Petrescu, D; Petcou, C and Baibarac, C (2016) Co-producing commons-based resilience: Lessons from R-Urban. Building Research & Information, 44(7), pp. 717-736. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
The co-production of resilience in European urban neighbourhoods is explored based on the experiences from a case study. Within the current resilience imperative', co-production processes involving multiple stakeholders can be a key factor for increasing cities' resilience. Co-produced resilience processes are more successful when embedded in collaborative forms of governance such as those associated with urban commons and when fulfilling needed roles with a community. Through the application of the R-Urban approach in a neighbourhood of Colombes (near Paris), the co-production of a commons-based resilience strategy is described. This involved a group of designers as initiators and a number of citizen as stakeholders of a network of civic hubs. The specific strategies involving a participatory setting, collective governance aspects and circular economies are analysed in the light of co-production theories and practices. Internal and external challenges are identified within the implementation process. The nature of conflicts and negotiations in this co-production approach are discussed, and the role of the architects/designers as agents within the process is investigated. Reflections from this example are provided on the limits and promises of this approach and the lessons learned from R-Urban for collaborative civic resilience.;The co-production of resilience in European urban neighbourhoods is explored based on the experiences from a case study. Within the current 'resilience imperative', co-production processes involving multiple stakeholders can be a key factor for increasing cities' resilience. Co-produced resilience processes are more successful when embedded in collaborative forms of governance such as those associated with urban commons and when fulfilling needed roles with a community. Through the application of the R-Urban approach in a neighbourhood of Colombes (near Paris), the co-production of a commons-based resilience strategy is described. This involved a group of designers as initiators and a number of citizen as stakeholders of a network of civic hubs. The specific strategies involving a participatory setting, collective governance aspects and circular economies are analysed in the light of co-production theories and practices. Internal and external challenges are identified within the implementation process. The nature of conflicts and negotiations in this co-production approach are discussed, and the role of the architects/designers as agents within the process is investigated. Reflections from this example are provided on the limits and promises of this approach and the lessons learned from R-Urban for collaborative civic resilience.; The co-production of resilience in European urban neighbourhoods is explored based on the experiences from a case study. Within the current 'resilience imperative', co-production processes involving multiple stakeholders can be a key factor for increasing cities' resilience. Co-produced resilience processes are more successful when embedded in collaborative forms of governance such as those associated with urban commons and when fulfilling needed roles with a community. Through the application of the R-Urban approach in a neighbourhood of Colombes (near Paris), the co-production of a commons-based resilience strategy is described. This involved a group of designers as initiators and a number of citizen as stakeholders of a network of civic hubs. The specific strategies involving a participatory setting, collective governance aspects and circular economies are analysed in the light of co-production theories and practices. Internal and external challenges are identified within the implementation process. The nature of conflicts and negotiations in this co-production approach are discussed, and the role of the architects/designers as agents within the process is investigated. Reflections from this example are provided on the limits and promises of this approach and the lessons learned from R-Urban for collaborative civic resilience.;
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | participatory action research; bottom-up approaches; agency; social networks; design; co-production; resilience; commons; community participation; sustainability; adaptability; communities; emergence; transition; transformability; construction & building technology; social-ecological systems; movement; world; coproduction; case studies; designers; collaboration |
| Index terms: | designer, community participation, circular economy, social-ecological system, strategy, social network, movement, case study, building technology, governance, action research, negotiation, emergence, commons, implementation, bottom-up approach, lessons learned, agent, agency, architect, adaptability, co-production, transformability, collaboration, reflection, Paris |
| Subjects: | sociology, conflict resolution, systems engineering, management, professional development, sustainable design, Geography, urban planning, property law, environmental science, contractual arrangements, participation process, user focus, business, profession, data collection methods, health behaviours and lifestyles, practitioner, innovation studies, engineering systems |
| Topics: | Organizational Design, Design Practice, Legal Issues, Procurement, Governance, Sustainability, Roles and Professions, Stakeholder Management, Geographical Context, Research Practice, Information Management, Engineering Principles, Business Strategy |
| 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