Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items

Lack of economic density is the problem, rather than high population density

31 August 2020 | Story André Damons | Photo Supplied

The number of people infected by the coronavirus is linked to the density of urban living. South Africa’s townships and informal settlements are bearing the brunt of the disease, on top of all their existing problems of unemployment, poverty, hunger, and crime. This is a disturbing situation and demands greater attention across society.

This is according to Prof Ivan Turok from the Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC), the Department of Economics and Finance, and the Centre for Development Support at the University of the Free State (UFS), who has recently been awarded a Research Chair in City-Region Economies at the UFS by the South African Research Chairs Initiative (SARChI).

Prof Turok was part of a webinar discussion on ‘Urban Living Post-COVID-19’ with Dr Geci Karuri-Sebina – who manages the research programme at South African Cities Network and who has two decades’ experience working and publishing in the fields of urban development, innovation, and foresight – and Mr Thireshen Govender, architect and founder of UrbanWorks. They analysed how COVID-19 challenges urban living, social distancing, and the de-densification of cities as South Africa heads towards 70% of its population living in urban areas.

According to Prof Turok, urban density has been blamed for the spread of the virus. “The fear of people crowding together has caused negative reactions from government, from business, and from households. This is unlikely to be a short-lived, temporary phenomenon. It will be with us for some time to come.”

“The virus poses an ongoing risk to society, with the prospect of second and third waves taking hold. A lockdown could be re-imposed and further efforts could be made to enforce distancing and de-densification of cities, particularly our densest settlements,” said Prof Turok.

De-risking urban density

There was a simple but compelling idea at the heart of his presentation, which should also be “at the heart of a more effective and inclusive response to the pandemic”. At the moment, the government’s response to the crisis facing our poorest communities is uninspiring. “We need a more positive vision for the future than wearing masks and washing our hands.”

“We need to be bolder and more imaginative about de-risking urban density. In other words, making crowded neighbourhoods safer and more secure for people to live in. Density poses multiple risks to residents. How do we reduce these risks in ways that generate wider benefits, rather than business as usual – forcing people to change their behaviour and follow protocols?”

With reference to New York, which was severely affected by the virus, Prof Turok showed that it was not density per se that was the problem, but rather the type of density. The densest part of the city (Manhattan) was far less affected by the virus than poorer outlying communities. “This gives us a clue that more floor space in taller buildings helps to prevent crowding and makes density more liveable,” said Prof Turok.

The reality in South Africa is also different when you drill down and distinguish between different kinds of places. Big cities have been affected worse than towns and rural areas – in terms of the incidence of infections and the number of deaths. Within cities, there have been far more problems in the townships and informal settlements than in the suburbs. In Cape Town, for example, the southern and northern suburbs and the central city have been barely affected by the virus. However, infections have been very high on the Cape Flats, including Khayelitsha, Langa, Gugulethu, Philippi, and Mitchells Plain.

“Population densities in some of these areas are more than 100 times higher than in the affluent suburbs. The differences are very striking.”

“Incomes on the Cape Flats are also much lower than elsewhere in the city. So, there is a correspondence between density and the disease, unlike New York,” says Prof Turok.

All the discussions about the pandemic so far has focused on the negative aspects of urban density for the risk of transmission. This ignores all the benefits of dense urban living. Intense human interaction fosters learning and creativity, which raises productivity and innovation. Concentrated populations generate economies of scale in the provision of infrastructure and institutions such as universities. Cities give firms greater choice of workers and vice versa.

Pure population density and economic density

Prof Turok continued by saying that physical distancing can be socially and economically damaging. “Attempts to force people apart through de-densification undermine all kinds of personal networks, weaken the social fabric of communities, and erode the economic advantages of proximity that are so important for cities.”

“We need to understand that people crowding together in dense informal settlements is a symptom of something more fundamental, namely poverty. The pressure on land reflects the fact that low-income households can’t afford the space standards of middle- and upper-income groups. Forcing people apart (or to stay home) to reduce the risk of transmission just treats the symptoms of the problem. It cannot be a lasting solution. It doesn’t build resilience to confront the multiple challenges facing poor communities,” said Prof Turok.

A key part of a lasting solution can be summed up as building economic density. This involves increasing investment in two- or three-storey buildings to give people more living space and to free up land at ground-floor level to accommodate essential infrastructure and more public space for markets and social interaction. A better living and working environment would strengthen community resilience to public-health problems and promote all-round development. The idea of economic density offers a practical vision that can inspire hope in a better future, rather than the status quo of wearing masks in crowded places.

“We need to de-risk urban density through tangible investment, rather than forced distancing or dispersal. This will help to bring about far-reaching improvements to people’s lives in cities. At the moment, the lack of economic density in impoverished communities is a much bigger problem than excessive population densities.”

