The current Covid-19 pandemic has underlined the importance of urban public spaces in achieving health and social well-being (Dobson, 2021; Poortinga et al., 2021), prompting policymakers and urban planners to rethink their approach to the design of these spaces. They now propagate adapting urban public spaces more directly to human needs (Suurenbroek et al., 2019), often at a neighbourhood level, while also embracing a more-than-human perspective that includes the well-being of the natural ecosystem at large (Maller, 2020; Houston et al., 2018). The latter becomes imperative as other shocks and stressors, such as climate change and biodiversity loss, are impending, straining urban spaces and their residents to show resilience in times of complex challenges. “Learning from Covid-19”, a need emerged for new design approaches for public spaces, contributing both to social and ecological resilience.This paper presents results from the research project "From Prevention to Resilience". It moves beyond merely responding to the pandemic by designing social and physical barriers in public space to prevent the virus from spreading. Instead, it seizes the opportunity to explore how an integrated design approach to public space could contribute to social and ecological resilience (Boon et al., 2021). The project, funded by the Dutch organization for health research and care innovation, is a collaboration between the chairs of Spatial Urban Transformation and Civic Interaction Design (AUAS) and an international partner consortium.This paper builds on our compiled database of design strategies addressing the Covid-crisis, expert sessions with a Community of Practitioners, and interviews with Dutch spatial design firms and municipalities. It first introduces a "Design Framework for Neighbourhood Resilience" and its core concepts. Next, it validates this framework through a research-by-design approach. Spatial and social design agencies applied the framework in real-life design cases in Amsterdam and allowed for its empirical grounding and practice-based development. Ultimately, the paper defines a design framework that builds resilience for the well-being of all urban inhabitants and initiates a dialogue between disciplines to address resilience integrally when designing public spaces and forms of civic engagement.ReferencesBoon, B., Nirschl, M., Gualtieri, G., Suurenbroek, F., & de Waal, M. (2021). Generating and disseminating intermediate-level knowledge on multiple levels of abstraction: An exploratory case in media architecture. Media Architecture Biennale 20, 189–193. https://doi.org/10.1145/3469410.3469430Dobson, J. (2021). Wellbeing and blue‐green space in post‐pandemic cities: Drivers, debates and departures. Geography Compass, 15. https://doi.org/10.1111/gec3.12593Houston, D., Hillier, J., MacCallum, D., Steele, W., & Byrne, J. (2018). Make kin, not cities! Multispecies entanglements and ‘becoming-world’ in planning theory. Planning Theory, 17(2), 190–212. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095216688042 Maller, C. (2020). Healthy Urban Environments: More-than-Human Theories (1st ed.). Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. https://www.routledge.com/Healthy-Urban-Environments-More-than-Human-Theories/Maller/p/book/9780367459031Poortinga, W., Bird, N., Hallingberg, B., Phillips, R., & Williams, D. (2021). The role of perceived public and private green space in subjective health and wellbeing during and after the first peak of the COVID-19 outbreak. Landscape and Urban Planning, 211, 104092. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2021.104092 Suurenbroek, F., Nio, I., & de Waal, M. (2019). Responsive public spaces: exploring the use of interactive technology in the design of public spaces. Hogeschool van Amsterdam, Urban Technology.https://research.hva.nl/en/publications/responsive-public-spaces-exploring-the-use-of-interactive-technol-2
DOCUMENT
This leaflet showcases a design framework for buildingcommunity resilience in urban neighbourhoods. Atits core, the framework challenges designers andother professionals to not only consider resilience inhuman communities, but also in other-than-humancommunities, including plants and animals. Theframework proposes a set of five concepts that helpbridging these two perspectives; each concept describesan important condition for community resilience toemerge for both humans and non-humans.
