Novak, V M; Fernandez-Anez, N and Shiraishi, K (2017) Rethinking resilience planning: From problems to potential. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 8(4), pp. 412-424. ISSN 1759-5916
Abstract
Purpose: Planning for the future can become mired in fixing the problems of the present. To create alternative solutions, planning must break free of the boundaries and assumptions of existing paradigms. The purpose of this paper is to explore an alternative way of thinking that reframes the issues from problems of “what is” to the potential of “what could be” in the context of socio-ecological resilience. Design/methodology/approach: A case study reviews the limitations revealed during a traditional problem-solving exercise on the topic of Coastal Eco-Cities, as well as the innovations resulting from the rethinking of the issues through the lens of the alternative paradigm. Findings: A key finding is the significance of linguistic modality, shifting from objective expressions to subjective dialogue. Originality/value: The originality of this approach is the emphasis on the framing of the problem before the development of the solution and the methodological implications of this early dialogue.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | planning process; problem framing; regenerative design; socio-ecological resilience; symbiotic village; systems thinking |
| Index terms: | paradigm, symbiotic village, case study, exercise, planning process, regenerative design, problem framing, methodology, socio-ecological resilience, boundaries, systems thinking, framing |
| Subjects: | education and knowledge transfer, research methods, urban design and public space, project controls, communities and social development, data collection methods, quality of life and wellbeing, health behaviours and lifestyles, sustainability and energy, property law, conceptual models, analytical methods |
| Topics: | Stakeholder Management, Research Practice, Health and Safety, Time Control, Urban Studies, Design Practice, Legal Issues |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTE |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here