Rashidfarokhi, A and Danivska, V (2023) Managing crises 'together': How can the built environment contribute to social resilience? Building Research & Information, 51(7), pp. 747-763. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
The world is undergoing multiple crises that require resilience to withstand them. The built environment can significantly enhance or weaken society’s (and individuals') resilience. However, understanding of resilience in the built environment is scattered and manifold–whilst the design of buildings primarily focuses on the restoration of buildings' physical characteristics, urban policies centre on the recovery of society. Scholars highlight the need for a holistic approach where different resilience concepts merge to improve the resilience of people and communities. For this, understanding the relationship between people and places is crucial. Thus, the aim of this paper is to deepen the understanding of the social resilience concept in relation to the built environment and how the built environment can enhance it. This is achieved through an extensive literature review, concept mapping and panel discussion. The built environment characteristics affecting individual and/or community resilience are identified, and a conceptual model is provided, attempting to visualize the relationship between the constructs. The paper’s novelty lies in its multidisciplinary approach and integration of various social science knowledge in the context of the built environment. Furthermore, it emphasizes the built environment’s role in supporting social resilience, which has been often overlooked previously.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | built environment; crisis management; social resilience; social sustainability; wellbeing |
| Index terms: | recovery, community resilience, social sustainability, social science, holistic approach, crisis management, built environment, society, literature review, urban policy, physical characteristic, well-being, integration, restoration, design of building, concept mapping |
| Subjects: | urban planning, operations management, data analysis and analytics, mental health and wellbeing, business, organizational analysis, decision analysis, infrastructure and transport systems, communities and social development, building design, theoretical framing, renovation and retrofit, material properties and characteristics, financial risk, social equity |
| Topics: | Sustainability, Governance, Risk Management, Stakeholder Management, Engineering Principles, Construction Materials, Research Practice, Project Management, Health and Safety, Business Strategy, Cost Management, Organizational Design, Urban Studies, Design Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
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