DOCUMENT
Adaptive governance describes the purposeful collective actions to resist, adapt, or transform when faced with shocks. As governments are reluctant to intervene in informal settlements, community based organisations (CBOs) self-organize and take he lead. This study explores under what conditions CBOs in Mathare informal settlement, Nairobi initiate and sustain resilience activities during Covid-19. Study findings show that CBOs engage in multiple resilience activities, varying from maladaptive and unsustainable to adaptive, and transformative. Two conditions enable CBOs to initiate resilience activities: bonding within the community and coordination with other actors. To sustain these activities over 2.5 years of Covid-19, CBOs also require leadership, resources, organisational capacity, and network capacity. The same conditions appear to enable CBOs to engage in transformative activities. How-ever, CBOs cannot transform urban systems on their own. An additional condition, not met in Mathare, is that governments, NGOs, and donor agencies facilitate, support, and build community capacities. This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: Adaptive governance by community-based organisations: Community resilience initiatives during Covid‐19 in Mathare, Nairobi. which has been published in final form at doi/10.1002/sd.2682. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Use of Self-Archived Versions
DOCUMENT
Supportive social interactions between nonparental adults (i.e. social work professionals, volunteers, and other parents that have contact with children but are not the primary caregiver), parents, and children are important for children’s well-being and development. Parenting styles, types of child behaviour, and location in the neighbourhood may influence these interactions. The aim of the present study was to identify when and how nonparental adults respond in interactions with other adults and children in the neighbourhood. A mixed-method study with vignettes and interviews (N = 114) was conducted to gain insight into which factors (parenting style, child behaviour, location in the neighbourhood) influence the nonparental adults’ intention to respond to children and/or parents. Nonparental adults indicated they were most likely to respond in the context of a permissive parenting style or a child’s externalising behaviour. Professionals more often felt responsible than parents and volunteers, although they did not respond more often. All three factors were related to the participants’ willingness to respond and promote a supportive social structure in the neighbourhood. Social work professionals and their organisations can use this study to identify social support interactions and to discuss their responsibilities.--Sociaal ondersteunende interacties tussen mede-opvoeders (zoals sociaal werk-professionals, vrijwilligers en andere ouders die contact met kinderen hebben, maar niet primair verantwoordelijk zijn) zijn belangrijk voor het welzijn en een positieve ontwikkeling van kinderen. Het doel van deze studie was inzicht geven in hoe mede-opvoeders reageren in interacties met andere opvoeders en kinderen in de buurt. Een mixed-method design met vignetten en interviews is toegepast om inzicht te krijgen in welke factoren (opvoedstijl, gedrag van een kind en locatie in de buurt) de reactie van mede-opvoeders beïnvloeden. Mede-opvoeders gaven aan dat ze het meest reageren in situaties waar sprake is van een permissieve opvoedingsstijl of externaliserend gedrag van een kind. Professionals voelen zich meer verantwoordelijk dan ouders en vrijwilligers, maar reageren niet vaker. Opvoedstijl, gedrag van het kind en locatie in de buurt hangen samen met de mate waarin respondenten reageren en om een ondersteunende sociale structuur in de buurt te bevorderen. Sociaal werkers en hun organisaties kunnen deze studie gebruiken om sociaal ondersteunende interacties te identificeren and over hun verantwoordelijkheid te discussiëren.
DOCUMENT
This essay explores the notion of resilience by providing a theoretical context and subsequently linking it to the management of safety and security. The distinct worlds of international security, industrial safety and public security have distinct risks as well as distinct ‘core purposes and integrities’ as understood by resilience scholars. In dealing with risks one could argue there are three broad approaches: cost-benefit analysis, precaution and resilience. In order to distinguish the more recent approach of resilience, the idea of adaptation will be contrasted to mitigation. First, a general outline is provided of what resilience implies as a way to survive and thrive in the face of adversity. After that, a translation of resilience for the management of safety and security is described. LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/juul-gooren-phd-cpp-a1180622/
DOCUMENT
The current COVID-19 pandemic confines people to their homes, disrupting the fragile social fabric of deprived neighbourhoods and citizen’s participation options. In deprived neighbourhoods, community engagement is central in building community resilience, an important resource for health and a prerequisite for effective health promotion programmes. It provides access to vulnerable groups and helps understand experiences, assets, needs and problems of citizens. Most importantly, community activities, including social support, primary care or improving urban space, enhance health through empowerment, strengthened social networks, mutual respect and providing a sense of purpose and meaning. In the context of inequalities associated with COVID-19, these aspects are crucial for citizens of deprived neighbourhoods who often feel their needs and priorities are ignored. In this perspectives paper, illustrated by a varied overview of community actions in the UK and The Netherlands, we demonstrate how citizens, communities and organizations may build resilience and community power. Based on in-depth discussion among the authors we distilled six features of community actions: increase in mutual aid and neighbourhood ties, the central role of community-based organizations (CBOs), changing patterns of volunteering, use of digital media and health promotion opportunities. We argue that in order to enable and sustain resilient and confident, ‘disaster-proof’, communities, areas which merit investment include supporting active citizens, new (digital) ways of community engagement, transforming formal organizations, alignment with the (local) context and applying knowledge in the field of health promotion in new ways, focussing on learning and co-creation with citizen initiatives.
