Estimations de la résilience des territoires, sociétés, villes

In recent years, international organizations have increasingly being producing new estimates or measures of resilience to disasters or climate change. On the one hand, UN agencies promote resilience with important financial incentives. On the other hand, they implicitly recognize that it might not p...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal:	Samuel Rufat
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	FR
Publicado:	Éditions en environnement VertigO 2018
Materias:	resilience methods measurement qualitative quantitative validation Environmental sciences GE1-350
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/f8d2f1c2d7f94f7ca361f64fbd01b12c
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:f8d2f1c2d7f94f7ca361f64fbd01b12c
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:f8d2f1c2d7f94f7ca361f64fbd01b12c2021-12-02T09:59:28ZEstimations de la résilience des territoires, sociétés, villes1492-844210.4000/vertigo.19223https://doaj.org/article/f8d2f1c2d7f94f7ca361f64fbd01b12c2018-05-01T00:00:00Zhttp://journals.openedition.org/vertigo/19223https://doaj.org/toc/1492-8442In recent years, international organizations have increasingly being producing new estimates or measures of resilience to disasters or climate change. On the one hand, UN agencies promote resilience with important financial incentives. On the other hand, they implicitly recognize that it might not possible to measure resilience, or at least to ensure that the different methods actually measure resilience and not another construct – such as poverty – or a proxy – such as vulnerability, etc. This situation is highly paradoxical: how to promote application guides, enjoin local actors to action plans, governments to raise funds, and even follow the progress of projects on the ground of a notion that cannot be safely measured? The field seems overwhelmed by the multitude of theoretical approaches, models and frameworks of resilience emerging endlessly, with virtually no links between them. This proliferation of theoretical frameworks and models seems to fuel a proliferation of methodological approaches to estimating and measuring resilience. However, methodological choices, when they are justified or even mentioned, are much more dependent on access to data than on the theoretical frameworks or the measurement’s objectives. And it seems almost impossible to validate these estimates or to make sure that it is actually resilience they are measuring. This is the most radical criticism that can be addressed to resilience: if it is not possible to measure it, or to validate its measurements, its use must remain confined to discourse analysis.Samuel RufatÉditions en environnement VertigOarticleresiliencemethodsmeasurementqualitativequantitativevalidationEnvironmental sciencesGE1-350FRVertigO, Vol 30 (2018)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	FR
topic	resilience methods measurement qualitative quantitative validation Environmental sciences GE1-350
spellingShingle	resilience methods measurement qualitative quantitative validation Environmental sciences GE1-350 Samuel Rufat Estimations de la résilience des territoires, sociétés, villes
description	In recent years, international organizations have increasingly being producing new estimates or measures of resilience to disasters or climate change. On the one hand, UN agencies promote resilience with important financial incentives. On the other hand, they implicitly recognize that it might not possible to measure resilience, or at least to ensure that the different methods actually measure resilience and not another construct – such as poverty – or a proxy – such as vulnerability, etc. This situation is highly paradoxical: how to promote application guides, enjoin local actors to action plans, governments to raise funds, and even follow the progress of projects on the ground of a notion that cannot be safely measured? The field seems overwhelmed by the multitude of theoretical approaches, models and frameworks of resilience emerging endlessly, with virtually no links between them. This proliferation of theoretical frameworks and models seems to fuel a proliferation of methodological approaches to estimating and measuring resilience. However, methodological choices, when they are justified or even mentioned, are much more dependent on access to data than on the theoretical frameworks or the measurement’s objectives. And it seems almost impossible to validate these estimates or to make sure that it is actually resilience they are measuring. This is the most radical criticism that can be addressed to resilience: if it is not possible to measure it, or to validate its measurements, its use must remain confined to discourse analysis.
format	article
author	Samuel Rufat
author_facet	Samuel Rufat
author_sort	Samuel Rufat
title	Estimations de la résilience des territoires, sociétés, villes
title_short	Estimations de la résilience des territoires, sociétés, villes
title_full	Estimations de la résilience des territoires, sociétés, villes
title_fullStr	Estimations de la résilience des territoires, sociétés, villes
title_full_unstemmed	Estimations de la résilience des territoires, sociétés, villes
title_sort	estimations de la résilience des territoires, sociétés, villes
publisher	Éditions en environnement VertigO
publishDate	2018
url	https://doaj.org/article/f8d2f1c2d7f94f7ca361f64fbd01b12c
work_keys_str_mv	AT samuelrufat estimationsdelaresiliencedesterritoiressocietesvilles
_version_	1718397862417530880

Estimations de la résilience des territoires, sociétés, villes

Ejemplares similares