Search results

This paper examines the role of government in New Zealand in facilitating the development of resilience in the built environment, with reference to the post-earthquake recovery of Christchurch. A cross-case comparison of the institutional structures and arrangements for disaster risk management (DRM) between Sri Lanka and New Zealand provides a useful basis to consider the broader implications of the findings from both countries. Particular consideration is given to the role of community participation in DRM decisions.

Malalgoda and Amaratunga (2015) recently published an article on empowering local governments to develop resilience in the built environment in Sri Lanka. This paper provides a response to their discussion in conjunction with a New Zealand case study.

Despite being one of the most advanced countries in the world with regards to DRM, New Zealand faces significant challenges in implementation, chief amongst which is that local governments have yet to truly prioritize DRM in urban development. While community consultation is embedded in the legislative framework, requirements for consultation were somewhat misjudged by the local government in Christchurch’s recovery. A lesson to be learnt from Christchurch’s experience is that even if the Sri Lankan authorities follow Malalgoda and Amaratunga’s recommendations for greater devolution of powers to local government, there will be tensions if community expectations over consultation are not met.

The cross-case analysis offers a helpful lens through which it is possible to examine DRM. It is useful for informing governments and other stakeholders, helping them to understand the challenges their institutions may face in facilitating DRM and building resilience.

The social housing sector is under increasing pressure to do more with less and provide value for money as part of the UK Government’s public debt reduction strategy. This study aims to explore the current practices towards unlocking social value in the housing sector through the adoption of the Social Value Act 2012. The Social Value Act seeks to ensure that public sector procurement deliver added value in terms of social, economic and environmental outcomes.

The study adopts quantitative research methodology through a survey with 100 housing professionals charged with the delivery of social value outcomes in the social housing sector in England.

The results of the study reveal that there is a low level of understanding of the Social Value Act 2012 among the professionals in the social housing sector. Once again, most organisations in the social housing sector do not have social value strategies or policies and rarely consider social value outcomes during procurement. However, employment skills and training and crime and antisocial behaviour reduction are the most social value priority outcomes/needs identified with organisations currently promoting social value in the social housing sector.

The issue of social value has importance towards the wider society, and the study provides an insight into current practices towards the realisation of social value outcomes in the housing sector.

The Social Value Act 2012 came into force in January 2013, and little has been written on the impact of the Act on the social housing sector in England. This study identifies current practices in the social housing sector towards the delivery of social value outcomes in the day-to-day business operations.

“Process” vs “product”: this concept was originally introduced by Ian Davis in 1978 in Shelter After Disaster. However, 40 years later, in the halls of universities, it would appear a long way from having settled in the minds of upcoming engineers and architects looking to contribute to the field of disaster management. This key understanding is a major steppingstone to those pursuing careers in the shelter and settlements sector. However, the clarity of the argument and its importance still fails to reach some humanitarians in the early stages of their career. This perspective reflects on the key arguments for and against process over product and reflects on the reasons for the lack of recognition of this concept in early stage academics in the shelter and settlements sector. It also discusses the academic practitioner divide and pathways for learning within the sector.

This perspective reflects on discussions over four years of a progression into the humanitarian shelter and settlements sector from a construction and engineering background. It discusses the author’s personal progression in understanding process over product and observations of other early stage researchers taking similar pathways. It also examines literature in the sector and the key texts which affect this progression. Furthermore, this perspective provides comments from experts in the shelter and settlements sector through a small series of informal interviews. This provides insight into their experience with upcoming architects and engineers, and key messages for early stage researchers.

This reflection found that upcoming architects and engineering students still undergo a journey of understanding over “process vs product” despite changes in the industry. These students can benefit from the understanding of shelter as a process.

The concept of process vs product is not a new one. It is arguably one of the most central arguments to the shelter and settlements sector. However, there is very little written on the learning of this concept or the effects it has on understanding the broader aspects of the sector. This reflection can provide significant value to early stage researchers who have yet to engage with this concept, and further highlight its importance of learning pathways to the sector.

The paper seeks to examine the latest stage in a process of change aimed at introducing concepts of sustainable development into the activities of the Department of Engineering at Cambridge University, UK.

The rationale behind defining the skills which future engineers require is discussed and vehicles for change at both undergraduate and postgraduate level are described. Reflections on the paradigms and pedagogy of teaching sustainable development issues to engineers are offered, as well as notes on barriers to progress which have been encountered.

The paper observes that the ability to effectively initiate a change process is a vital skill which must be formally developed in those engineers wishing to seek sustainable solutions from within the organisations for which they will work. Lessons are drawn about managing a change process within a large academic department, so that concepts of sustainable development can be effectively introduced across all areas of the engineering curriculum.

A new pedagogy for dealing with changes from the quantitative to the qualitative is required, as the paper questions where the education balance should lie between providing access to technological knowledge which can be applied to designing hard solutions, and training engineers to rethink their fundamental attitudes towards a broader, multiple perspective approach in which problem formulation and context setting play a vital role in reaching consensual solutions.

The paper reviews previously recognised key themes for engineering education for sustainable development, and proposes three further essential ingredients relating to an engineer's ability to engage in problem definition, manage change in organisations, and understand the nature of technical and business innovations.

Universities globally have faced the introduction of research performance assessment systems that provide monetary and ranking rewards based on publication outputs. This study aims to seek an understanding of the implementation of performance-based research funding (PBRF) and its impact on the heads of departments (HoDs) and accounting academics in New Zealand (NZ) tertiary institutions. The study explores NZ accounting academics’ experiences and their workload; the relationship between teaching and research in the accounting discipline and any issues and concerns affecting new and emerging accounting researchers because of PBRF.

Applying an institutional theoretical lens, this paper explores accounting HoDs’ perceptions concerning the PBRF system’s impact on their academic staff. The research used semi-structured interviews to collect data from NZ’s eight universities.

The key findings posit that many institutional processes, some more coercive in nature, whereas others were normative and mimetic, have been put in place to ensure that academics are able to meet the PBRF requirements. HoDs suggest that their staff understand the importance of research, but that PBRF is a challenge to new and emerging researchers and pose threats to their recruitment. New academics must “hit the ground running” as they must demonstrate not only teaching abilities but also already have a track record of research publications; all in all, a daunting experience for new academics to overcome. There is also a teaching and research disconnect. Furthermore, many areas where improvements can be made in the design of this measurement tool remain.

The PBRF system has significantly impacted on accounting academics. Central university research systems were established that subsequently applied coercive institutional pressures onto line managers to ensure that their staff performed. This finding offers scope for future research to explore a better PBRF that measures and rewards research productivity but without the current system’s unintended negative consequences.