Difference between revisions of "Resilience"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| (82 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| + | [[Category:Safety]] |
||
| − | =Resilience= |
||
| + | [[File:ae.png|25px|right|This is a page providing background in a specific field of expertise]]'''Resilience''' is the degree to which the functioning of a system is unperturbed by incidents, either by resisting damage and/or recovering quickly. |
||
| − | = MAP = |
||
| + | ==Description== |
||
| − | <websiteFrame> |
||
| + | The concept of resilience applies to all systems of society (or aspects that can be viewed as a system), if its functioning can be evaluated. As such, the term gained an important role in the field of protection of [[Critical infrastructure]]. |
||
| + | Resilience is related to the concept of [[Vulnerability]], in the sense that lowering vulnerability will most likely increase resilience and to the [[Crisis management cycle]] that, through a process of constant improvement, aims to increase resilience. |
||
| − | website=http://securipedia.eu/cool/index.php?wiki=securipedia.eu&concept=Insert your pagename here |
||
| ⚫ | |||
| − | height=1023 |
||
| ⚫ | '''Societal resilience''' concerns the well-being (health, morale, etc.), self-protection (asset pattern, income, qualifications, etc.), and social protection (hazard preparedness by society, building codes, shelters, etc.) of the general public. The term also includes the resilience of social and political networks and institutions (social capital, institutional environment, etc.).<ref>Cannon T. et al.: Social Vulnerability, Sustainable Livelihoods and Disasters. Report to DFID. Conflict and Humanitarian Assistance Department (CHAD) and Sustainable Livelihoods Office London, 2003, pp. 4-5.</ref> |
||
| ⚫ | |||
| − | width=100% |
||
| + | Incorporating both safety and security consideration in the process of urban planning can contribute substantially to the resilience of an urban environment, by reducing potential vulnerabilities and impacts and supporting effective crisis management. |
||
| + | Planning can contribute to building a system (of both social and of built environment) “''to either absorb or respond to negative external influences or to more generalized experiences of perturbation.''” (Coaffee/Wood/Rogers 2009: 122)<ref name ="Coaffee/Wood/Rogers 2009">Coaffee, J/Wood, D.M./Rogers, P. (2009): The Everyday Resilience of the City. How Cities Respond to Terrorism and Disaster. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan: p. 122</ref> |
||
| + | Concrete approaches that can be taken by urban planners to increase resilience, include: |
||
| − | border=0 |
||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | * Following the disaster reduction and mitigation principles of resilience building.<ref name ="Sapirstein 2009">Sapirstein, G. (2009): Social Resilience: The Forgotten Element in Disaster Reduction. Boston: Organizational Resilience International. Retrieved from http://www.oriconsulting.com/social_resilience.pdf [last access: 2012-05-11].)</ref> |
||
| + | * Being sensitive to the social context and to [[security culture|security cultures]]. |
||
| + | * Basing the design and use of tools on citizens’ [[Perception of (in)security and risks|perception of (in)security and risks]], feeling of vulnerability and acceptance of technological solutions for security problems. |
||
| + | * Identifying potential vulnerabilities (of which the Securban tool can be used to identify security issues). |
||
| ⚫ | * Using a holistic approach by incorporating the following five interconnected functional components: social, economic, political, demographic, and environmental.<ref>Pelling M.: The Vulnerability of Cities: Natural Disasters and Social Resilience. London: Sterling, VA: Earthscan, 2003, p. 12.</ref> |
||
| ⚫ | |||
| − | scroll=auto |
||
| − | |||
| − | align=middle |
||
| − | |||
| − | </websiteFrame> |
||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | <headertabs/> |
||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | ==Introduction== |
||
| − | In security research, '''resilience''' is an evolving concept. According to scientific evidence, [[urban planning]] should contribute to increasing community resilience. In particular with respect to planning for secure systems of different kinds, resilience can be described to be based on the following characteristics: |
||
| − | |||
| − | * It reflects the extent of change that a system can experience while retaining its order, or normative (formal) as well as its dynamic organization. |
||
| − | * It reflects the capability level of a system for self-organization. |
||
| − | * It requires both acceptance by as well as symmetric competences of the citizens. |
||
| − | * It reflects the capability of a system to learn and adapt to changing environments while retaining its characteristics and identity (or, technically, its operational closure). |
||
| − | |||
| − | With a view to building quantitative indicators for resilience to plan for improved systems, resilience can be defined as determined by the degree to which a social system is capable of organizing itself to increase its capacity for learning from past disruptions and disasters for better future protection and to improve risk reduction measures.<ref>Glossary of the Department of Sustainable Development: http://www.oas.org/dsd/Nat-Dis-Proj/Natdesproject/Glossary.htm.</ref> |
||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | =Resilience and vulnerability= |
||
| − | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| − | |||
| − | By identifying potential [[vulnerability|vulnerabilities]], [[urban planning]] can directly contribute to the strengthening of community resilience. |
||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| − | |||
| − | ===Definition=== |
||
| ⚫ | |||
| − | |||
| − | The concept focuses both reactive capabilities to cope with, recover from and adjust to adversities and proactive capacities and action to prepare for and anticipate crisis, create options to response and recover from various kinds of harms and threats. These can comprise |
||
| − | |||
| − | *Governance and management of natural and environmental hazards, of climate change and energy policies; |
||
| − | *Governance and management of demographic challenges and urbanization; development of livelihood, gender and migration concepts; |
||
| − | *Governance and management of public health; development of health programs; |
||
