11
Democratisation of Environmental Governance: Perceptions and Attitudes of Township Women Towards the Environment D. Darkey Published online: 18 April 2012 # Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012 Abstract Democratisation of environmental governance usually leads to positive changes in peoples perceptions and attitudes towards the environment and increases their participation in environmental matters. This paper aims to establish whether the same is true for township women following the democratisation of environmental governance in South Africa. The study is carried out in Mamelodi township, where semi-structured survey instruments were used to interview women who are heads of households. Although the literature implies that democracy fosters the participation of citizens in general and women in particular, the study findings reveal that in practice, besides institutional bottlenecks and social handicaps, factors such as poverty eradication, the availability of jobs, safety and security, transparent governance and service delivery rather than democratic environmental gover- nance determine the attitudes of underprivileged groups such as women to environmental issues. Keywords Environmental democratisation . Governance . Women participation . Perceptions . Mamelodi Introduction Decades of centralised apartheid governance in South Africa was replaced by democratic rule in 1994. The immediate offspring of democracy was the imperative to transform governance and administration from an authoritarian-regulated paradigm to a more humane, benevolent and inclusive one. Environmentalists hailed this change as the watershed for public participation, not only in policy decision making, but more importantly in the implementation of environmental policy. The general Urban Forum (2012) 23:209219 DOI 10.1007/s12132-012-9145-1 D. Darkey (*) Department of Geography, Geoinformatics and Meteorology, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa e-mail: [email protected]

Democratisation of Environmental Governance: Perceptions and Attitudes of Township Women Towards the Environment

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Democratisation of Environmental Governance:Perceptions and Attitudes of Township WomenTowards the Environment

D. Darkey

Published online: 18 April 2012# Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Abstract Democratisation of environmental governance usually leads to positivechanges in people’s perceptions and attitudes towards the environment and increasestheir participation in environmental matters. This paper aims to establish whether thesame is true for township women following the democratisation of environmentalgovernance in South Africa. The study is carried out in Mamelodi township, wheresemi-structured survey instruments were used to interview women who are heads ofhouseholds. Although the literature implies that democracy fosters the participationof citizens in general and women in particular, the study findings reveal that inpractice, besides institutional bottlenecks and social handicaps, factors such aspoverty eradication, the availability of jobs, safety and security, transparentgovernance and service delivery rather than democratic environmental gover-nance determine the attitudes of underprivileged groups such as women toenvironmental issues.

Keywords Environmental democratisation . Governance .Womenparticipation . Perceptions . Mamelodi

Introduction

Decades of centralised apartheid governance in South Africa was replaced bydemocratic rule in 1994. The immediate offspring of democracy was the imperativeto transform governance and administration from an authoritarian-regulated paradigmto a more humane, benevolent and inclusive one. Environmentalists hailed thischange as the watershed for public participation, not only in policy decision making,but more importantly in the implementation of environmental policy. The general

Urban Forum (2012) 23:209–219DOI 10.1007/s12132-012-9145-1

D. Darkey (*)Department of Geography, Geoinformatics and Meteorology, University of Pretoria,Pretoria, South Africae-mail: [email protected]

argument is that a democratic dispensation will redress inequality, promote environ-mental justice and afford the poor opportunities in the spheres of environmentaldecision making and participation (Gibson 1999). Others, however, dispute the linkbetween regime type and attitudes to the environment, contending that even if pro-environment policies result from democratisation these may not necessarily reflectlocal communal values and therefore fail to change perceptions and improve attitudes(Cornwall 2003; Patel 2006).

Also contested is the attitude and role of women in the environment, particularly ifthey are afforded the decision-making freedoms that a democracy offers. In the earlydays of the eco-feminism literature, the general position was that women are ‘natu-rally wired’ for positive environmental action (Shiva 1989; Plumwood 1992). Suchassumptions of biologically deterministic closeness of women to their environment,and apparent synergies between women and community work and/or defence ofnatural resources has since given way to historical, political, ideological, social andeconomic explanations (Jackson 1993). Post-apartheid South Africa has also seen thedevelopment of a large body of literature on women and participative environmentalmovements (Beall 2005; Scott and Oelofse 2005; Barnett and Scott 2007; Patel2009). The South African literature seeks to evaluate the transformation of theenvironmental governance landscape, policy development possesses and procedures,practicalities of implementation, and how these are affecting target groups such as thepreviously marginalised black women.

