ORCID Profile
0000-0001-7246-243X
Current Organisation
University of Melbourne
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 07-2014
Publisher: CSIRO Publishing
Date: 2017
DOI: 10.1071/WF16064
Abstract: The research investigated understandings of risk and resilience in emergency management (EM) policy and practice. The core findings illustrate how a complex of institutionalised socio-cultural expectations and standardised processes – that is, evidence-based response models to deal with and communicate uncertainty – influence the operationalisation of resilience in EM. We observe that a focus on disaster risk as a quantifiable product of physical hazards is an attempt to control uncertainty and leads to engineered or technology-centred response solutions. Accordingly, community resilience is principally seen as the product of risk reduction, incident response and recovery interventions. The research shows that resultant command and control management practices produce limited – and limiting – interpretations of community resilience as disaster resilience. This can restrict existing and emergent community responses to risk, and the ability to imagine and enact more systemic types of community resilience. For instance, the short-term disaster focus tends to neglect the social and institutional root causes of community vulnerability and generic risk information is detached from everyday community experience. Using wildfire in Australia as its case study, this paper discusses the social, cultural and practical challenges of operationalising social–ecological resilience in EM.
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 12-2016
Publisher: CABI
Date: 2010
Publisher: SAGE Publications
Date: 03-2016
Abstract: In response to Simon and Randall, article’s focus on the ‘ontological politics of resilience multiple’, we articulate the ethics of care and possibility associated with multiple ‘ontologies of responsibility’. We argue that these inform the practices of resilience and underpin social and environmental justice in a perpetual present.
Publisher: CSIRO Publishing
Date: 2017
DOI: 10.1071/WF16064
Abstract: The research investigated understandings of risk and resilience in emergency management (EM) policy and practice. The core findings illustrate how a complex of institutionalised socio-cultural expectations and standardised processes – that is, evidence-based response models to deal with and communicate uncertainty – influence the operationalisation of resilience in EM. We observe that a focus on disaster risk as a quantifiable product of physical hazards is an attempt to control uncertainty and leads to engineered or technology-centred response solutions. Accordingly, community resilience is principally seen as the product of risk reduction, incident response and recovery interventions. The research shows that resultant command and control management practices produce limited – and limiting – interpretations of community resilience as disaster resilience. This can restrict existing and emergent community responses to risk, and the ability to imagine and enact more systemic types of community resilience. For instance, the short-term disaster focus tends to neglect the social and institutional root causes of community vulnerability and generic risk information is detached from everyday community experience. Using wildfire in Australia as its case study, this paper discusses the social, cultural and practical challenges of operationalising social–ecological resilience in EM.
Publisher: SAGE Publications
Date: 2015
DOI: 10.1068/C13321
Abstract: This paper outlines the rationale for a research focus on how meaning emerges from the interfaces between research, policy, and practice. In exploring where different constructions of risk, resilience, and landscape occur in the policy and practice discourses surrounding current developments in Victorian bushfire policy, this paper goes beyond simply advocating better science–policy–practice relationships by demonstrating the challenges of operationalising adaptive governance principles. Our findings stress that change can arise from interacting discourses on the policy–practice interface. Yet, although this may be the most adaptive moment in the policy process, producing multiple insights and alternative options, it is vulnerable to institutionalised discourses that obstruct flexible practice. Complex socioecological issues such as bushfire, we argue, require more explicit engagement with the processes of practice inherent in policy formulation. The paper offers coproductive research strategies as contributing to more flexible governance arrangements to improve adaptive policy design.
No related grants have been discovered for Jana-Axinja Paschen.