| − | *Governance and management of economical and geopolitical risks; |
||
| − | *Governance and management of external and internal threats. |
||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | ===Societal resilience, urban planning and the comprehensive approach=== |
||
| − | |||
| ⚫ | Applying a [[comprehensive approach]] to |
||
| − | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| − | |||
| − | It follows that planning tools aiming at increasing urban resilience should be sensitive to the social context to which they are applied. Their development and use should be based on an analysis of relevant public security cultures on both the level of government and the level of citizens. In particular, the design and use of tools should be based on citizens’ perception of insecurity, feeling of vulnerability and acceptance of technological solutions for security problems. |
||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| − | |||
| − | Approaches such as “[[New urbanism|New Urbanism]]” have been led by the assumption that societal resilience could be increased by informed, progressive architectural design that per se would meliorate human behaviour and reduce insecurity as well as citizens’ feeling thereof, however this physical determinism will not hold. Threat and vulnerability perception by the 'users' of a city/an urban environment has to be taken into account. Urban planning should be sensitive to societal security cultures and in particular be based on citizens’ [[perception of (in)security|perception of insecurity]], feeling of [[vulnerability]] and acceptance of technological solutions for security problems. For example, while the need to provide for sufficient lighting clearly shapes the planning process of urban public space, thorough analysis of the relevant users and user groups are required to better assess how lighting can contribute to heighten individual security perception and to reduce “fear” in public space. |
||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | ==Resilience requirements== |
||
| − | |||
| − | While '''resilience''' requirements can have to do with the process of urban design itself, they also and inevitably comprise psychological and social aspects. The model of reflective fear for example holds that a person’s (reflective) fear will decrease or increase, depending on the information available concerning personal risk or hazard exposure. In other words, and in case of alerts, this model can describe how reassurance of citizens could contribute to an increase in resilience, while alerts, rather, tend to increase the imbalance of factual and felt (or sensed) fear. |
||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | Generally, a “multicultural sensibility for planning” is necessary, that includes considering how cultures, “''which prescribe members’ relations with the community, orient their actions, and, among other things, suggest how they might use formal planning processes.''”<ref> H. S. Baum: Culture Matters–But It Shouldn’t Matter Too Much. In: M. A. Burayidi (ed.): Urban Planning in a Multicultural Society, Westport, CT: Greenwood, 2000, p. 115.</ref> |
||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | =References= |
||
| ⚫ | |||
Latest revision as of 16:06, 15 August 2013
Resilience is the degree to which the functioning of a system is unperturbed by incidents, either by resisting damage and/or recovering quickly.
Contents
Description
The concept of resilience applies to all systems of society (or aspects that can be viewed as a system), if its functioning can be evaluated. As such, the term gained an important role in the field of protection of Critical infrastructure.
Resilience is related to the concept of Vulnerability, in the sense that lowering vulnerability will most likely increase resilience and to the Crisis management cycle that, through a process of constant improvement, aims to increase resilience.
Societal resilience
Societal resilience concerns the well-being (health, morale, etc.), self-protection (asset pattern, income, qualifications, etc.), and social protection (hazard preparedness by society, building codes, shelters, etc.) of the general public. The term also includes the resilience of social and political networks and institutions (social capital, institutional environment, etc.).[1]
Resilience and urban planning
Incorporating both safety and security consideration in the process of urban planning can contribute substantially to the resilience of an urban environment, by reducing potential vulnerabilities and impacts and supporting effective crisis management. Planning can contribute to building a system (of both social and of built environment) “to either absorb or respond to negative external influences or to more generalized experiences of perturbation.” (Coaffee/Wood/Rogers 2009: 122)[2]
Concrete approaches that can be taken by urban planners to increase resilience, include:
- Applying a comprehensive approach to urban planning can help increase societal resilience, because it acknowledges that an urban system can be confronted with all the phases of the crisis management cycle simultaneously.
- Following the disaster reduction and mitigation principles of resilience building.[3]
- Being sensitive to the social context and to security cultures.
- Basing the design and use of tools on citizens’ perception of (in)security and risks, feeling of vulnerability and acceptance of technological solutions for security problems.
- Identifying potential vulnerabilities (of which the Securban tool can be used to identify security issues).
- Using a holistic approach by incorporating the following five interconnected functional components: social, economic, political, demographic, and environmental.[4]
Footnotes and references
- ↑ Cannon T. et al.: Social Vulnerability, Sustainable Livelihoods and Disasters. Report to DFID. Conflict and Humanitarian Assistance Department (CHAD) and Sustainable Livelihoods Office London, 2003, pp. 4-5.
- ↑ Coaffee, J/Wood, D.M./Rogers, P. (2009): The Everyday Resilience of the City. How Cities Respond to Terrorism and Disaster. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan: p. 122
- ↑ Sapirstein, G. (2009): Social Resilience: The Forgotten Element in Disaster Reduction. Boston: Organizational Resilience International. Retrieved from http://www.oriconsulting.com/social_resilience.pdf [last access: 2012-05-11].)
- ↑ Pelling M.: The Vulnerability of Cities: Natural Disasters and Social Resilience. London: Sterling, VA: Earthscan, 2003, p. 12.
