Suchergebnisse

PurposeThe authors revisit the notion of co-production, highlight more critical and re-politicized forms of co-production and introduce three principles for its operationalization. The paper's viewpoint aims to find entry points for enabling more equitable disaster research and actions via co-production.Design/methodology/approachThe authors draw insights from the authors' reflections as climate and disaster researchers and literature on knowledge politics in the context of disaster and climate change, especially within critical disaster studies and feminist political ecology.FindingsDisaster studies can better contribute to disaster risk reduction via political co-production and situating local and Indigenous knowledge at the center through three principles, i.e. ensuring knowledge plurality, surfacing norms and assumptions in knowledge production and driving actions that tackle existing knowledge (and broader sociopolitical) structures.Originality/valueThe authors draw out three principles to enable the political function of co-production based on firsthand experiences of working with local and Indigenous peoples and insights from a diverse set of co-production, feminist political ecology and critical disaster studies literature. Future research can observe how it can utilize these principles in its respective contexts.

AbstractThe third sector has recently emerged, or re‐emerged, as a new housing provider for disadvantaged groups in Hong Kong and Korea, where affordable housing development has been predominantly directed by government. However, our knowledge of third‐sector housing in non‐Western contexts remains partial. In this article, we aim to provide, from a historical‐institutionalist perspective, a comparative account of the (re‐)emergence and implementation of third‐sector affordable housing delivery in Hong Kong and Korea. Based on the housing‐welfare regime framework, we discuss the socioeconomic and political contexts in which third‐sector housing has burgeoned in the two regions, and how the relationship between the government and the third sector has moulded the implementation of third‐sector housing. We highlight the significant power of the government in implementing third‐sector housing and third‐sector organizations' continued complementary role to the government in supplying housing as welfare, which reflects the path‐dependent nature of housing and welfare policies in the two regions. Adopting a long view to understanding history and a broader framework that reflects the socioeconomic context contributes to advancing the comparative housing literature.