Paidakaki, A and Moulaert, F (2017) Does the post-disaster resilient city really exist? A critical analysis of the heterogeneous transformative capacities of housing reconstruction "resilience cells". International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 8(3), pp. 275-291. ISSN 1759-5916
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to advance the understanding of “resilience” by disentangling the contentious interactions of various parameters that define and guide resilience trajectories, such as the physical infrastructure, socio-spatial inequalities, path dependencies, power relationships, competing discourses and human agency. This socio-political reconstruction of “resilience” is needed for two reasons: the concept of resilience becomes more responsive to the complex realities on the ground, and the discussion moves toward the promotion of more dynamic recovery governance models that can promote socially just allocated redundancy in housing actions, which could be seen as a key to incubating resilience. Design/methodology/approach: This is a conceptual paper that mobilizes theories of urban political ecology, social innovation and housing with the aim to examine the tensions between various discourses that steer housing production during post-disaster recovery processes, and put a spotlight on the heterogeneity in the transformative capacity of the various actors, institutions and visions of housing systems that preexist or emerge in the post-disaster city. This heterogeneity of actors (i.e. growth coalitions, neighborhood associations and housing cooperatives) consequently leads the discussion toward the investigation of “new” roles of the state in formulating relevant disaster governance models and housing (re)construction systems. Findings: The initial stress produced by a natural event is often extended because of long-term unmet housing needs. The repercussion of this prolonged stress is a loss of social progress partly due to the reiterated oppression of alternative housing production propositions. In this paper, the authors conclude that an asset-based community development approach to recovery can provide an antidote to the vicious cycles of social stress by opening up diverse housing options. This means that the recovery destiny is not predetermined according to pre-set ideas but is molded by the various bottom-up dynamics that democratically sketch the final socially desirable reconstruction outcome(s). Originality/value: The contribution of this paper is twofold. By using theoretical insights from urban political ecology, housing studies and social innovation, the paper first builds up onto the current reconstruction of the notion of disaster resilience. Second, by identifying a heterogeneity of “social resilience cells”, the paper leads the discussion toward the investigation of the “new” role of the state in formulating relevant recovery governance models. In this respect, the paper builds a narrative of social justice in terms of the redistribution of resources and the cultivation of empowerment across the various housing providers who struggle for their right to the reconstruction experiment.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | governance; natural disasters; post disaster housing reconstruction; resilience; social innovation; state |
| Index terms: | social justice, housing, path dependency, experiment, dynamics, inequality, investigation, redundancy, community development, agency, natural disaster, social innovation, ecology, resilient city, governance, narrative, reconstruction, construction system, physical infrastructure, recovery, option, post-disaster recovery, interaction, empowerment, disaster resilience, post-disaster housing reconstruction, promotion, housing reconstruction, housing need, methodology, social progress |
| Subjects: | infrastructure and transport systems, data collection methods, behavioral psychology, post-disaster and reconstruction, qualitative and interpretive research, management, housing and residential development, sustainability and resilience, communities and social development, climate science, environmental hazards, operations management, business, construction type, environmental science, research methods, building construction, decision analysis, sociology, economic development, strategic management, systems engineering |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Project Management, Urban Studies, Stakeholder Management, Sustainability, Engineering Principles, Risk Management, Construction Technology, Ethics, Governance, Human Resources, Business Strategy |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
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