담당교수 : 이인희
연도-학기 : 2018/1
교과목명 : 커뮤니티리질리언스와 실재(원)
강의시간 : 매주 수16:00
Theme/Course of 2018-1 Semester: [Resilient Design in Practice]
Course Objective
we consider Resilience to be one of the defining issue of this century. There are changes already in motion such as climate warming and other conditions arising from chronic urban stresses such as high unemployment, extreme wealth discrepancies, violence and water shortages that are increasingly difficult to mitigate against. These are happening with such acceleration that many societies are caught out with insufficient time and other resources to adapt in a seamless and timely manner. Architects and architectural academics, are now working collaboratively, researching and innovating across disciplines as varied as materials science, building physics, construction methods, social and economic regeneration, new forms of governance, co-production methods and service design, and we are developing solutions for mitigation and for adaptation that contribute to growing resilience and to positive transformations. On this course, We will explore many ways that architectural academics and practicing architects are engaging with issues of resilience and study emerging knowledge to set it in a theoretical context.
Basic Concept Description
[resilience]
The first use of the term “resilience” in science was in physical science as a measure of the resistance of materials (Davoudi 2012). Next, it entered the field of ecology in the 1960s, where Holling in 1973 defined “engineering resilience” and “ecological resilience” (Davoudi 2012).“Engineering resilience” is based on the notion of there being one equilibrium state and refers tothe ability of a system to return to its equilibrium after a disturbance (Davoudi 2012). “Ecological resilience,” in contrast, acknowledges that ecosystems can have more than one equilibrium state, and refers to the ability of a system to absorb disturbance without shifting to a qualitatively different state where its basic structure and function would be different (Davoudi 2012, Wu &Wu2013). From these early beginnings, the term “resilience” has grown in use to a point now where it is used in a variety of fields beyond ecology including environmental sciences, psychology, social sciences, public health, disaster research, engineering, and business and technology innovation (Bahadur et al. 2013, Norris et al. 2008). In this thesis, “resilience” is defined as the “capability of dealing with future shocks and stresses and continuing to function.” There are four parts to this definition: (i) what resilience is (i.e., acapability), (ii) what it confronts (i.e., future shocks and stresses), (iii) how it confronts this, and (iv) what its aim is. Other definitions in use have the same general structure as our definition but differ in some of the content.
In terms of what resilience confronts, most definitions are in agreement based on a general scan of the literature reviewed in this thesis. Different terms are used such as “disturbance,” “change,” “perturbation,” “surprise,” “shock,” “event,” “stress” or “trend”; but they all can be described as either shocks or stresses, where a “shock” is something that is acute, whereas a “stress” is a “slow burn” (Davoudi 2012). Moreover, all definitions seem to be open to any shocks or stresses, including both known and unknown. As for what the aim of resilience is, there are some differences among the definitions. Many ofthe definitions simply state the purpose as being able to resist the disturbance or quickly recover to the prior state and having minimal negative impacts. For example, one definition is “... the ability of a system to withstand an unusual perturbation and to recover efficiently from the damage...” (Bocchini et al. 2014). Another example is the ability “to withstand an extreme natural event without suffering devastating losses, damage, diminished productivity, or quality of life...”(Mileti 1999 as quoted in Godschalk 2003). These have the flavour of “engineering resilience.”Other definitions have to do with “ecological resilience,” which has more latitude. Walker &Salt’s definition that is used by many is: “the capacity of a system to absorb disturbance and reorganize so as to retain essentially the same function, structure, and feedbacks ? to have the same identity” (Walker &Salt 2012). Beyond both “engineering” and “ecological” resilience, both of which focus on a return to normal, Davoudi (2012) discuss one more type of resilience,“evolutionary resilience.” This type of resilience throws away the notion that there is a “normal”state or states to return to, defining resilience solely as the inherent capacity of a system “to change, adapt, transform” (Davoudi 2012). Some definitions seem to be more in line with this kind of resilience. For example, Norris et al. (2008) define community resilience as “a process of linking a set of adaptive capacities to a positive trajectory of functioning and adaptation after a disturbance.” It does not call for a return to normal, and it emphasizes adaptability. The definition of resilience in this thesis uses the wording “continue to function” and as is revealed later in Chapter 2, by “function,” it is meant “meet the essential needs of the community.”Basically, then, an aim of resilience, as per the definition in this thesis, is to continue to meet the essential needs of the community. One may ask, which type of “resilience” does this fit into? It may seem to fit well with “ecological resilience,” since it uses the word “function.” But actually it could also be considered as “evolutionary resilience” because the system does not actually haveto function in the same way as long as essential needs continue to be met. In addition to continuing to meet essential needs, there is an inherent desire to also reduce negative impact (e.g., death, injury, illness), so this is another aim implied in the definition of resilience in this thesis. Similar aims were clearly reflected in some of the definitions introduced earlier (e.g., Mileti 1999). Next, in terms of what resilience is, most say it is an ability, capability, or capacity based on a general review of the literature reviewed in this thesis. Others emphasize it as a process (i.e.,resilience is something a system does, not has) that is most visible during a crisis (Park et al. 2013, Davoudi 2012). It can also be an alternative design and management strategy or way of thinking(Park et al. 2011, Brand &Jax 2007). In some cases where quantification is desired, resilience isa metric (Bocchini et al. 2014). The definition of resilience in this thesis sticks with resilience asa capability.