Indeed a plethora of progressive environmental regulations emanated from SouthAfrica's democratic dispensation, firmly placing it among the elite countries of theworld in terms of environment-friendly policies (Patel 2009). The new regulationssought, among other things, to redeem the victims of apartheid-era environmentalpolicy, which, although quite effective in sectors such as wildlife conservation, was atthe expense of disadvantaged segments of society (Kabiri 2004). Through theConstitution of 1996 and the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA),Act No. 107 of 1998 (Republic of South Africa 1996, 1998), all South Africans,including township dwellers and women, were afforded the opportunity and encour-aged to participate in matters relating to decision making and management of theirenvironment. It is thus essential to establish how women's environmental freedom,fostered by policies of the new dispensation, translates into attitudes and perceptionson environmental issues—close to two decades into democracy.

The paper provides a review of the South African environmental participationpolicy development and implementation literature and seeks to evaluate these inrelation to township women. In the process, the relationship between the democrat-isation of environmental governance and changes in environmental attitudes as wellas the relationship between women's interests and environmental issues is explored.Through these, the study seeks to establish whether liberalised environmental gover-nance guarantees desirable environmental attitudes such as a more positive perceptionof environmental management issues and increased participation in environmentalaffairs by women. The empirical research focus is on women who are heads ofhouseholds with decision-making powers and responsibilities. Their demographicprofiles, views and attitudes regarding constitutional environmental rights,governance and service delivery issues, and participation in environmentalmatters are sought.

210 D. Darkey

Democracy and Public Participation in Environmental Affairs

Post-independence governance in Africa has been dominated by authoritarianregimes. Most of these dictatorships have failed to propagate and fulfil positiveenvironmental agendas. Ascher (1999) observes that authoritarian states have thetendency to subject the stewardship of environmental resources to special selfishinterests. Indeed, there is an abundance of literature on the adverse relationshipbetween autocratic regimes in Africa and environmental conservation—a relationshipthat produces consequences such as loss of biodiversity, overexploitation of uniquenatural resources, mismanagement of wetlands and destruction of local environmentalresources (Gibson 1999; Kabiri 2004).

Based on the negative environmental consequences associated with central-controlled governance, reinforced by the legacy of the pre-modern Western statewhere people interacted with the environment in an unsustainable manner (Western1994), it is tempting to conclude that more positive environmental outcomes willemanate from democratic governance. A few issues will, however, evoke caution.One is that since there is relatively limited experience of democratic environmentalgovernance in Africa, the basis for expectations of optimistic environmental out-comes resulting from democracy remains an untested contention. Second, by enforc-ing participative compliance, the autocratic regimes that governed South Africa until1994 achieved relatively positive environmental conservation results when comparedwith democratic regimes elsewhere in the world. However, South Africa's positiveenvironmental achievement was at a high socio-economic cost, borne in particular bythe black population and marginalised social groups such as black women (Kabiri2004). Democracy entails individual, yet popular choice. In terms of the environment,popular choice can be, and often is, selfish and aimed at short-term gain. The essay ofHardin (1968)—Tragedy of the commons—bears testimony to this tendency. Poor,resource-deprived local communities may order their choices in such a way thatparticipation in the management of their environment is relegated to the bottom oftheir list of priorities. Worse still, their choices could be detrimental—in thelong run—to the environment and their own welfare. Environmental policyseeks to address these. However, as is the case for South Africa, disjuncturebetween the interpretive frames of different actions involved in the participatorypolicy making and implementation processes further compounds these contentions(Barnett and Scott 2007).

In democratic South Africa, the 1996 Constitution is the overarching law thatdictates the fundamental values, rights and obligations of all citizens, public officialsand organs of state. With regard to environmental issues, Sowman (2002) observesthat since becoming truly independent in 1994, environmental concerns have re-ceived significant attention in the wave of policies and laws promulgated in SouthAfrica. The Constitution contains cogent clauses that guarantee the environmentalrights of all South Africans. The Bill of Rights (in Chapter 2 of the Constitution)states that ‘everyone has the right to an environment that is not harmful to their healthor wellbeing’. Sowman (2002) further notes that the major policy documents thatgovern South Africa's environmental landscape (the Constitution and NationalEnvironmental Management Act—NEMA) require of government the sustainableprovision of basic services (food, shelter, healthcare and education) in a safe and

Democratisation of Environmental Governance 211

healthy environment—especially to previously disadvantaged communities—ensuringthe participation in environmental management by all; developing the understanding,skills and capacity necessary for achieving equitable and effective participation;ensuring the participation by vulnerable and disadvantaged persons; and promotingthe vital participative role of women and the youth in environmental managementand development.

