Why we Disagree about Resilience: epistemology, methodology and policy space for integrated disaster risk management

复原力规划往往利用技术科学来突出其好处，但很少有系统的工作研究科学在塑造复原力政策轨迹方面的作用。加强对不同行为者和利益集团如何在抗灾政策进程中利用科学的了解，对于帮助建立包容、透明和公正的发展至关重要。这就需要更好地理解为什么特定行为者在提出抗灾理由时更喜欢某些科学知识，科学语言如何疏远或支持特定行为者群体，以及通过个别科学传统投射的世界观是否偏好特定种类的政策反应和抗灾呼吁的结果。将科学视为政策进程和论点的组成部分，使分析超越了对风险沟通的线性解释，并将科学置于治理系统之中。这就可以更细致地解释科学在何处、为何被使用以及由谁使用，并提出科学家作为治理系统中的行为者而不是作为在治理过程之外行事的中立专家的职责问题。就科学在复原力中的作用开展系统的研究议程，可以借鉴这类关于风险治理的成熟工作。《2015- 2030年联合国仙台行动框架》加强了科学的作用，这使得对特定科学-政策关系的公正影响的开放变得及时。在这方面，需要科学来帮助创新、监测和评估，而且还需要科学来制定风险管理政策。科学在灾害风险管理中的召集作用很少得到探讨，需要开展工作，帮助政策行为体学习如何利用科学为围绕抗灾能力等有争议的主题进行共同对话提供共享空间，避免抗灾能力成为政策主导和控制的工具。开启关于科学在风险和复原力治理中的作用的研究议程需要一种跨学科的方法--一种将跨学科与利益相关者共同生产相结合的方法。拟议的项目将联合收割机结合政治哲学和批判性社会科学，提出科学生产过程的责任和权力问题，审查用于描述复原力的参与性方法，并汇集灾害测绘和可视化以及艺术和表演方法的经验，以提供多种方法，可以对复原力进行不同的解释。基于绩效的方法将允许展示复原力的解释和情感方面，并与使用空间定义的具体地方的灾害和社会属性的地理信息系统进行对比。问题、方法和分析的框架还将吸收三个试点研究地点的利益攸关方参与：开普敦（菲利普）、马尼拉（泰泰）和内罗毕（基贝拉）。之所以选择这些项目，是因为现有的研究伙伴关系和正在进行的复原力政策和规划可以通过拟议的工作得到加强。内罗毕和开普敦也是洛克菲勒百城方案的成员。研究影响规划已在提案前规划阶段开始，并将通过与城市从业人员和决策者的合作，从项目一开始就制定。城市合作伙伴一直热衷于在一个项目中进行合作，该项目可以帮助从相互竞争的城市利益攸关方的角度提出相互竞争的复原力愿景，以及如何利用复原力来确保理想的未来。合作伙伴热衷于比较从拟议工作中汲取的经验和教训，并将其向前推进。该项目将为每个城市编写一份政策简报和两份学术论文。它还将在伦敦和沃里克举办讲习班，使从业人员和科学家聚集在一起，在研究设计以及成果的核实和微调传播方面进行合作。

Resilience programming often draws on technical science to highlight its benefits, yet little systematic work has studied the role of science in shaping resilience policy trajectories. Improved knowledge of how science is used by different actors and interests in resilience policy processes is important of resilience is to help build inclusive, transparent and just development. This calls for a better understanding of why specific actors prefer certain kinds of scientific knowledge when making the case for resilience, how languages of science alienate or support specific actor groups, and if the worldviews projected through individual science traditions preference particular kinds of policy response and outcomes from calls for resilience. Thinking of science as integral to policy processes and arguments moves analysis past linear explanations of risk communication and places science within governance systems. This allows much more fine grained explanation of where and why science is used and by whom, and opens questions about the duties of scientists as actors in governance systems - not as neutral experts acting from the outside of governance processes. Opening up a systematic research agenda on the role of science in resilience can draw upon mature work of this kind on risk governance. Opening up to the justice implications of specific science-policy relationships is made timely by the heightened role given to science by the UN Sendai Framework for Action 2015-30. Here science is called upon to help innovate, monitor and evaluation but also to convene of risk management policy. The convening role of science is little explored within disaster risk management and work is needed that can help policy actors learn how to use science to provide shared spaces for common dialogue around contentious topics like resilience and to avoid resilience becoming a tool for policy domination and capture. Opening a research agenda on the role of science in governance for risk and resilience requires a transdisciplinary approach - one that combines interdisciplinarty with stakeholder coproduction. The proposed project will combine political philosophy and critical social science to ask questions of duty and power to science production processes, review participatory methods used to describe resilience and bring together experience from hazards mapping and visualisation and arts and performance methods to provide multiple methods that can surface different interpretations of resilience. Performance based methods will allow for interpretive and emotional aspects of resilience to be presented and contrast with geographical information systems using spatially defined hazard and social attributes for specific places. The framing of questions, methods and analysis will also incorporate stakeholders from each of the three pilot study sites: Cape Town (Philippi), Manila (Tay Tay) and Nairobi (Kibera). These were chosen because of existing research partnerships and ongoing resilience policy and programming that can be augmented by the proposed work. Nairobi and Cape Town are also members of the Rockerfeller 100 Cities programme. Research impact planning has commenced in the pre-proposal planning stage and will be developed from the start of the project through collaboration with city practitioners and policy makers. City partners have been enthusiastic to collaborate in a project that can help surface competing visions of resilience and how resilience can be used to secure desirable futures from the perspectives of competing urban stakeholders. Partners are keen to compare experiences and lessons learnt form the proposed work and take these forward. The project will produce a single policy brief for each city and two academic papers. It will also convene workshops in London and Warwick to bring practitioners and scientists together to collaborate in research design and in the verification and fine tuning dissemination of results.