Finally, in terms of how resilience confronts shocks and stresses, there is a seeming divergence in the definitions. As mentioned in Section 1.1, traditional risk management is an important part of dealing with future shocks and stresses, but is not sufficient. Some researchers or practitioners seem to include traditional risk management within the realm of “resilience” methods, as is donein this thesis. Others however consider traditional risk management or ‘predict and prevent’approaches as not a part of “resilience” methods, limiting “resilience” only to new and novel hinking and stating that it (“resilience” as they define it) complements traditional approaches(Park et al. 2013, Tyler &Moench 2012). In this thesis, it has been decided to include traditional approaches within the realm of “resilience,” because many, in particular governmental organizations, do. Many cities, for example, currently talk about making their cities “resilient,”and are no doubt thinking that traditional risk management will play an important role in this.
Textbook
1. A FRAMEWORK FOR RESILINT DESIGN, ESKEW+DUMEZ+RIPPLE, RESEARCH IN PRACTICE Summer 2014 Edition, New Orleans, 2014
2. Sustainable and Resilient Neighbourhood Design, Mariko Uda, Doctor of Philosophy, Graduate Department of Civil Engineering University of Toronto, 2016
3.Appropriate Technology: Learning from One Another
4.Appropriate Technology for Socioeconomic Development in third world countries
참고자료1 적정기술 동영상_1
참고자료2 적정기술 강연 동영상
Reference
1. Tailand : A case study of Sakla Village
2. Sudan : Appropriate Technology for Housing in Sudan
3. China : green residential buildings in Hunan Province
4. South America : The Appropriate Technology Movement in South America
5. India : Understanding_appropriate_technology
Lecture
Lecture Definition and Characteristics of Appropriate Technology
Requirements & Grading
All students are required to attend all classes and complete all assignments on time. Any student who has more than three unexcused absences may be failed in the class. Whenever possible, discuss any necessary absences with instructor before you are absent or very shortly thereafter. An incomplete grade will only be issued when a student is unable to complete the class because of a documented illness. A letter from your physician will be required documentation.
-Presentation 60%
-Assignment 30%
-Attendance and active participation in group discussions 10%
Organization of lecture
The objective of this course is to support understanding of resilience work at the neighbourhood scale, where “resilience” is the capability of dealing with future shocks and stresses and continuing to function.
[Part1]
a framework for analyzing and improving neighbourhood resilience will be developed. The key parts of this framework are the definition of the essential needs of the community, identification of future shocks/stresses, and the execution of a series of resilience analyses. This framework was partially applied to a case study neighbourhood, a proposed mixed use neighbourhood. It will applied to identify ways to improve the resilience of the neighbourhood with respect to energy, and should be found to be straightforward to use and effective in generating ideas.
[Part2]
the relationship between sustainability and resilience will be explored, by examining the resilience potential of actions in the LEED for Neighbourhood Development (LEED-ND) sustainability rating system to a wide range of future shocks/stresses. LEED-ND was found to contribute resilience to a number of future shocks/stresses (especially energy shortage and heat waves), and had minimal conflicting qualities, but did not address resilience needs comprehensively, thus confirming the need for a neighbourhood resilience framework.
[Part3]
literature reviews will be studied to come up with a single set of resilience strategies to aid design for resilience. A design aid can be developed consisting of resilience strategies that improve “core,” “specified,” and “general” resilience. The design aid will be used to find ways to improve the resilience of the case study neighbourhood to any threat, and also to heat waves specifically. It will be found to be effective in generating many ideas, and relatively straight forward to use, albeit a little difficult in some parts and lengthy in process.
[Part4]
a step-wise procedure for showing how the framework and design aid can be used together will be presented.
Schedule
Week 1 Introduction
Week 2 DEFINITIONS
Week 3 DEFINING THE ESSENTIAL NEEDS OF A COMMUNITY, IDENTIFYING FUTURE RISKS TO NEIGHBOURHOODS
Week 4 RESILIENCE ANALYSES OF A NEIGHBOURHOOD, APPLICATION TO CASE STUDY NEIGHBOURHOOD
Week 5 SUSTAINABILITY ACTIONS IN LEED FOR NEIGHBOURHOOD DEVELOPMENT, FUTURE SHOCKS AND STRESSES TO A NEIGHBOURHOOD FOR USE IN THE ASSESSMENT
Week 6 ASSESSMENT MATRIX, RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
Week 7 Mid_discussion
Week 8 METHODOLOGY(1) : Literature Review of Specific Resilience Actions and Deducing Underlying
Week 9 METHODOLOGY(2) : Literature Review of Resilience Concepts
Week10 METHODOLOGY(3) : Producing a Single Set of Resilience Strategies
Week11 RESULTS Discussion(1) : Resilience Concepts Deduced from the Literature, Review of Specific Resilience Actions
Week12 RESULTS Discussion(2) : Resilience Concepts from the Literature Review of Resilience Concepts
Week13 RESULTS Discussion(3) : Production of a Single Set of Resilience Strategies and a Design Aid
Week14 DISCUSSION : APPLICATION OF RESULTANT DESIGN AID
Week15 Final Presentation/Discussion