Patel (2009) concurs, noting that South Africa's environmental legislation whichderives from a pro-environment Constitution, together with progressive, environmen-tal law reform and active participation in global environmental negotiations, sincedemocratisation in 1994, has earned the country international recognition for address-ing issues of environmental justice, inequality and gendered environmental discrim-ination. However, together with many researchers, she questions the effectiveness ofthese policies in ensuring full participation by the poor, empowering the marginalisedand giving voice to the voiceless (Cornwall 2003; Scott and Oelofse 2005). Theseresearchers have been most critical of the impact of post-apartheid environmentalpolicy on women arguing that ‘competing interests remain clustered around powerand resources… in ways that exclude women’ (Beall 2005: 253).

A Focus on Women

By focusing on the women of Mamelodi township—precisely those who are heads ofhouseholds—the study seeks to establish how ‘the idea that there is a positive synergybetween women's interest and environment’ (Jackson 1993: 1947) unfolds in demo-cratic South Africa. The position as female heads of households affords such womendecision-making opportunities without the limitations culturally imposed by thepresence of ‘the alpha male’ or politically by apartheid. Notwithstanding, otherhistorical and socio-economic conditions may affect their role as decision makersand therefore the choices they make.

Historically, women across the globe had been sidelined by political, economicand societal institutions. Although the principles of equality of men and women wererecognised in both the UN Charter in 1945 and the United Nations Declaration ofHuman Rights in 1948, the majority of development planners and workers did notfully address women's position in the development process until recently. Augustine(1994: 17), for example, observes that ‘the management of towns and cities has beendone on behalf of women, rather than with women. In the past, women have had verylittle say in the way the environment has been managed, yet it is women who best knowtheir areas, their needs and the issues that concern themselves and their families’.

However, internationally, a litany of efforts to incorporate women and take intoaccount their views on environmental and developmental issues have beendocumented (Todes et al. 2010). In the 1970s, such initiatives were dominated byan approach that sought to increase women's access to institutions, resources andsocio-economic opportunities as a means of addressing inequality. Captioned the‘Women in Development approach’, it contrasts with the ‘Gender and Developmentapproach’, which focused on understanding socially constructed gender roles as thebasis of inequality and the importance of redistributing power in social relations(Goetz 1997). These approaches culminated in gender mainstreaming—a set of tools

212 D. Darkey

and processes designed to integrate and ensure a gender perspective in policy andgender equality in development (Squires 2007; Todes et al. 2010). Some researchersand political scientists, on the other hand, have advocated for ‘women's voices’ and‘access to power’ in formal politics in everyday life and through pressure in socialmovements (McEwan 2005; Hassim 2006). South Africa has tended to lean towardsthe gender mainstreaming approach (Van Donk 2002). As noted by Todes et al.(2010), irrespective of approach, instead of focusing narrowly on representivity, thecore issue should be gender awareness in policy and practice.

In practice, the roles that women play are different from those played by men inany given society, and their situation is determined by legislation, religious norms,economic status or class, cultural values, ethnicity and types of productive activity intheir community and household. Apartheid-entrenched migrant labour system meantthat, in the South African context, black women were forced to play the productionand community roles in addition to their natural reproduction role (Van Donk 2002).In each of these roles, women were adversely affected by what Duncker (1999)identifies as a wide gap between women's extensive economic participation and theirlow political and social power. Indeed, during the apartheid era, development andresource allocation strategies tended to prioritise the needs and aspirations of the mostvocal and politically active (Van Donk 2002). Thus under apartheid South Africa, themarginalisation of black women in terms of their voices being heard in policyformulation, their participation being protected in policy implementation and theirpositions on environmental issues being taken seriously was significant. With regardsto these, Van Donk (2002: 205) observes that: ‘during the apartheid era, policy wasmodelled on an image of the average South African citizen as a white male, who has agood education, (is) employed, owns property and a car, (is) married with a family,(has) a support network at home (wife and/or domestic worker), (is) Afrikaans/English speaking, Christian, with no physical impairments’.

