Phuthaditjhaba.

The methodologies chosen for the IPEBS should be geared to the identification of communities of and in Phuthaditjhaba, as should the choice of respondent groups. For instance, we need to know what the perceptions and experiences of women, as opposed to men, are. The same apply to different age groups (with special attention to the elderly and youth). The geographic distribution of certain groups and tribes have to be identified. One could also differentiate between economic status. The content of interviews will have to be carefully tailored, so as to generate responses related to the identification of community space and social space. During group interviews, respondents will be requested to draw their city or living environment, to add as much detail as they can and to describe everything on the actual sketch. Interviewers must not ask leading questions but may ask questions for clarity and suggest added descriptions. Respondent groups must be chosen to share similar or common characteristics, such as age, gender, home location, occupation, etc. The interviewers have to be pre-trained and well-informed about the area and they must speak the same home language as the respondents. It is suggested that local University of the Free State geography, anthropology and/or sociology students be trained and deployed as interviewers, supported by the town planners. The information thus gathered will then be interpreted by the planners. From recorded and interpreted responses, actual socially cohesive communities could hopefully be identified and spatially demarcated. These demarcated communities should then (eventually) become the building blocks of local government, i.e. voting wards, planning districts and administrative units. The spatial and temporal characteristics of community space so identified must inform planning and management of the sustainability process.

In the illustrated Image-Community map (Fig. 12.4), many assumptions were made by the author- it cannot be regarded as valid, but it does illustrate how such a map can eventually look. It is assumed, for the purpose of method, that the communities thus identified (delineated in the map with red border lines) will be used as the socio-spatial entities required for planning purposes. The writer’s ad-hoc delineation was done by employing a combination of geographic features and image elements, as were used by Lynch and Appleyard in their studies in 1960 and 1976. The ‘perceived’ community boundaries was assumed to be formed by edge-elements, such as main roads, rivers, ridges and watersheds (the latter two forming visual termination lines of built-up areas). In a few cases, nodes or single-use areas (such as the ‘government hill’ and industrial areas), were assumed to form strong visual centres of their resident communities. In many of the informal areas, purely social attributes (such as tribal affiliation) were assumed to determine spatial cohesion.

Fig. 12.4

Source author

Example map showing potential delineation of communities in Phuthaditjhaba according to imageability and tribal boundaries.

Image/place studies hold promise as methodology to identify communities. It is proposed that the communities of Phuthaditjhaba be identified via this method.

12.9 Recommendations for the Planning of Phuthaditjhaba’s Sustainable Future

Phuthaditjhaba’s communities must be identified and spatially demarcated. Imageability/place study methods is proposed for this, using the local campus of the University of the Free State as the appropriate research institution. Once communities have been identified, they must formulate visions and objectives for their communities and city as roadmap to a sustainable future. The vision and objectives must satisfy the nine substantive sustainability principles. The EcoDistricts Protocol®-process should be followed in vision and goal formulation, guided by in-depth analysis of the biophysical and socio-economic status of Phuthaditjhaba: ‘500-year and 100-year challenges’ must be identified and addressed in the planning strategy eventually formulated.

Issues which must be attended to are:

• water catchment management;

• grazing and erosion control;

• eradication of invasive alien vegetation;

• localised employment must be maximised; so that

• the need for commuting can be eliminated;

• the rewilding of nature, so as to;

• optimize tourism potential (Phuthaditjhaba as outdoor adventure tourism destination);

• energy and food self-sufficiency; and

• community self-governance.

If these issues are successfully addressed, Phuthaditjhaba as mountain city will be celebrated and—over time—become a place with a special spirit. Spatial planning worries over sprawl, traffic jams, local economic underdevelopment, inequitable communities, polluted ecosystems and general, population unhappiness will be nightmares of the past. However, given the current local government dynamics, the political sphere will probably be the most difficult arena to conquer. Some changes to the municipal statutory edifice will be required to enable this change in approach from magnum, central municipal governance, to local, communal determination.

Hopefully, when every individual community in Phuthaditjhaba has a celebrated living space, the composite may form a city with image and character. A ‘there’ when we get there…