DOCUMENT
This essay is a contribution to the research project ‘From Prevention to Resilience’ funded by ZonMw. Motivated by the Covid-19 pandemic, this research project explored how public space and forms of civic engagement can contribute to working towards more resilient urban neighborhoods. The project engaged a community of practice (CoP) to inform the research and to disseminate and critically discuss research outcomes. This essay, and the bundle it is part of, is the outcome of one of these engagements. The authors of this specific essay were asked to offer their disciplinary perspective on a first version of the Human / Non-Human Public Spaces design perspective, at that time still titled Nexus Framework on Neighborhood Resilience (click here and a PDF of this version will be downloaded). The authors were asked to do so based on their field of expertise, being climate-resilient cities. The authors have written this essay in coordination with the research team. To grasp the content of this essay and to take lessons from it, we encourage readers to first get familiar with the first version of the design perspective.
MULTIFILE
The main question that leads the focus in this study is: What is the contribution of the school environment to the resilience of middle-adolescent students? Before going into the background and rationale of this study I will specify the terms used in this research question: - Contribution: In this study I will use the dynamic term contribution instead of the term effect because I will not measure the causal influence in a statistical way but I will explore the relationship between school environment and middle-adolescents resilience in terms of dynamic, reciprocal interactions. - School environment: With the term school environment I refer to all possible aspects of the immediate environment constituted by the school as a system in which the middle-adolescent is interactively participating. These aspects can include teachers as well as the school building as well as the lunch breaks and extramural activities. No framed description of this term will be postulated beforehand because the school environment will be studied from the viewpoint of the middle-adolescents. It is the middle-adolescents description of the term school environment that is the focus of this study. - Resilience: Before constructing the term resilience in a detailed manner in Chapter Two I will use the term to denote the ability to bounce back after stressful experiences. - Middle-adolescent: a 14-or 15-year old girl or boy. I will elaborate on the reason for the focus on this age group in paragraph 2.1.
DOCUMENT
Building resilience to radicalization has become a key pillar of many policies for preventing violent extremism. However, sustained debates over the precise nature of the terms radicalisation and resilience impact the ability to implement these policies. A growing body of literature argues that the way in which key ideas are understood matters to what happens in practice. Additionally, the cross-sector collaboration called for in PVE policy can be made more challenging through divergences in understanding of central concepts. As such, the way in which resilience to radicalization is being understood by frontline workers matters. In light of this, a q-methodology study was conducted, which identified four perspectives on resilience to radicalization amongst policy-makers and practitioners in Belgium, the Netherlands, and the UK. These perspectives are examined in light of the broader debates around both resilience and radicalization, and the extent to which the divergences matter for collaboration is considered.
DOCUMENT
This collection of articles contains contributions to the research project ‘From Prevention to Resilience’ (FPtP). In this project, the research team has generated insights and tools for designers, policymakers, and other professionals to contribute to more resilient cities and neighborhoods. The point of departure was public space as a site for intervention, while learning from the ongoing developments revolving around the Covid-19 pandemic. During the early phases of the pandemic, governments initially focused on preventing the virus from spreading. Public spaces came to be seen as potential places for contamination. In response, fences, markings, and barrier tapes were put into place to orchestrate people’s movement and promote physical distance. With our research project, we explored the role that public space could play besides such often ad hoc preventive measures. What other challenges can public space tackle with regard to the various shocks and stressors that hit cities and neighborhoods, now and in the future? And how to tackle these challenges in an integral way? An integral approach to designing public spaces involves many disciplines, and it is to a great extent dependent on local governments’ take on public spaces. To this end, we asked relevant experts to share their disciplinary reflections on a design perspective we have developed in the FPtP project, called Human / Non-Human Public Spaces. An earlier version of this design perspective was handed over to experts to provide feedback from an urban climate adaptation perspective and from a governance and cultural change perspective. Stephanie Erwin and Jeroen Kluck provide concrete feedback on the design perspective and offer a discussion in relation to the field of urban climate resilience. Alex Straathof offers an essayistic text in which he reflects on some of the key notions of the design perspective, reflecting on some of the key notions of the design perspective based on cultural theory and his experience with interventions on the neighborhood level. In parallel, we commissioned two independent experts in the field of spatial development and governance to make a preliminary analysis of the impact of COVID-19 on the government perspectives on public spaces. Both experts were given the same question, but they applied different methods. Hugo Verschoor Plug conducted an analysis on two national policy documents and six ‘omgevingsvisies’ – i.e., strategies on spatial planning and the environment – of large and middle-sized cities: Amsterdam, Breda, The Hague, Groningen, Rotterdam and Zwolle. Denise Vrolijk was asked to interview professionals from a cross-section of Dutch Cities in order to obtain their perspectives on how local governments viewed the role of public spaces in relation to resilience. Together, these analyses provide an overview of the current state of affairs in public space and urban resilience. We thank the authors for sharing their expertise and insights and thereby contribute to the FPtR project. This project is funded by The Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development (ZonMw), part of the subsidy round ‘COVID 19: Maatschappelijke Dynamiek’, project nr. 10430032010029.
MULTIFILE
