Urban Resilience Matters

Leave a reply

Over at Duncan Green’s FP2P, Debbie Hillier has introduced Oxfam’s new paper on resilience and inequality, “No Accident”. The paper focuses on how risk is unevenly distributed on a global scale, and how risk is “dumped” on the poor and powerless.
It even comes with a snazzy promo vid:

The rights-based approach to vulnerability is a welcome move. The suggestions for national governments include re-framing priorities, emphasising basic needs, pro-poor investments and using objective measures of validity. International actors are suggested to create support networks, recognising the importance of power analyses.

I’m particularly interested in their proposed institutional reforms. For instance, there needs to be long term flexible funding and cross-platform, cross-sector coordination. Yet focusing on national and global scales alone is not going to solve the problem.

Cities are expected to absorb all the world’s population growth, until the less-developed world is 67% urban by 2050. India in particular has and will continue to have the world’s second largest urban population, reaching 0.9 billion by 2050. These projections alone warrant careful attention to the diversity of experiences – and thus, institutions – within a nation.

“Resilience” is often spoken of as a buzzword. I think that’s because it’s never specified. Development actors need to be careful that their promotion efforts can answer the question: resilience to what?

Geographically speaking, port and trading cities are almost by default in low-elevation coastal zones (LECZ), defined as the area adjacent to the shoreline less than 10m above sea level. Consequently, urbanisation continues to bring a denser concentration of people and economic activities into an area at risk from sea-level rise and extreme weather events. Though risk mitigation is the best strategy, it is too late to not consider adaptation to climate change.

Insert the necessary scary picture:

My house will be underwater... via CEDAC

My house will be underwater… via CEDAC

As such, there is a dire need to consider how to assist cities to build resilience to water- and climate-related risks. Other risks are prominent as well, such as conflict, though I focus on water issues.

I believe one aspect missing from the Oxfam report is a focus on learning about what is already being done on the ground, rather than just focusing on the role of international actors. There needs to be learning before diving right in.

Don’t get me wrong, much is being learnt on building urban resilience. I’m looking forward to the outcomes of next week’s Resilient Cities 2013 Conference in Bonn, Germany. In particular, the move to study South Asian cities is growing, though these studies tend to focus on the mega-metropolises of Delhi and Mumbai. This is one of the reasons I’ll be focusing on Chennai, in Tamil Nadu, formerly known as Madras. My graduate research will contribute to this growing strand of research, as part of the Chance2Sustain research project. The idea is to see what hybrid formations are already in place, and to help fill in the gaps to contribute to building urban resilience.

The take-home message is that resilience is about being flexible enough to respond to specific risks, in light of particular social vulnerabilities. As I said, the rights based approach is a welcome direction. Thus, a holistic approach needs a cross between urban studies, development studies and geography: What type of risks, where and to who, in which institutional context?  Then can we make concrete contributions to building urban resilience.

Never tell your peer-reviewers what your paper is about?

Leave a reply

From Advice to Writers:

Never tell your reader what your story is about. Reading is a participatory sport. People do it because they are intelligent and enjoy figuring things out for themselves.

GEORGE V. HIGGINS

I like this quote, a lot. I wonder how much it is applicable to academic writing.

In academia, we’re always told that you somebody should be able to read your introduction and conclusion and know pretty much what your paper is about. This seems to suggest that the system of academic writing completely saps the joy of reading.

On the other hand, why do we read academic papers? Is it because we are intelligent and enjoy figuring whatever it out for ourselves? Or is it because you want to build on/steal/critique somebody else’s argument?

Could we break this vicious cycle by writing papers more like novels, and keeping the argument’s outline in the intro as limited as possible?

Advice for young researchers: half underestimated, half borderline exploited?

