Search results

The essay stresses the potential value of empathy in designing strategies for resilience. We question the traditional idea of empathy as an individual skill addressed to understand the other, in support of a conceptualization closer to the phenomenological interpretation, focused on the relational dynamics at stake in human encounters. The paper reconsiders empathy as an experience valuable for strengthening a resilient attitude within collaborative projects. A case study will be featured, i.e. Design in The Middle, an ongoing project that gathers designers, architects and social activists from the Middle East/Euro-Med regions with the aim of generating design proposals to address challenges relevant to the Middle East. As participants come from very different cultural, political and religious backgrounds, their cooperation is a central and critical issue, which might benefit from contextual and relational "rules" enabling empathic experiences. In the context of the first Design in The Middle workshop (2017), some strategies have proven to be crucial in enabling effective communication over complex design issues. These strategies will be analysed according to a methodology developed in a previous research carried out by the author(s) (Devecchi, 2018) about the role of empathy in collaborative processes. Assuming that a resilient society preserves and supports cultural diversity, Design in the Middle stands as an example of collaborative design practice aimed at creating a more resilient future for these regions in which the coexistence of diverse cultural, religious and political positions is a substantial matter of concern.

Cover; Half Title; Title Page; Copyright Page; Contents; List of figures and tables; Information on contributing authors; Acknowledgements; 1 Self-reliant resiliency and neoliberal mentality: a critical reflection; 2 Governing for resilience in vulnerable places: an introduction; 3 Resilient energy landscapes: a spatial quest?; 4 Resilience to what and for whom in landscape management; 5 Resilience thinking -- is vagueness a blessing or a curse in transdisciplinary projects? experiences from a regional climate change adaptation project.

Resilience is a topic of steadily increasing interest. It particularly gains importance when discussing how communities (e.g. municipalities) can prepare themselves for potential future disruptions. A resilient community will overcome immediate shocks, such as an earthquake, as well as stresses, such as the successive outbreak of a pandemic. Due to the novelty of the topic, research particularly exists on theoretical aspects of resilience. Targeting learning - and thereby the local population - is a rather new emergence. To effectively reach, involve, and engage citizens, technology can play a key role. Based on four actual cases from communities we analyse the impact technology has on learning about resilience. We then scrutinize the effectiveness and propose future steps. Thereby, we seek to provide practical advice to local governments and to enrich the theory at the same time.

Natural disasters are a permanent feature in Vanuatu. Consequently, efforts to improve the resilience of farmers to natural disasters was seen as a priority by Live & Learn Vanuatu. Knowledge hub committees were put in place to help communities to improve their farming techniques. This knowledge hub approach was replicated across the country and, with government support, Pacific risk resilience workshops also took place. ; International Fund for Agricultural Development ; Internal Review

In the past decades, the term 'resilience' has quickly gained currency in academia (including social, political and spatial sciences) as well as in practice. Nowadays, it is widely promoted as a promising concept to deal with shocks and uncertainties in the face of environmental, social and economic crises (cf. Davoudi, 2012; White, 2010). Originating in ecology, resilience was referred to as the ability of a system to return to stability or equilibrium after a disturbance (Pickett et al., 2004). According to an early formulation by Holling (1973), resilience indicates the ability of ecosystems to absorb changes and still be able to function properly. In the past decade, a so-called 'resilience turn' (Evans & Reid, 2014) has taken place in the social, political and spatial sciences where social-ecological resilience has been explored and applied as a useful concept to describe and organize responses to change by communities, institutions and economies (Adger, 2000; Klein et al., 2004; White, 2010). In spatial planning, for example, resilience is now widely acknowledged as a new approach to incorporate uncertainty into governance strategies, particularly with respect to natural hazards such as flooding (Davoudi, 2012; White, 2010).

Resilience has become a concept that has increasingly informed political and policy discussions around disaster planning and preparedness. In this article, we explore this "resilience creep" and examine the different ways in which this concept has been used in making sense of how to respond to contemporary threats to national security. In order to do this, we establish a typology of resilience that enables us to identify both the overlapping and the contradictory uses that this term has been put to. In addition, this typology affords the opportunity to reflect upon what is made visible and invisible in contemporary resilience speak and to highlight the dangers that may lie in continuing with an uncritical embrace of this concept.

Resilience has become a concept that has increasingly informed political and policy discussions around disaster planning and preparedness. In this article, we explore this 'resilience creep' and examine the different ways in which this concept has been used in making sense of how to respond to contemporary threats to national security. In order to do this, we establish a typology of resilience that enables us to identify both the overlapping and the contradictory uses that this term has been put to. In addition, this typology affords the opportunity to reflect upon what is made visible and invisible in contemporary resilience speak and to highlight the dangers that may lie in continuing with an uncritical embrace of this concept. [Reprinted by permission; copyright Inter-University Seminar on Armed Forces and Society/Sage Publications Inc.]