Dodd, M; Madabhushi, N and Lees, R (2025) Placemaking living lab: Creating resilient social and spatial infrastructures. Buildings & Cities, 6(1), pp. 1027-1045. ISSN 2632-6655
Abstract
The Placemaking Clarence Valley (PCV) living lab is an action research project working in partnership with communities affected by the 2019–20 Australian bushfire season. The programme trials innovations in community-led disaster resilience. The living lab reinforced the fact that the strength of place-making methods in building resilience is due to its highly relational process that activates place-based participation. Place-making aims to support community resilience planning through a socially engaged process of co-creating ideas for places, as well as through built outcomes generated from that process. Limitations existed in relation to the scale of participation reach and breadth. However, reflections on these learnings unlock answers for how creative participatory processes can be finetuned for social and ecological transformation initiatives, especially within the Australian disaster landscape. PRACTICE RELEVANCE Place-based initiatives recognise that communities themselves are often best placed to understand their unique local needs in relation to civic resilience. The increasing adoption of place-based programmes in Australia is an acknowledgment that a collaborative and community-led focus in 'place' can generate shared understandings that have local relevance which in turn can unlock systemic issues and tackle challenges including entrenched disadvantage and compounding disasters. This article describes a living lab in regional Australia and considers how the co-design of places can help identify, describe, envision, and implement social and spatial infrastructures that strengthen social cohesion, social capital and resilience. Living labs in place-based initiatives are well-placed to test and rehearse community-led innovation. Co-design and place-making methodologies can provide adaptable approaches to improving civic resilience, offering alternatives to dominant top-down paradigms of post-disaster reconstruction approaches.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | Australia; co-creation; co-design; community resilience; first nations; living lab; participation; place-based; placemaking |
| Index terms: | disaster resilience, programme, social capital, bushfire, action research, social cohesion, methodology, partnership, Australia, transformation, community resilience, co-creation, reflection, paradigm, post-disaster reconstruction |
| Subjects: | environmental hazards, research methods, social equity, design process, Geography, climate science, sociology, partnership management, project controls, post-disaster and reconstruction, education and knowledge transfer, professional development, business, data collection methods |
| Topics: | Sustainability, Geographical Context, Stakeholder Management, Business Strategy, Research Practice, Information Management, Time Control, Design Practice, Urban Studies |
| 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