| 项目编号: | NE/P01609X/1
|
| 项目名称: | Why we Disagree about Resilience: epistemology, methodology and policy space for integrated disaster risk management |
| 作者: | Mark Pelling
|
| 承担单位: | King's College London
|
| 批准年: | 2015
|
| 开始日期: | 2016-01-11
|
| 结束日期: | 2018-31-01
|
| 资助金额: | GBP169867
|
| 资助来源: | UK-NERC
|
| 项目类别: | Research Grant
|
| 国家: | UK
|
| 语种: | 英语
|
| 特色学科分类: | Climate & Climate Change 
; (20%)
; Development studies 
; (20%)
; Philosophy 
; (20%)
; RCUK Programmes
; Tools, technologies & methods 
; (20%)
; Visual arts 
; (20%)
|
| 英文摘要: | Resilience programming often draws on technical science to highlight its benefits, yet little systematic work has studied the role of science in shaping resilience policy trajectories. Improved knowledge of how science is used by different actors and interests in resilience policy processes is important of resilience is to help build inclusive, transparent and just development. This calls for a better understanding of why specific actors prefer certain kinds of scientific knowledge when making the case for resilience, how languages of science alienate or support specific actor groups, and if the worldviews projected through individual science traditions preference particular kinds of policy response and outcomes from calls for resilience.
Thinking of science as integral to policy processes and arguments moves analysis past linear explanations of risk communication and places science within governance systems. This allows much more fine grained explanation of where and why science is used and by whom, and opens questions about the duties of scientists as actors in governance systems - not as neutral experts acting from the outside of governance processes. Opening up a systematic research agenda on the role of science in resilience can draw upon mature work of this kind on risk governance. Opening up to the justice implications of specific science-policy relationships is made timely by the heightened role given to science by the UN Sendai Framework for Action 2015-30. Here science is called upon to help innovate, monitor and evaluation but also to convene of risk management policy. The convening role of science is little explored within disaster risk management and work is needed that can help policy actors learn how to use science to provide shared spaces for common dialogue around contentious topics like resilience and to avoid resilience becoming a tool for policy domination and capture.
Opening a research agenda on the role of science in governance for risk and resilience requires a transdisciplinary approach - one that combines interdisciplinarty with stakeholder coproduction. The proposed project will combine political philosophy and critical social science to ask questions of duty and power to science production processes, review participatory methods used to describe resilience and bring together experience from hazards mapping and visualisation and arts and performance methods to provide multiple methods that can surface different interpretations of resilience. Performance based methods will allow for interpretive and emotional aspects of resilience to be presented and contrast with geographical information systems using spatially defined hazard and social attributes for specific places. The framing of questions, methods and analysis will also incorporate stakeholders from each of the three pilot study sites: Cape Town (Philippi), Manila (Tay Tay) and Nairobi (Kibera). These were chosen because of existing research partnerships and ongoing resilience policy and programming that can be augmented by the proposed work. Nairobi and Cape Town are also members of the Rockerfeller 100 Cities programme.
Research impact planning has commenced in the pre-proposal planning stage and will be developed from the start of the project through collaboration with city practitioners and policy makers. City partners have been enthusiastic to collaborate in a project that can help surface competing visions of resilience and how resilience can be used to secure desirable futures from the perspectives of competing urban stakeholders. Partners are keen to compare experiences and lessons learnt form the proposed work and take these forward. The project will produce a single policy brief for each city and two academic papers. It will also convene workshops in London and Warwick to bring practitioners and scientists together to collaborate in research design and in the verification and fine tuning dissemination of results. |
| 资源类型: | 项目
|
| 标识符: | http://119.78.100.158/handle/2HF3EXSE/100607
|
| Appears in Collections: | 科学计划与规划
气候变化与战略
|
|
There are no files associated with this item.
|
|
作者单位: | King's College London
|
| Recommended Citation: | |
Mark Pelling. Why we Disagree about Resilience: epistemology, methodology and policy space for integrated disaster risk management. 2015-01-01.
|
|
|