Though post-apartheid legislation sought to address many of these female-insensitive issues, the question regarding how these legislative reforms are affectingattitudes and perceptions of the previously disadvantaged, such as township women,to environmental issues remain. In reviewing the evolving consideration of gender inpolicy making and implementation in South Africa, Scott and Oelofse (2005: 445)point out that ‘marginalized people… remain excluded from environmental decisionmaking despite the promise of democratic equality’. A number of cogent cultural,institutional and economic reasons account for this. Institutionally, if citizens perceivepublic institutions and officials to be inefficient and corrupt, their attitude to theenvironment is negatively affected (Pellegrini and Gerlagh 2006). Furthermore, evenwhere good gender-sensitive policies exist, institutional context of implementation donot always deliver on the mandate (Patel 2006). Culturally, Meyiwa (2011: 119)maintains that ‘at the heart of the debate is that South Africa is, despite a number oftransformation processes, a patriarchal society that employs culture (as a tradition andsophisticated contemporary structural system) to deny women their rights and meansof voicing issues that affect them the most’. Thus the struggle for women lies in thesystemic failure to translate de jure equality into tangible outcomes at local andindividual levels—and in practice, participation all too often involves only the voicesof the vocal few—and poor people and women, in particular, tend to lose out, beingmarginalised and overlooked in ‘participatory’ processes (McEwan 2005).

Democratisation of Environmental Governance 213

Female Heads of Households in Mamelodi

Mamelodi, the study area, is a typical township with a vibrant social atmosphereplacated by dire economic hardships caused by poverty and unemployment, the socialevils of crime, a high prevalence of HIV/AIDS and an unsightly, polluted andcongested physical environment. Founded in 1953 under the Group Areas Act,Mamelodi is situated 20 km east of Pretoria and even today has no white residents.The population of the township had grown to 127,033 by 1985 and to over a quarterof a million by 2001 (Statistics South Africa 2003). Today, the township covers a landarea of approximately 25 km2 and continues to ‘sprawl’ out of control with informalsettlements, especially towards the east. As the township expands with renovatedhouses and shacks, the environment in general remains polluted. Yet the township hasattracted very limited academic research attention. One of the few such attempts wasby Donaldson et al. (2000) whereby community perceptions to water pollution weresurveyed. In that study, a stream of the Apies River that flows through the townshipwas tested and found to be polluted. A similar test conducted for the current studyestablished that pollution levels had increased—for instance, the concentration levelsof faecal coliform and total dissolved salts, which were, on average, 43,000/100 mland 2.13 respectively in 2000, increased to 56,000/100 ml and 2.90 respectively in2011. The typical township conditions of Mamelodi qualify it as a good location for astudy that seeks to evaluate the perceptions of township women towards theenvironment, almost two decades into the democratisation process.

Since the precise number and residential location of the female heads of house-holds is unknown, a combination of cluster area and snowball techniques was used toreach as many of them as possible from a geographical cross section of Mamelodi. Astructured mix of close-ended and open-ended questionnaires were used by 14 trainedfield workers, who conducted interviews in seven cluster areas in Mamelodi. Infor-mation was sought from the 374 respondents on demographic, environmental, socio-economic and governance issues. From these, it was possible to draw up communalprofiles of the respondents and gain an understanding of their point of view on issuesranging from environmental governance to participation in environmental matters.

Findings from the Case Study

The findings of the research are presented in three parts in this section. First is a briefsketch of the key elements of demographic data of respondents which shape engage-ment and form the basis for attitudes to environmental issues. The second sectiondeals with respondents' views on democratisation of environmental policy and theirawareness and knowledge of constitutional environmental rights. Finally, theirperceptions and attitudes to the environment are analysed.

Demographic Profile of Female Heads of Households and Engagementin Environmental Issues

The data on marital status reveals how these women became heads of households. Itis interesting to note that only 36 % of the 374 respondents have never been married.