Leave a reply

Via Tyler Cowen, from Andrew Oswald:

If everyone likes your work, you can be certain that you haven’t done anything important. Conflict and pain go with the territory –
that of changing how a profession thinks and furthering what we know about our world. The pressures on young researchers are to conform, to accept fashionable ways of analyzing problems, and above all to please senior professors and their own peers. Unfortunately this is bad for scientific progress.
The main difference between world-class researchers and sound researchers is not intellect; it is energy, single-mindedness, more energy, and the ability to withstand what will sometimes feel like never-ending disappointment, tiredness and psychological pain. Tenacity is almost everything.
Hellz yeah to tenacity. I just finished all my courses for my master’s degree.(Hurrah!) What is left now is the big boy, the actual research. So the advice has been ringing in my ears the past few days. The question is, how to take it?Let’s be clear: I’ve mostly enjoyed my courses. I’ve learnt a hell of a lot, both about content and about how things are done. Yet as a class we’ve been stuck in a weird tug of war.  Half underestimated, half borderline exploited.
Unfortunately, lectures have too often assumed people didn’t do the reading and so ended up being repetitive and demotivating rather than a space for opening discussion. Then people get demotivated and stressed, and stop doing the reading, and it’s a downward spiral from there. On the other hand, within three weeks of starting the course, we were expected to have decided what our general thesis topic would be.
I do not want to complain for the sake of it, but one critique stands out (and lord knows I’m not alone on this one). The sledgehammer of a workload has been relentless, to the point where most of us were writing our two final papers a week before deadline. Under such a time pressure, grad school largely becomes a tick-box affair, rather than a garden cultivating young researchers’ minds.
There is little room for creativity. It really feels like unless you come into the program with a clear-cut idea of how you’re going to revolutionise your discipline, you’re stuck. I have been very lucky to have a fantastic and supportive thesis supervisor, who has helped me work with rather than for her. Yet it could very easily have turned out to be much less interesting.
The future doesn’t look particularly bright either. Turns out the two-year master’s course, which gives you more time for research and for developing your project, is the same course-load, if not more. The system is also reinforced by the fact that the two-year course is a requirement to get external funding for a PHD.
PHD Comics
It doesn’t have to be this way.
I’ve seen what happens when you give the smart, dedicated group of people that are my classmates the space to really grapple with the theories and practicalities of our studies. That’s one of the reasons I do love this course – there is a fantastic mix of disciplines and experiences in a single room. So many questions come to light that I would never have thought of, and I am humbled by others’ perspectives.
It’s a little bit frightening that a master’s degree is seen as the pinnacle of human achievement regardless the content. I’ve been very lucky to have this opportunity, though it’s disappointing to see such a golden opportunity for inspiring the next generation not be taken advantage of.

What constructive feedback can we give to improve future courses?

Greenwashing Life & Urban Planning

Leave a reply

greenwashing-cartoonGreen is all the rage. Green-washing, making advertising and packaging seem more “green”, is everywhere. Locavores are hip. Green smoothies are fashionable. “Sustainability” has become a key-word as a ticket to funding.  ”Green thinking” is so prevalent, it would be wrong to lump it all into one category. This post is about opening a small part of that black box.

There is a particular type of green thinking found in cities that usually promotes clean, green spaces. More parks, more open spaces, waste management, more water conservation, that sort of thing. All great. However, more often than not,  there is an implicit assumption that sub-standard settlements, or slums, are a problem because they are the polar opposite of clean green spaces.

For example, Chennai is a very water-scarce city, and water is a hot topic. (my thesis is on water in Chennai, more on that to come!) Chetpet Lake is a a lake in the center of the city, and is due for a revamp. From The Times of India:

“…managed by the Fisheries department, [it] will boast of an eco-park and revive angling. [...] The lake will offer recreational activities, including water sports, boat club, open air auditoriums and children’s playfield. A walkway will be formed along the perimeter to help people take up walking. Besides, a multi-level vehicular parking arrangement will also be built for the fitness enthusiasts for a hassle-free walk.”

Clearly, this revamp is about creating a modernist, sanitized space for the leisure of India’s growing middle class. As such that’s not a problem, but this is:

Today, the water body is in a state of disuse, ever since the neighbouring slum tenements let out raw sewage and spoilt the ecology.

Blame is squarely placed on the sub-standard settlements. Not only will the revamp be symbolically excluding them because it’s their fault the revamp is needed, but there will also be physical barriers to the water, via a walkpath and a multi-story parking lot.