News Archive

Institutional research culture a precondition for research capacity building and excellence

2004-11-16

A lecture presented by Dr. Andrew M. Kaniki at the University of the Free State Recognition Function for research excellence

16 November 2004
The Vice Chancellor, Prof. Frederick Fourie
Deputy Vice Chancellors, Deans
Awardees
Colleagues and ladies and gentlemen

It is a great pleasure to be here at the University of the Free State. I am particularly honoured to have been invited to present this lecture at the First Annual Recognition Function for Research Excellence to honour researchers who have excelled in their respective fields of expertise. I would like to sincerely thank the office of the Director of Research and Development (Professor Swanepol), and in particular Mr. Aldo Stroebel for facilitating the invitation to this celebration.

I would like to congratulate you (the UFS) for institutionalizing “celebration of research excellence”, which as I will argue in this lecture is one of the key characteristics of institutional research culture that supports research capacity building and sustains research excellence.

Allow me to also take this opportunity to congratulate the University of the Free State for clocking 100 years of existence.

Ahmed Bawa and Johan Mouton (2000) in their chapter entitled Research, in the book: Transformation in higher education: global pressures and local realities in South Africa (ed. N. Cloete et. al Pretoria: CHET. 296-333) have argued that “…the sources of productivity and competitiveness [in the knowledge society and global economy] are increasingly dependent on [quality] knowledge and information being applied to productivity”. The quality knowledge they refer to here is research output or research products and the research process, which (research) as defined by the [OECD] Frascati Manual (2002: 30) is:

“…creative work undertaken on a systematic basis in order to increase the stock of knowledge, including knowledge of man, culture and society, and the use of this stock of knowledge to devise new applications”

The South African Government has set itself the objective of transforming South Africa into a knowledge society that competes effectively in the global system. A knowledge society requires appropriate numbers of educated and skilled people to create quality new knowledge and to translate the knowledge in innovative ways. To this end a number of policies and strategies like the Human Resource Development [HRD] Strategy for South Africa, the National Plan for Higher Education (NPHE) and the South Africa’s Research and Development [R&D] Strategy, have highlighted human resource development and the concomitant scarce skills development as critical for wealth creation in the context of globalization. The key mission of the HRD Strategy for instance is:

To maximize the potential of the people of South Africa, through the acquisition of knowledge and skills, to work productively and competitively in order to achieve a rising quality of life for all, and to set in place an operational plan, together with the necessary institutional arrangements, to achieve this.

The R&D Strategy emphasizes that maximum effort must be exerted to train the necessary numbers of our people in all fields required for development, running and management of modern economies. Higher education institutions like the University of the Free State have a key role to play in this process, because whatever form or shape a university takes, it is expected to conduct research (quality research); teach (quality teaching – and good graduates); and contribute to the development of its community! Thus the NPHE states that the role of higher education in a knowledge-driven world is threefold:

Human resource development;

High-level skills training and

Production, acquisition and application of knowledge.

Quality research output or knowledge which as argued is critical in determining the degree of competitiveness of a country in the knowledge economy is dependent upon quality research (process). Both the process of producing quality research and its utilization cannot and does not happen in a vacuum. It requires an environment that facilitates the production of new knowledge, its utilization and renewal. It requires skilled persons that can produce new knowledge and facilitate the production of new skills for quality knowledge production. Such an environment or in essence a university must have the culture that supports research activity. Institution research culture (that is a conducive and enabling institutional research culture) is a precondition to research capacity building. Without an institutional research culture that facilitates the development and nurturing of new young researchers it is difficult, if not impossible for a university to effectively and efficiently generate new and more quality researchers. Institutional research culture is also necessary to sustain quality research and quality research output or research excellence. It facilitates the development and sustenance of the institutional and people capacities required to do research produce quality research and generally attain research excellence!

We do recognize that the patterns of information and knowledge seeking, and knowledge generation vary among field or disciplines. For example, we know that in the humanities knowledge workers often work individually, and not as collaboratively as do those of the sciences, they all however, require supportive environments – institutional research culture to achieve and sustain research excellence. An institution does not simply attain a supportive research culture, but as Patricia Clements (English Department, University of Alberta, Edmonton) in her presentation Growing a research culture argues, research culture has to be grown [and maintained]. It unifies all natural and engineering scientists; medical researchers, humanists, and social scientists.

I therefore am of the view that Institutional Research Culture is critical to research capacity building and research excellence. I therefore want to spend a few minutes looking at the characteristics of research culture. To be effective, institutional research culture has grown and sustained not only at the institutional level, but also at the faculty, school and departmental levels of any university.

What is Research Culture?