214 D. Darkey

The remainder is made up of as many as 21 % divorced and 20 % widowed. A total of16 % are married and yet consider themselves to be the heads of households as theirhusbands have ‘disappeared’, are separated from them or for other such reasons (7 %provided no answers to the question). Also important is the finding that most of them(70 %) have attained an educational qualification of secondary school and above,with 20 % having obtained a tertiary qualification. In a culturally patriarchal society,one would expect unmarried women to be free from the constraints a marriage mayimpose and with their relatively high levels of education, well positioned to under-stand their environmental and constitutional rights and to engage in environmentalmatters. Such expectations are however countered by other socio-economic issuessuch as the finding that as many as 38 % of the FHHs are unemployed. Of the 62 %that are employed, 67 % are in permanent formal employment, 23 % are self-employed and 10 % are in temporary employment.

Constitutional Environmental Rights and Environmental Awareness

Respondents' perceptions, attitudes and comprehension of constitutional and envi-ronmental policy issues were sought. The results reveal that a good number ofrespondents (76 %) are aware of their constitutional right to a healthy environmentand expect government to fulfil these rights. With regard to local government's role inrespecting, protecting, promoting and fulfilling citizens' environmental rights, there isa fairly even distribution of responses between those who agree (50 %) and those whodisagree (42 %) that local government respects, protects and promotes citizens'environmental rights, while 8 % of respondents were not sure.

The survey solicited information from respondents relating to their awareness ofpollution and its hazards. Questions were also posed to determine how the respond-ents use the river that flows through the township and its water for various purposes.It is a positive reflection that the township women are well informed in terms ofenvironmental conditions that may be hazardous to their health. As a result, the localriver resource is utilised scantily and only for purposes that are not likely to behazardous to their health. Except for an insignificant 2.7 % who sometimes use it forwashing vehicles and watering gardens, the respondents never use the water in theriver for washing their clothes, let alone for cooking or drinking. They do not allowtheir children to play in it either. Clearly, community awareness of the dangers ofusing polluted water is evident from the limited use made of the river water, yet suchawareness does not translate into environmental perceptions that lead to conservation.For instance, most of the respondents (59 %) do not consider the pollution of the riveras a serious problem. The interpretation can be made that because the women donot use the river, they do not consider its pollution as a serious environmentalproblem. This explanation is in line with the notion that for many people,environmental problems, which do not directly affect them, are not important tothem (McEwan 2005).

Perceptions and Attitudes to Environmental Matters

Many of the interviewees see environmental conservation as an unnecessary burdenin the face of widespread unemployment and poverty, inadequate social services and

Democratisation of Environmental Governance 215

violent crimes. Others see it as a baggage from the apartheid era—a consequenceof unfair land use and discriminatory resource allocation policies. Many of therespondents (53 %) are of the view that it is the ‘sole responsibility of government’to protect the environment. Required to list their six top priority concerns, respondentsput environmental issues (13 %) behind poverty eradication (83 %), transparentgovernance (71 %), availability of jobs (68 %), service delivery (66 %), and safetyand security (64 %). From cross-referencing, there appears to be a relationship betweeneducation and employment, on the one hand, and the prioritisation of environmentalissues, on the other (see Fig. 1 and the explanation that follows). Only respondentswho have both a tertiary qualification and are employed selected environmentalissues as one of their priorities.

The lack of concern for environmental action is also seen in the fact that eventhough 61 % are aware of environmental management action and 57 % have had theopportunity to participate in such programmes, only 7 % have ever participated inthem. Interviewees were also asked whether they agree with the opinion that peoplewho violate environmental regulations should be punished by government. Theresults reveal that only 26 % of respondents think that violators, such as polluters,should be punished and 74 % oppose the idea. Of the 26 % who agree to punishment,52 % of them recommend some form of community work as punishment, 38 % a fineand 5 % jail sentences. Those who disagree with violators being punished justifiedtheir positions with reasons such as: ‘Because they (polluters) do not have money’;‘They don't have a choice, they are trying to survive’; ‘Polluting the river is not such a

Priority Economic status

EnvironmentalIssues,

for example, pollution

Social issues,for example,

crime

Economic issues,

for example, employment

HIGH AFFLUENT

LOW POOR

Level of education

Fig. 1 Relationship between education/economic status and priorities

216 D. Darkey

serious crime’; and ‘Government is corrupt and only doing things for themselves,nothing for the people’.

