Search for: All records

Solutions to waste management in informal settlements in South Africa South Africa has retained some of the unjust laws following the Apartheid system, but rapid urbanisation has resulted in burgeoning informal settlements, often situated on the periphery of major cities and towns, where clean water is often inaccessible and waste management is limited. Clean water is the main catalyst for the projects conducted by the Waste FEW ULL team, Kevin Winter, Adina Paytan, Sue Charlesworth, and Jana Fried. The motivation for developing the ULL arose out of concern about the contaminated water and its impact on human health and the environment. Rising demand for land and houses has made people struggle to overcome existing income and wealth disparities, with high levels of unemployment and poverty remaining, leaving many only able to live in so-called informal settlements. The concept of Urban Living Labs (ULLs) has advanced from centres that were largely seen as test beds of innovation to become sites of learning and places where stakeholders can co-create solutions to address critical issues and challenges. 

Achieving societal impact, as opposed to academic impact, is a growing area of focus for the research community globally. Central to this changing mission is the focus on multiple interconnected complex systems and the need for research that is not just interdisciplinary, but also transdisciplinary and grounded in stakeholder co-production. This document compares multiple approaches to impact planning and evaluation across four newly formed urban living labs in Sao Paolo (Brazil), Western Cape (South Africa), Bristol (UK) and Rotterdam (Netherlands), each of which sought to address societal issues linked to the food-energy-water nexus. A comparison matrix and a disaggregated impact table are derived from a comprehensive review of key definitions. These new tools were completed by each ULL alongside a post hoc pathway to impact statements. Comparisons are presented and discussed, the strengths and weaknesses of this approach are considered and opportunities for improvement in societal impact planning and evaluation are provided. Our main findings include the importance of establishing clear shared definitions while accepting plural understandings, the need to acknowledge resource as a critical factor in impact delivery and the headline need for far greater focus in this area from both funders and research groups.