In the process of researching on institutional research culture I identified several characteristics. Many of these overlap in some way. I want to deal with some of these characteristics; some in a little more detail while others simply cursorily. In the process what we should be asking ourselves is the extent to which an institution, like the University of the Free State, and its faculties, individually and severally, is growing and or sustaining this culture.

Institutional Research Strategy: As a plan of action or guide for a course of action, the institutional research strategy must spell out research goals that a university wants to achieve. It must be a prescription of what the university needs to be done with respect to research. As a strategy it is neither an independent activity nor an end in itself, but a component part and operationalization of the university policy or mission. ( Related to this is the Establishment of Institutional research policies)

Includes and makes public the targets, e.g. achieve so many rated scientists and make sure that every year we have so many SAPSE publications. That way people keep an eye on research agendas of the university and nation.

The UFS is obviously on its way, having launched its own Research strategy (A Strategic framework for the development of research at the University of the Free Sate. August 2003). Note that this strategy refers specifically to the “Culture of research” Fig 1

A set of administrative practices to support and encourage research. Patricia Clements (English Department, University of Alberta, Edmonton) in her presentation Growing a research culture argues that that research activity and output within the her Faculty (Arts) were very low and, in spite of the numbers of staff, with no Associate Dean for Research in the Faculty as though they had accepted that research belonged to Medicine and Science and Engineering, and teaching, separated from inquiry, belonged to the Arts. With the change in the thinking about research and development of research culture, it became clear that there was a major role for research support in a faculty her size (now about 360 full time continuing academic staff). The faculty developed a support system for research and began to address the SSHRC issues.

Reduce the bureaucracy system and micromanagement of research! This however, also implies that there is capacity and policies and procedure to manage and guide research processes

Establishment of Intellectual Property regulations and assistance

Research ethics policy and safeguarding by research administration

Focused, applied and suitable nature of the delivery mode (an institution open to new methodologies for conducting research

Programmes suited both full and part-time study particularly at graduate level (Mainly at Faculty/school and department level, and depending on what’s manageable)

Hiring senior academics to engage in, teach on and supervise postgraduate students to facilitate exchange of and transfer ideas and most importantly mentorship especially in view of declining numbers of researchers in particular fields

Quality instruction and facilitation in learning about research processes

A high retention rate of students maintained by the supportive and challenging learning environment and the use of online facilities to support collaboration and in-class learning

Availability of research grants: and awareness of sourcing funds from external sources like the National Research Foundation; Water Research Commission; Medical Research Council, private philanthropies and others outside the country. For example an institution should be able to assess how much of the slice the available funds (NRF etc) its able acquire and possibly top slice from institutional budget.

Adequacy of the financial reward system to encourage university staff members to do research (General Celebration of achievement for research excellence and achievement. This ranges form Annual reports mention; celebratory dinner. At Alberta researchers were given lapels. I don’t know of any academic who do not feel a sense of achievement to get into print or recognised. Access to research facilities within and outside the institution

Provision of infrastructure to support university-based research (e.g. equipment, admin support, etc.) – but also awareness of publicly funded and available research facilities and equipment!

Internet connectivity and changes in the bandwidth of the internet to download articles

Subscription to related bodies by the library so that researcher can download articles

Facilities and resources to attend international conferences to keep one updated

Number of visiting professors/speakers targeting senior scholars and invite them to lunch to ask them to participate and to encourage their best graduate students to do so within the institution and across institutions

Research training seminars for research students including young academics

Participation of staff/students in delivering research papers to national and international conferences

Establishment of research groups to provide interaction frameworks to achieve critical mass of research-active staff

Facilitation for more research time: Targeting new scholars and giving them reduced teaching loads in their first year or two for the purpose of developing their research programs. For the purpose of helping new colleagues to see the shape of South African research support, personalizing it, and creating research community

Take research to the community and argue its necessity, and utility

And, finally celebrating excellence. We must recognize achievement - parties and public recognition for colleagues who achieve splendid things in their research.

In conclusion, I want to reemphasize that research culture has to be grown it does not simply exist in an institution. If it is grown it needs to be nourished, nurtured and sustained. An institution cannot simply leave on borrowed reputation and expect to remain research excellent. It is on this basis that instruments like the National Research Foundation rating system recognizes excellence within a given period of time and not necessarily for a life time! This it is believed encourages continued research excellence.

THANK YOU and best wishes

Back

Economic and Management Sciences

Education

Health Sciences

The Humanities

Law

Natural and Agricultural Sciences

Theology and Religion

Open Distance Learning

Business School

We use cookies to make interactions with our websites and services easy and meaningful. To better understand how they are used, read more about the UFS cookie policy. By continuing to use this site you are giving us your consent to do this.

Accept