At it’s heart, the Chetpet Lake revamp is not an eco-park. It is an example of “bourgeois environmentalism”, an insincere environmentalism based on advancing middle class luxuries. It’s sort of an umbrella term for beautification, building golf courses and middle class amenities, presuming they’re better than slums which create a vicious cycle of waste and dirty water.  Originally coined by Baviskar at the Indian Institute for Human Settlements, the  concept is most often used in the Indian context.

Another example from Chennai is how rainwater harvesting has been advanced as a solution to the water scarcity issue. Again, great concept. However in practice, this is often through a historically socially-exclusive temple tank system and promoted by members of the middle class who need water for their air-conditioning. Ultimately, AC further hampers water conservation, and highlights the contradictory nature of bourgeois environmentalism (Arabindoo, 2011).

Personally, I was shocked at the politicisation of rainwater harvesting. After searching a bit deeper, we* found more of an explanation by John Gaetjens, that Green Ain’t just the colour of Money. He says:

GreenIsTheNewBlack

 ”Zero [impact] is the new black.”

Buying green, as much as acting green, is status symbol in that it displays moral and social superiority. The “hero” of bourgeois environmentalism could then be No Impact Man, a family, turned book, turned documentary (available for 24.99, or something). Colin and his family decide to live one year producing as little waste as possible from their comfortable Manhattan appartement. 

It’s a nice idea and has definitely raised awareness. Still, it’s a “display” of being green,  conceived as investment in time and money. You CAN have your local organic cake and eat it too! It is consumerism at its finest: you are no longer an environmental “citizen” but “consumer”. For those who can’t afford it, tough.

The most telling is the critique by the Kolbert at the New Yorker, who points out the deforestation for the trees. Are you picking and choosing by worrying about plastic wrap, if you don’t worry about your building’s heating system? Especially if you stay warm in winter by feeling the heat from your neighbours?

 

At the end of the day, what is the take-home message for our own lives?  I see it as a consciousness-raising exercise, to be an environmental citizen and not just a green consumer. More of a call to action for structural change. What about you?

* Acknowledgements: Research for this blog post was conducted along with my classmate and friend, Lisa Kippers, for a class presentation. Thanks Lisa!

Why write if nobody understands you?

11 Replies

It’s a question that has been bothering me a lot lately.

I’ve been introduced to the critical thinker, Michel Foucault. His work is so broad and so complex I cannot pretend to say I can introduce it, but I think I get the basics. This is not an introduction.

His idea of “governmentality” is about freeing people’s minds. The main idea is that there are frames, or discourses, that people use to talk about stuff, which constrict your thoughts. Discourses are promoted by the powerful, and can become internalised by the powerless. In this way, you act according to the powerful’s wishes even when they’re not around- you self-discipline yourself. You submit without even noticing.

The idea is that by becoming aware, you can break free. It is an idea in support of radical democracy. Free the people! Emancipate yourself from mental slavery! 

…Except, nobody understands his message of revolution. He’s too bloody difficult to read.

Granted, Foucault is an extreme example. Still, I’m finding this with academic writing.   I’ve always kind of known that academic writing was in a league of it’s own, totally irrelevant to the big wide world. I’ve been fortunate to study a lot and am now in graduate school, so have had my fair share of academic writing. I dare say I think I’m even pretty good at academic writing.  As soon I sit to type an academic piece, I take a deep breath, put on my airs, and start talking in a funny, schmoozy-voice to make it sound “academic”. Yes, it’s ridiculous. But it works.

Academia, here I come!

In the words of Weinberger:

“Knowledge deserves better than the traditional stodginess of academic writing.”

That really struck me. We are talking about radical democracy! People’s lives! The mechanism for public debate and enhanced capabilities! Why the hypocrisy of writing about it in a way that is exclusive and elitist? What about open access journals?

Granted, you don’t have to use poncy vocabulary to be academic. Yet it is often dry.

 Marc F. Bellemare says it pretty well:

If I start thinking of other things I’d rather be doing midway through your essay and you lose my attention, you have failed as a writer.

To see this, pick up any copy of The New Yorker. Their writers write so well that they can get you to read 5,000 words on just about any topic in which you might have had zero prior interest.

