/7>-:616/�:-;141-6+-;<=,17�.)+141<)<16/�:-;141-6+-"

8)5804-<���

INCLUSIVE RESILIENCE

CHRIS HALL

��

/:7=

8�<0

-5- /:7=8�<0-5-

8 7 4 1 < 1 +; �� �/7>-:6)6+-

GOVERNING RESILIENCE

The research topic that the group decided to explore was how resilience can be facilitated in relation to governance and politics. Each one of these research pamphlets details the exploration of this topic from a variety of view points. This research has allowed the group to identify specific areas that we are interested in and also the areas that require further research and exploration for our facilitating resilience studio projects.

Pamphlet 01: Environmental Citizenship by Dovile Botyriute.

Pamphlet 02: Inclusive Resilience by Chris Hall.

Pamphlet 03: Adaptability of governance by Chengrun Li.

Pamphlet 04: {Civic} hacking the way to a resilient future? by Joanna Beal

:-;-):+0�<0-5-

:-;-):+0�<0-5-

8741<1+;���/7>-:6)6+-��:-;-):+0�5-5*-:;"JOANNA BEALDOVILE BOTYRIUTECHRIS HALLCHENGRUN LI

;<=,17�.)+141<)<16/�:-;141-6+-"http://facilitatingresilience.wordpress.com

INCLUSIVE RESILIENCE

This research pamphlet discusses the concept of inclusive resilience as a method of improving the resilience of an area through its governance. Inclusive resilience can be considered primarily as a way to drive ideas of truly inclusive participation in resilient practices, to ensure communities which are created or targeted through resilient projects are inclusive and equitable. In this manner, it can be considered as a method to facilitate social resilience. It exists most effectively as a form of self-governance, to break down barriers of exclusion within communities.

This idea has been derived based on a quote from Petcou and Petrescu stating that “no pre-existing communities are targeted; instead new communities formed” (Petcou and Petrescu, Date Unknown: 5). This raises questions over KRZ�FDQ�LQHTXDOLWLHV�ZLWKLQ�D�FRPPXQLW\�EH�RYHUFRPH"�Also ZKHQ�FUHDWLQJ�D�QHZ�FRPPXQLW\��KRZ�FDQ�\RX�HQVXUH�LW�LV�VRFLDOO\�HTXLWDEOH�DQG�LQFOXVLYH"

This pamphlet describes inclusive resilience as a concept, asks why it is necessary and how it can be implemented, before describing a case study where this has been seen.

1 6 +4=; 1 > - �:-; 1 4 1 -6+-

REFERENCES

Baig, A, and Trueman, M., 2013. Bradford: Complex Streets, Complex Societies. Urban Design. Winter 2013. pp. 32-34

Chatterton, P., Gonzalez, S. and Unsworth, R., 2011. AHRC Connected Communities Research Review: Communities in Crisis [online]. Available at: http://www.ahrc.ac.uk/Funding-Opportunities/Research-funding/Connected-Communities/Scoping-studies-and-reviews/Documents/Communities%20in%20Crisis.pdf [Accessed: 25/11/2013]

Figueiredo, P. and Perkins, P., 2013. Women and Water Management in Times of Climate Change: Participatory and Inclusive Processess. Journal of Cleaner Production. 60. pp. 188-194

Petcou, C. and Petrescu, D., Date Unknown, R-Urban Resilient Utopia. pp. 1-14

WHY INCLUSIVE RESILIENCE?

Socially Resilient schemes are important to ensure fairer and richer outcomes from resilient community projects. Engaging with a wider community which includes a range of individuals from different cultures ensures a diverse range of local knowledge is collected and considered. Even in integrated communities, cultural groups are “subdivided further into micro-segments” (Baig and Trueman, 2013: 33), each with their own interpretation of their community and its space. Delving into these and combining the outcomes provides a complex map of a community and how space is used differently within it. This information can be used to design resilient schemes that address social inequalities and allow all groups to become “active agents of change in their communities” (Figueiredo and Perkins, 2013: 194) as well as addressing issues of crisis. Inclusive Resilience is important as an opportunity for communities to educate themselves about the cultures within them and understand how to work collectively with these towards a collective resilient goal. It is also therefore a method to facilitate social resilience.

