Search results
1 – 10 of 93Jane L. Ireland, Nicola Graham-Kevan, Michelle Davies and Douglas P. Fry
The paper aims to assess the impact and responses to coronavirus disease 2019 in six European heritage labs (Horizon 2020 Framework Programme) selected for their adaptive heritage…
Abstract
Purpose
The paper aims to assess the impact and responses to coronavirus disease 2019 in six European heritage labs (Horizon 2020 Framework Programme) selected for their adaptive heritage re-use practices based on participation, self-organisation and self-management. As they are naturally oriented towards building resilient urban systems, the hypothesis is that the co-production of cultural values and places promoted by these projects could create the conditions for equitable perspectives of resilience in the normality of contemporary urban life.
Design/methodology/approach
The paper draws on data collected through a survey of six European Living Labs between January and May 2021. The survey results are framed by a literature review that defines adaptive reuse in terms of resilience. The five resilience characteristics described by Judith Rodin (awareness, diversification, integration, self-regulation and adaptability) are used to navigate the literature and organise the survey results.
Findings
Combining survey results and insights from the literature, some modes and elements (territorial, social, financial) are presented that contribute to creating the conditions for resilience through adaptive heritage reuse according to community-based approaches. Without claiming to be exhaustive, this evidence should be considered in the design phase of resilience programmes, policies or projects related to cultural heritage.
Originality/value
The concepts of community and resilience are becoming increasingly important in the field of cultural heritage. This paper makes a creative contribution to the ongoing debate by presenting and evaluating the contribution of adaptive reuse practices to resilience building.
Details
Keywords
In many security domains, the ‘human in the system’ is often a critical line of defence in identifying, preventing and responding to any threats (Saikayasit, Stedmon, & Lawson…
Abstract
In many security domains, the ‘human in the system’ is often a critical line of defence in identifying, preventing and responding to any threats (Saikayasit, Stedmon, & Lawson, 2015). Traditionally, such security domains are often focussed on mainstream public safety within crowded spaces and border controls, through to identifying suspicious behaviours, hostile reconnaissance and implementing counter-terrorism initiatives. More recently, with growing insecurity around the world, organisations have looked to improve their security risk management frameworks, developing concepts which originated in the health and safety field to deal with more pressing risks such as terrorist acts, abduction and piracy (Paul, 2018). In these instances, security is usually the specific responsibility of frontline personnel with defined roles and responsibilities operating in accordance with organisational protocols (Saikayasit, Stedmon, Lawson, & Fussey, 2012; Stedmon, Saikayasit, Lawson, & Fussey, 2013). However, understanding the knowledge that frontline security workers might possess and use requires sensitive investigation in equally sensitive security domains.
This chapter considers how to investigate knowledge elicitation in these sensitive security domains and underlying ethics in research design that supports and protects the nature of investigation and end-users alike. This chapter also discusses the criteria used for ensuring trustworthiness as well as assessing the relative merits of the range of methods adopted.
Details