4.5 Article

Co-producing commons-based resilience: lessons from R-Urban

期刊

BUILDING RESEARCH AND INFORMATION
卷 44, 期 7, 页码 717-736

出版社

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/09613218.2016.1214891

关键词

agency; bottom-up approaches; commons; community participation; co-production; design; participatory action research; resilience; social networks

资金

  1. EU Life + Programme of Environmental Governance
  2. French Ministry of Ecology, Arts and Humanities Research Council
  3. European Union
  4. Arts and Humanities Research Council [AH/L015781/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  5. AHRC [AH/L015781/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The co-production of resilience in European urban neighbourhoods is explored based on the experiences from a case study. Within the current resilience imperative', co-production processes involving multiple stakeholders can be a key factor for increasing cities' resilience. Co-produced resilience processes are more successful when embedded in collaborative forms of governance such as those associated with urban commons and when fulfilling needed roles with a community. Through the application of the R-Urban approach in a neighbourhood of Colombes (near Paris), the co-production of a commons-based resilience strategy is described. This involved a group of designers as initiators and a number of citizen as stakeholders of a network of civic hubs. The specific strategies involving a participatory setting, collective governance aspects and circular economies are analysed in the light of co-production theories and practices. Internal and external challenges are identified within the implementation process. The nature of conflicts and negotiations in this co-production approach are discussed, and the role of the architects/designers as agents within the process is investigated. Reflections from this example are provided on the limits and promises of this approach and the lessons learned from R-Urban for collaborative civic resilience.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据