HOW CAN THIS BE ACHIEVED?

Chatterton, Gonzalez and Unsworth (2011) describe how communities respond to crisis using forms of community organisation, otherwise known as self-governance. They describe 3 resilient ‘personalities’ of communities:

Intentionality - Communities separate themselves from crisis, usually through methods of self-sufficiencyInterventionism - Communities confront a crisis and “take matters into their own hands” (Chatterton, Gonzalez and Unsworth, 2011: 3)Resistance - Generally marginalised or deprived communities are not consulted and therefore resist against something which has been imposed upon them

Whichever method is taken, how this is managed within the community is also important. Democratically voted leaders or decentralised consensus decision making are often the most popular methods. Above all, communities need to be diverse and willing to work together.

WHAT NEEDS TO BE OVERCOME? EAST LONDON COMMUNITY LAND TRUST

The inclusivity of this project is found within its strong self governance. All members have their opinions considered in an equitable manner, as guaranteed in its constitution. However this project is not without its issues. The board of trustees does not include required community and resident representatives currently. Membership creates an exclusive community. Attempts have been made to overcome this by making membership £1, however is this necessary? The state controlled housing register will determine some of the new residents, not just members. Members selling housing and buying into the ‘regular’ market disadvantaged by less equity. It is therefore resilient as a closed system. It doesn’t integrate with current capitalist market, and could be argued that it is let down by it.

QUESTIONING ‘COMMUNITY’

The term ‘community’ is debatable within itself. Community is often described as a group with a characteristic in common. For the purpose of this research, community is a goal and defined purely by location, to ensure groups are not excluded based on culture. A community in this sense includes many different characteristics, however connected by the locality in which they live and are willing to work together towards improving this.

What is a Community Land Trust? Not for profit, membership organisation, run by local people that develops permanently affordable housing and other community assets. 50% of London’s house prices are land costs. CLT’s purchase or are gifted land, develop it for housing, then sell for development cost, not including the land value, effectively halving the house prices.

St. Clements Hospital Site in Mile End, London’s first CLT site. Development proposals currently waiting for planning approval. Members were strongly involved in design stage, as they will own and run the site in future.

Governance ELCLT is run by an elected board of trustees, with representatives from local residents, the wider community and a public body. It exists as an IPS (Industrial and Provident Society) so by law, must work as a co-operative for the benefit of the community. Due to this, it has a constitution which governs its actions. The details of this governance are shown overleaf.

Creating effective inclusive resilience relies on the cooperation of all groups within a community. This poses questions over whether all can be included effectively, or even should all be included? Where should the line be drawn between including all and having too many people to effectively be able to listen and implement? The scale at which to operate for the most part, should be proportional to the scale of the resilient project in question. It is important however that boundaries or barriers are not created. If all cannot be included in the design stage due to a matter of scale, then these should not feel excluded from the projects outcome. This idea is based from the research suggesting resilient projects can often create ‘island communities’, separating themselves from society and the community in order to be resilient (Chatterton, Gonzalez and Unsworth, 2011). These Intentional forms of resilience need to be carefully considered to ensure negative effects are not realised by the surrounding community.

WH

Y RE

SILI

ENT?

Re

spon

se to

affor

dabil

ity is

sues

of ho

using

www.eastlondonclt.co.uk

Other issues that may need to be overcome include personal ambition, competition or tension between groups, local politics and people feeling they are unable to participate for reasons such as a reliance on the state for benefits. This system may also be seen as a slow and laborious process by some, therefore projects may be required to be forced into a stronger participation process.

An advocate of the process, potentially a local ‘leader’, architect or planner could provide a solution to this, acting as an ‘impartial’ means to mediate issues and to ensure the inclusivity of proceedings.