This is not an argument against structure. Experimental reports and essays, amongst others, have a particular structure which has evolved for good reason. Rather, I am rallying against a system which encourages and supports writing that is purposely complicated, and makes people who are learning new topics feel even more pressure: not only do they need to write about difficult areas, but they need to write it in a way that they might not totally understand themselves. Especially for those whose first language is not the one in question.

There is no need to sound fancy, there is a need for understanding and knowledge sharing.

Take this as my rejection of BS in writing. I will be very self-aware, and will continue to reflect on how the writing process evolves. If anybody has any ideas about dealing with this issue I’d be very interested.

“Nobody wants to be a refugee”: Dana Affleck on Road to Refuge

Leave a reply

Today’s post is an interview with a remarkable young woman from Australia, Dana Affleck. Dana started Road to Refuge, the interactive web-based platform which confronts you with the difficult choices asylum seekers have to make. Putting a human face to refugees, Road to Refuge is a tool to start a fairer conversation. Road to Refuge

Passionate, practical, and dedicated, I find Dana an inspiration. Not only for finding and sharing the oft-forgotten stories behind the headlines, but also because her work continually reminds me that there is no time like the present to make change happen. That, and I am honoured to say she happens to be my childhood best friend and  I always knew the world better be ready.

I thought it best to let her speak for herself.

======

Maybe you could start out with saying a bit about yourself. Who are you, where are you from?

I’m Dana Affleck, I’m an Australian student living in Melbourne. I’m studying law after finishing my arts degree. I majored in Arabic and am now continuing my Arabic studies with a Diploma of Arabic. I work for a small law firm close to home and volunteer a lot of my time working on various projects, visiting detention centres where asylum seekers and refugees are detained and working at a community centre for refugees and asylum seekers.

What is Road to Refuge? How did it get started?

Road to Refuge is an interactive and educational website that allows the user to be placed in the shoes of an asylum seeker on their journey from their country of origin to Australia. The story of the fictional asylum seeker is segmented and at each cross road, the user must make a decision on behalf of the character, shaping the outcome of their journey.

The web program is aimed at both adults and high school children. It features the opinions of notable figureheads along the way and an additional section providing resources for further self-education.

After visiting detention centres for a long period of time, I had seen enough to know how deeply flawed Australia’s system for dealing with refugees and asylum seekers is. I began researching and reading about our system and it became clear that the reasoning behind it was not logical, cost-effective or humane. It seemed to me that it was driven by a fear of the other and a direct result of a toxic atmosphere that allowed such an oppressive system to flourish and worsen over the years.

So I thought the best way to try and make a change was to alleviate the toxic nature of the conversation. I believed that if I could make the “issue” a human one rather than a political one, then people would be more likely and willing to engage in it. I wanted to get as close as I could to putting an ordinary Australian into the shoes of an asylum seeker and ask them to make those difficult and often terrifying decisions. I wanted them to see the world through an asylum seeker’s eyes.

Follow Layla, an Iranian asylum seeker, on Road to Refuge

Follow Layla, an Iranian asylum seeker, on Road to Refuge

Why asylum seekers?   

That’s a good question! I suppose I have always been struck by the injustice of vilifying and persecuting one of the world’s most vulnerable people. I find it the concept of punishing and rejecting a person reaching out for help morally repugnant. Especially when Australia has internationally acknowledged our role and duty as a nation to step up provide people escaping persecution with safety and protection.

Australia’s treatment of and attitude towards asylum seekers is so fundamentally wrong that I couldn’t help but speak out against. That overlooked injustice in my backyard really mobilised me to want to do something.

What difficulties do you face?

The biggest difficulty for me is spreading Road to Refuge around. We have already received so much support from community groups, advocacy groups and many prominent individuals, so in terms of how far it has spread organically is sensational. However, knowing how to get it out there in a big way is not my strong suit so I am grateful to the help  I have been receiving from two professionals and I am looking forward to overcoming this hurdle soon!

How has the project been received? What support has their been?

Support has been huge and humbling. Groups such as Amnesty, Right Now, Welcome to Australia, the Australian Refugee Council and Asylum Seeker Resource Centre have been promoting it which has been exciting. They are all groups heavily involved in helping and advocating for asylum seekers and I am big admirers of their work.