Such statements may be significant in terms of policy making, implementation andgovernance. Policing and monitoring the adherence to policy on the environment is amajor problem in South Africa. While it may require education and training in orderto monitor local environmental compliance, changing people's attitudes to the envi-ronment is even more crucial. The challenge for the public manager in a democraticstate is to effectively involve communities in planning and setting out procedures thatensure compliance or appropriate punishment. It appears from the findings, though,that currently such cooperation from the female heads of household in Mamelodi isonly possible with financial incentives attached.

The theme running through the answers to the questions on environmental mattersvis-á-vis socio-economic issues, is in line with McEwan's (2005) assertion that poorpeople's basic economic needs take precedence over the protection of the environ-ment. Thus, as many as 92 % of respondents are willing to participate in environ-mental issues (only if there are financial benefits), with 43 % willing to participateeven if there are no direct financial benefits (only 7 % had taken advantage of suchopportunities in the past). Apart from the financial motive, other factors that wereselected as influencing decision on participation are: perceived corruption by munic-ipal officials (69 %)—in line with Pellegrini and Gerlagh's (2006) assertion thatcorruption is far more important than democracy in explaining environmentalchoices; the nature of the project/issue (64 %) and; the organisation responsible forthe project/issue (48 %). Overall, the responses reveal a link between level ofeducation and employment status, on the one hand and attitude to participation inenvironmental issues, on the other. Figure 1 illustrates this relationship with thehighly educated (who may be culturally liberated) and the permanently employedrespondents (who may be economically independent) prioritising environmentalissues on their list—shown as the triangle with the reversed apex. On the other hand,the upper segment of the priority triangle of the poor and uneducated containseconomic concerns. Many in this segment fall into the category of society describedby Cornwall (2003) and Meyiwa (2011) as marginalised and excluded from environ-mental decision making and participation.

Conclusion

The female heads of households in Mamelodi acknowledge the Constitution andother environmentally related legislation as clearly endorsing the environmentalrights of all South Africans. However, in order to persuade them to actively partic-ipate in environmental issues, other socio-economic concerns must first be taken careof. There is no apparent natural affinity between these women and environmentalissues. Instead, education, job opportunities and the provision of servicesemerge as essential in getting people to become interested in the welfare oftheir own environment and to prioritise environmental issues. Also important isthat a sizeable proportion of respondents consider safety and security, andtransparent governance as crucial in dealing with environmental issues. Thus,the assumption that democratisation will lead to positive environmental choices

Democratisation of Environmental Governance 217

may not necessarily be true unless these fundamental social, institutional andeconomic issues are appropriately addressed.

Whilst government effort to include women has led to post-apartheid environmen-tal policy changes, implementation has had little effect on the attitudes and percep-tions of Mamelodi township women. It appears that an unfortunate, unintendedoutflow of South Africa's progressive people-centred environmental policies, whichstems from the democratic process, is that environmental management is seen, bysome, as something government does to people and their environment, not assomething people do in and to their environment. Thus, in attempting to redress theexclusiveness in engagement by past policies, post-apartheid policy could inadver-tently be entrenching environmental entitlements—particularly by the previouslydisadvantaged segments of society. This is partly because in spite of democraticpolicy initiatives aimed at achieving full participation and empowerment of themarginalised, the overall process remains exclusive and large sectors of society failto take ownership of their environment.

What is required therefore is an emphasis on local-level research, planning andspecification, to identify target groups and design appropriate incentives that are notbased on gender stereotypes but take into account cultural, institutional, social andeconomic realities of identified segments of society. Democracy offers potential.However, focused policy perspectives, dynamic leadership, good governance andcultural attitudinal overhaul that accept the role of women in environment are alsonecessary ingredients to promote women's participation in environmental issues.Without these it is difficult for South Africa to move to the next level whereby localresidents, with active women participation, begin to create environmentally friendlyattitudinal lifestyles.

References

Ascher, W. (1999). Why governments waste natural resources: policy failures in developing countries.Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.

Augustine, J. (1994). Women in the city. Housing, services and the urban environment, conclusions of thechair. High level conference on women in the city. Paris: OECD.

Barnett, C., & Scott, D. (2007). Spaces of opposition: activism and deliberation in post-apartheid environ-mental politics. Environment and Planning A, 39(11), 2612–2631.

Beall, J. (2005). Decentralizing government and decentering gender: lessons from local government reformin South Africa. Politics and Society, 33(2), 253–276.

Cornwall, A. (2003). Whose voices? Whose choices? Reflections on gender and participatory development.World Development, 31(8), 1325–1342.

Donaldson, S. E., Darkey, D., Van der Linde, C., & Meyer, V. (2000). Water pollution and communityperceptions in Mamelodi, Pretoria. Paper presented at Water Institute of South Africa (WISA)Conference . South Africa, Sun City.

Duncker, L. (1999). Strategies for empowerment of women in water supply and sanitation projects.Pretoria: Water Research Commission.

Gibson, C. (1999). Politicians and poachers: the political economy of wildlife policy in Africa. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Goetz, A. (Ed.). (1997). Getting institutions right for women in development. London: Zed.Hardin, G. (1968). Tragedy of the commons. Science, 162(1), 243.Hassim, S. (2006). The challenges of inclusion and transformation. The women's movement in democratic

South Africa. In R. Ballard, R., A . Habib, A., & I. Valodia (Eds.), Voices of protest. Social movementsin post-apartheid South Africa (pp. 349–370). Scottsville: University of KwaZulu-Natal.

218 D. Darkey

Jackson, C. (1993). Doing what comes naturally? Women and environment in development. WorldDevelopment, 21(12), 1947–1963.

Kabiri, N. (2004). Liberalising environmental governance and the hazards of democratisation. LocalEnvironment, 9(4), 383–397.

McEwan, C. (2005). New spaces of citizenship? Rethinking gendered participation and empowerment inSouth Africa. Political Geography, 24, 969–991.

Meyiwa, T. (2011). Does South Africa attend to issues which affect women the most? A reflection.Transformation, 75.

Patel, Z. (2006). Of questionable value: the role of practitioners in building sustainable cities. Geoforum,37, 682–694.

Patel, Z. (2009). Environmental justice in South Africa: tools and trade-offs. Social Dynamics, 35(1), 94–110.Pellegrini, L., & Gerlagh, R. (2006). Corruption, democracy, and environmental policy: an empirical

contribution to the debate. Journal of Environment and Development, 15(3), 332–354.Plumwood, V. (1992). Beyond the dualistic assumptions of women, men and nature. Radial Philosophy, 48.Republic of South Africa. (1996). Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, Act No. 108 of 1996.

Government Gazette No. 17678, 18 December, 1996.Republic of South Africa. (1998). National Environment Management Act, Act No. 107 of 1998. Govern-

ment Gazette. No. 19519.Scott, D., & Oelofse, C. (2005). Social and environmental justice in South African cities: including

‘invisible stakeholders’ in environmental assessment procedures. Journal of Environmental Planningand Management, 48(3), 445–467.

Shiva, V. (1989). Escaping from masculine time. Earthwatch, 37, 4–5.Sowman, M. (2002). Integrating environmental sustainability issues into local government planning and

decision-making processes. In S. Parnell, E. Pieterse, M. Swilling, & D. Worldridge (Eds.), Democrat-ising local government: the South African experiment (pp. 181–203). Cape Town: UCT Press.

Squires, J. (2007). The new politics of gender equality. Basingstoke: Palgrave.Statistics South Africa. (2003). Census 2001: census in brief. Pretoria: Report No. 03-02-03 (2001).Todes, A., Sithole, P., & Williamson, A. (2010). Including women? (Dis)junctures between voice, policy

and implementation in integrated development planning. Urban Forum, 21, 69–84.Van Donk, M. (2002). Local government's role in realising gender equality: from policy to practice. In S.

Parnell, E. Pieterse, M. Swilling, & D. Worldridge (Eds.), Democratising local government: the SouthAfrican experiment (pp. 204–218). Cape Town: UCT Press.

Western, D. (1994). Ecosystem conservation and rural development: the case of Amboseli. In D. Western &M. Wright (Eds.), Natural connections: perspectives in community-based organizations. WashingtonDC: Island Press.

Democratisation of Environmental Governance 219