How do you see the project evolving?

I would like to (eventually) start workshops using the Road to Refuge website as a platform. I would like to carry out workshops in the community, in schools, workplaces and anywhere else that will have us!

That is my real goal – just to engage people in the issue and challenging what has been out there via the mainstream media and our politicians (from both sides!).

What would you like the world to know?

It is often forgotten that nobody wants to be a refugee. So how a person like you or me becomes one and what drives them to seek asylum in Australia (or anywhere else for that matter) is a vital part of any conversation about asylum seekers. We are all human. I know that I would stop at nothing to find protection from persecution and I believe that almost everyone in the world would too.

How can people get involved?

By spreading the message! To schools, workplaces, anywhere! Road to Refuge is a resource so I want it to be used to start conversations and engage interest whenever and wherever it can. Anyone can get into contact with us via email, Twitter or Facebook for more information or how to get their local groups, workplace or schools involved.

What advice would you give to young people trying to make a difference in the world?

Just start something now. Don’t quantify what you’re doing. If you’re helping and it is meaningful to you, then that is all that matters. Often I hear people say things like “well, you can’t change the world” and I don’t understand how that logic could stop you from doing things that could change something, not matter how small or big. It is just so important to empower yourself with the confidence to do something. It takes courage because it can be scary to challenge yourself but you only need a little courage to get the ball rolling.

Anything else you’d like to add?

Road to Refuge was built for everyone and it was designed to be seen by everyone. Encouraging friends and family to have a go is how conversations can change, especially a person who may not usually engage in the issue.

It may only take one journey to plant a seed in their mind. It might be that seed that makes them challenge themselves and the way they view asylum seekers. If we can plant enough seeds, we could change the conversation and maybe actually change the way we allow our politicians to treat asylum seekers.

 Thank you!

RoadtoRefuge.com

Click here to join the Road to Refuge mailing list: http://eepurl.com/v1aND

Twitter: @Road2Refuge

Facebook: Road to Refuge

Creative Connections: Leadership, Education and Curation

Leave a reply

Last week Matt Andrews (@governwell) posted a great article in the Guardian about rethinking who leads development, institutions and reform. The basic question is: who makes change happen?

Andrews’ answer has two parts:

1. Multi-agent leadership. Real change is not because of individuals or heroes, but about groups and people working together.

2. Connectors. Multi-agent leadership needs people who ‘mobilises’ and brings people together. These people are often in the background, but they are central nodes in the network of people. They grease the wheels of change and help people along in practical ways.

According to Andrews, the “heroes” still play an important role: motivation. But mobilising people feels more practical. (Makes me think of the phrase “Behind every powerful man, there’s an even more powerful woman”, but that’s another story altogether.) Leadership is not about your position, but about what you do. 

As I’m studying governance, this is intrinsically interesting. Specifically, I’m looking at different perceptions of risk in relation to urban water governance. Risk is an idea notorious for different interpretations, depending on the actors involved. In the world of globalisation and a great push for decentralisation, actors involved multiply and different conceptions are contested. Who decides what conceptions dominates, and how does that happen?

…I’ll let you know when I’m done with my research.

Curation

So what next? It’s no secret I’m an advocate of open and free education, and particularly EdTech. My experience in this area comes from the field of traditional education (non-development). There is quite a movement of connected educators. From there, I learnt about how to deal with open education and the infinite amounts of data you can get from the internet: curation.

More than trendy jargon, curation is about sharing with discernment. Find, filter, comment, share. Combine that with education and magic happens*. For example, I’ve discovered #SaturdaySchool on Twitter,  ”a kind of digital teach-in where we educate each other about rights and empowerment issues”, according to Rhonda Ragsdale.

Relating this to development, I see Andrews’ creative connectors reflected in digital curators. In my experience, the people who “make it happen” often are those who filter information and package it in ways that are easy to manage for the rest of the team. Perhaps a glamorous position, perhaps not.

In any case, decentralising leadership is a strong current, and more equitable. The [uncensored] internet is democratic, where we can all learn from each other. Making change happen easier.

I’d be really interested to hear others’ experiences and thoughts on what makes change happen.

——-

 *For an intro into curation, see these slides: