Bornstein 2013
Bornstein 2013
Bornstein 2013
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 485088 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
Downloaded by University of Phoenix At 02:44 22 January 2015 (PT)
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1759-5908.htm
Responses to
Framing responses post-earthquake
to post-earthquake Haiti Haiti
How representations of disasters,
reconstruction and human settlements 43
shape resilience
Lisa Bornstein
School of Urban Planning, McGill University, Montreal, Canada
Gonzalo Lizarralde
Downloaded by University of Phoenix At 02:44 22 January 2015 (PT)
Abstract
Purpose – The aim of this paper is to add a new dimension to urban resilience by exploring how
representations of disasters, reconstruction and human settlements are made, and how, by shaping
plans and programs, they ultimately influence resilience.
Design/methodology/approach – The paper draws on James Scott’s notion of “legibility” to ask
how different representations simplify complex realities and how they are transformed into plans and
programs. The paper first outlines the various broad analytic lens used to examine legibility to portray
post-disaster reconstruction, drawing on international literature and policies. The paper then focuses
on post-earthquake Haiti and analyzes eight reconstruction plans and reviews design proposals
submitted for the Building Back Better Communities program to explore how different stakeholders
portrayed the disaster, identified the reconstruction challenges and proposed to address human
settlements.
Findings – Representations of the disaster, the reconstruction challenge and the housing problem
were quite varied. While the plans assumed a very broad view of the reconstruction challenge (one that
goes beyond the representations found in the literature), the BBBC program adopted a very narrow
view of it (one that the literature condemns for failing to achieve sustainable resilience).
Research limitations/implications – The empirical research is exploratory, suggesting an
approach that throws a new light on the analysis of plans and programs for improved resilience.
Practical implications – The study suggests that the representations that decision makers,
institutions and organizations make of the world ultimately establish the framework in which
resilience is constructed.
Originality/value – The lens of legibility confirms that the expression of different representations
makes the world legible in different ways and therefore transforms the way in which resilience can be
improved. International Journal of Disaster
Resilience in the Built Environment
Keywords Resilience, Legibility, Plans, Human settlements, Disaster response, Haiti, Disasters Vol. 4 No. 1, 2013
pp. 43-57
Paper type Research paper q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1759-5908
DOI 10.1108/17595901311298991
IJDRBE 1. Introduction
4,1 This paper explores how representations of disasters, reconstruction and human
settlements are put forward at critical junctures in the recovery process, and how,
in shaping plans and programs, thereby influence urban resilience.
Much of the literature on disasters and reconstruction has focused on the technical
challenges of immediate emergency response to basic needs of shelter, food, and health
44 services, the balance between short-term responses and those oriented towards
long-term reconstruction, and such key dilemmas as the political and economic rights
of displaced people, the means to assure meaningful bottom-up participation, and the
roles of international, national and local actors.
The framing of a disaster and subsequent reconstruction in a specific way, and its
ultimate translation into policy, plans and programs, is intimately related to the
consolidation of the state, its relations to the polity and local development trajectories.
As such, it is also directly related to the dynamics of local resilience, the latter
Downloaded by University of Phoenix At 02:44 22 January 2015 (PT)
understood as both the ability of a system to survive a shock and, importantly, to adjust
to make such future shocks less damaging (Polese, n.d.). The theoretical literature
underpinning such an analytic approach is presented in the following section.
To make sense of how representations matter in post-disaster planning, first the
contours of the disaster/post-disaster reconstruction field are sketched, roughly in
chronological sequence, reviewing the four international approaches to disasters that
have dominated the field. For each approach, we outline the “nature of disaster”,
the principal aims of intervention, and the best means to do so (Section 3). At the
empirical level, we examine official plans (Section 4a) and competing proposals
(Section 4b) for reconstruction in Haiti following the earthquake of January 12, 2010.
Problem-framing and representational narratives affect policy (Schön and Rein, 1994;
Roe, 1994); plans and proposals reflect struggles over the definition of state-civil society
relations as each consolidates (Scott, 1998; Ferguson, 2005); and, crucially, the process of
disaster planning – from representation of needs to community reconstruction – defines
new roles and relations for the state, international actors, local residents, NGOs,
businesses, etc. that are as important to future community resilience as the technical
planning of physical structures, participatory inputs, or services.
power, namely: the neo-liberal attack on the state; the influence of international bodies
(corporate and governmental) relative to national ones; the on-going usefulness of
disorder to divisions within the state (Reno, 1998); and the consequent fracturing of the
national territory, in which localities become the relevant boundary for consolidation,
standardization and global integration rather than the nation. In sum, while the
forms of legibility imposed by a modernizing state may still be important, studies of
such processes of simplification and standardization in poor countries may need to
consider state power vis-à-vis both local and international players.
Klein (2007, p. 49) provides a relevant example of the way in which international
interests may impose new policy frames and forms of legibility, arguing that:
[. . .] disasters have become the preferred moments for advancing a vision of a ruthlessly
divided world, one in which the very idea of a public sphere has no place at all [. . .]. Every
time a new crisis hits – even when the crisis itself is the direct by-product of free-market
ideology – the fear and disorientation that follow are harnessed for radical social and
economic re-engineering.
In her analysis, post-disaster periods offer an opportunity to advance a particular
political and economic agenda, that of neo-liberalism. Privatization, entry of foreign
investment and firms, and reshaping of local political and financial institutions ensue.
State capacity may diminish rather than be strengthened during post-disaster
reconstruction. While neo-liberal policies are not the only ones that may be imposed or
encouraged post-disaster, Klein’s analysis is particularly relevant in the case of Haiti
where a neo-liberal arrangements were already well entrenched even before the
earthquake (Schuller, 2009).
A third observation relates to the way that historical, cultural and racial narratives
become articulated in processes of framing, adopting and implementing policies.
Of particular relevance here are stories about the vulnerability of Caribbean and Latin
American countries. Often framed by tropes of the primitive, the traditional, the
lawless, etc. these narratives serve to justify the authority of outsiders and especially
Europeans and North Americans in the affairs of Latin American and Caribbean
nations (Berger, 1995; Escobar, 1995). In the context of Haiti for example, Farmer (1994)
documents how US interventionist and imperialist policies towards Haiti were justified
according to just such tropes: the “isolation” and “primitivism” of Haiti and Haitians.
Other authors have highlighted how similar trophes have been employed in
IJDRBE post-earthquake Haiti (Bellegarde-Smith, 2010; Farmer, 2011; Lundy, 2010;
4,1 Zanotti, 2010). In brief, policy frames, discourse and the resulting plans and
practices draw upon and reproduce varied understandings of race, culture and history
with implications for local level recovery and resilience.
These observations, taken together, can be used to analyze how the challenge of
post-disaster reconstruction is understood and pursued. For instance, in the wider field
46 of post-disaster studies, the focus on legibility throws into relief the shifts in the tectonics
of post-disaster reconstruction response (Table I). Four generations of approaches are
apparent. Throughout the 1980s, the United Nations and international agencies
considered disasters as “interruptions of the regular order of societies” and the
reconstruction process as “actions taken to re-establish a community” that “would
include construction of permanent housing, full restoration of services, and complete
resumption of the pre-disaster state” (UNDHA, 1992). By narrowly defining pre-disaster
situations as the norm, the international agencies were able to focus on actions that were
Downloaded by University of Phoenix At 02:44 22 January 2015 (PT)
local redevelopment in Haiti following the 2010 earthquake reflected particular ways of
“seeing a disaster, local recovery, and longer-term resilience”. It examines two levels
of post-earthquake response: plans for reconstruction of settlements (Section 4), and
proposals submitted in a competition, covered in Section 5.
Printed documentation about the following six plans was collected and analyzed: the
Plan for National Development and Recovery (Government of Haiti, March 2010); the
strategic Plan for the Re-founding of Haiti (Government of Haiti, March 2010); the “Haiti
Tomorrow” plan (Haiti Demain) produced by the Inter-ministerial Committee on
Territorial Planning (Republique d’Haiti – CIAT, 2010); the Strategic Plan for National
Salvation (civil society document); The Plan of Action for a New Haiti (international civil
society document); and the “Plateforme de patriots haitiens” (PLAPH) (a political party).
In addition, between February 2010 and July 2011, one author attended six major
meetings related to disaster response at which key Haitians (e.g. mayors, representatives
of local institutions, Haitian expatriates, and experts) played a significant role; plans
were both elaborated and presented, and participant observation of these events
supplements our analysis of the written plans.
The plans above, while revealing, do not permit detailed analysis of the transmittal
of policy frames to specific projects and practices. To remedy this, we conducted
analysis of Building Back Better Communities (BBBC), a program to improve human
settlements in Haiti. The core of this program was an international request for
proposals (RFP) for housing solutions. Our examination of the various proposals at the
level of building and site reconstruction allowed for assessment of a narrower, and also
pragmatic, framing of the disaster and reconstruction challenges.
The BBBC program was initiated by a partnership of local and international,
public and private, stakeholders to “discover and promote” the best solutions for
post-earthquake reconstruction. The competition for best housing designs began in
early 2010 with a RFP that closed with over 360 submissions, arguably one of the
world’s most successful competitions of its kind.
We examined the RFP itself and documentation of several entries that were
successful in the competition (entries were extensively documented by the proponents,
architects and construction companies in online plans, photos and descriptions).
In addition, a special issue of The Gazette, a Canadian newspaper, documented several
proposals, providing photos of each of the housing prototypes, videos, interviews and
technical description of the units ((The) Gazette, 2011).
IJDRBE The plans and proposals were analyzed with respect to:
4,1 .
the definition of the problem;
.
policy initiatives (sectors addressed, scale of intervention, key actors to be
involved); and
.
depiction of desired human settlements attributes and resilience.
48 Importantly, the aim was not to critique the content of the plans and proposals per se.
Rather, following Scott’s (1998) approach to legibility, analysis addressed the framing
of the documents – what they put into focus and what they left obscure – and the
implications of this framing for programs, practices and settlements. Indeed, as Bar
(2011, p. 14) observes:
[. . .] we do not interpret our world merely by analyzing incoming information, but rather we
try to understand it using a proactive link of incoming features to existing, familiar
Downloaded by University of Phoenix At 02:44 22 January 2015 (PT)
longer-term resilience. Polarized interests – within and between each of these frames – are
apparent; potential partners are vilified in some of the documents. Efforts to scale down
interventions, to address policy and institutional reforms and the implementation of new
programs, provide possible directions forward. However, it is interesting that they are
neither linked to the expanded legitimacy and capacity of the state (as per historical
precedents documented by Scott) nor do they relate strongly to the post-disaster
reconstruction approaches dominant in the literature. Indeed, it is further important to note
that few approaches were linked explicitly to urban structures or city-level governance
mechanisms; the exceptions are the CIAT plan (with its few pages on territorial and urban
planning), and political or economic decentralization in several of the others.
represent and simplify complex urban realities and how those representations could
create conditions for more (and less) resiliency.
The empirical study explores how plans and proposals advance particular
conceptions of the causes of the disaster, the type of reconstruction to be pursued, and
measures necessary to be taken to improve resilience to future shocks, in other words,
a definition of the problem, the solutions, and means to achieve them. Despite the
simple language, the implications of such acts are profound. In simplifying complex
dynamics, a plan, proposal or project addresses and emphasizes some social, political,
economic and environmental relations, and leaves others out. Portrayal of a “crisis”
and “desired and appropriate responses” may entail new roles for the private sector,
the weakening or strengthening of specific elements of the state apparatus, expanded
powers for international bodies within national or local boundaries, and, indeed,
propagation of specific images – of the rescuers, the victim, the deserving, the venal,
etc. – that have long-term implications for all involved.
The political expediency of policy framing is apparent in the analysis of the Haitian
plans, in ways that are not clear in the international literature. Different views were
created by stakeholders currently in power (the developmental frame), stakeholders
susceptible to gain or regain power (the state frame), and stakeholders interested in
playing an active role in the process without necessary being in power (the pragmatic
planning frame). This is certainly not the first time that disasters are used in politics or
by those in power to lead nation-wide policy making (Klein, 2007; (The) Economist,
2011). However, the analysis suggests that – in a country of widespread destruction
that went beyond the capital city itself – stakeholders represented the disaster, the
reconstruction challenges, and human settlements objectives according to views that
responded to their own position, regardless of the limits of municipal governance.
Discussion here turns to how the framing of disaster and recovery both in Haiti and the
international literature – the ways in which some relations and structures are made legible
and others obscured – relates to the resilience of cities. Resilience – including in urban areas
– is affected by the actions and inactions of numerous players. The role of local government
may be especially important, as discussed in other articles of this issue; it is usually the level
of government that comes face-to-face with citizen demands most frequently, and often local
officials and staff are particularly aware of community needs and dynamics.
Our review of the Haitian plans suggests an addendum to such observations:
resilience with respect to the three key components analyzed (disaster, reconstruction,
IJDRBE and human settlements) is not necessarily built at the municipal or urban level.
4,1 The Haitian plans framed the difficulties as extending beyond the level of communities
or cities, and cited local supra-local measures, indeed, even supra-national ones, as
needed for recovery and long-term resilience. Given Haiti’s poverty and historical
legacies, and their perpetuation at both local and international levels, the focus on
national and international dimensions of contemporary challenges may well be crucial.
54 At the same time, it may well be that the potential of the local – whether of local
government or alliances of local residents – is one of the arenas that has been
obscured. In contrast to the international literature on disasters and recovery, all of
which outlined an important role for local actors, only a few of the Haitian plans did so.
Attention to the way that our conceptions frame our actions may seem tangential to
the discussions of how to construct more resilient cities, especially for areas in which
“natural disasters” occur with devastating effects. Our suspicion, in putting forward this
exploratory material, is that international attention could productively be directed to
Downloaded by University of Phoenix At 02:44 22 January 2015 (PT)
how disasters and resilience are framed at a local level. Processes of disaster response
make sense of and transform the world in particular ways. Planners, policy-makers and
experts do more than “objectively” analyze disasters, their causes and the appropriate
responses. They act as agents, shaping disaster and disaster preparedness responses
through the visions of the world that they create. The different frames at the
international level – and the corresponding shifts in disaster and preparedness
programming – are illustrative of this agency. The different frames apparent in the
Haitian plans and competition further point to the political import of such dynamics,
with effects at all levels: discursive (who or what is blamed, vilified or extolled),
organizational (what is reformed, strengthened or abolished), and material (what
resources are accorded to what programs, places or groups). These frames may leave out
– or make illegible – other elements (the local government, the role of nation-building
and centralized power, the potential of local groups, or the potential negative effects of
international NGOs, all points present in the academic literature on Haiti).
Equally importantly, these frames outline the desired future – a return to the past,
a resolution of past inequalities, a nation founded on local values – that will be
pursued. This desired future may be one in which resilient cities are promoted, in which
people can live in pleasant, just and productive environments, but it is by no means
certain. It is thus important to understand the ways in which disasters, reconstruction,
and the human settlements are made legible, and how those ideas shape reconstruction
and resilience.
References
Bar, M. (2011), “The proactive brain”, in Bar, M. (Ed.), Predictions in the Brain: Using Our Past to
Generate a Future, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 13-26.
Barenstein, J.D., Phelps, P.M., Pittet, D. and Sena, S. (2010), Safer Homes, Stronger Communities:
A Handbook for Reconstruction After Natural Disasters, World Bank, Washington, DC.
Bellegarde-Smith, P. (2010), “A man-made disaster: the earthquake of January 12, 2010 – a Haitian
perspective”, Journal of Black Studies, Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 264-75.
Berger, M.T. (1995), Under Northern Eyes: Latin American Studies and US Hegemony in
the Americas, 1898-1990, Indiana University Press, Bloomington, IN.
Blaikie, P., Cannoon, T., Davis, I. and Wisner, B. (1994), At Risk: Natural Hazards, People’s
Vulnerability, and Disasters, Routledge, New York, NY.
Bornstein, L. (2008), “Planning and peacebuilding in post-war Mozambique: from narratives to Responses to
practices of development”, Journal of Peacebuilding and Development, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 1-15.
post-earthquake
Bosher, L. (2008), Hazards and the Built Environment: Attaining Built-in Resilience, Taylor &
Francis Group, New York, NY. Haiti
Choguill, C.L. (2007), “The search for policies to support sustainable housing”, Habitat
International, Vol. 31, pp. 143-9.
Comité Interministériel D’aménagement Du Territoire (2010), Haı̈ti demain, CIAT et République 55
d’Haı̈ti, Port-au-Prince.
(The) Economist (2011), “Colombia economy: post-flood emergency mode”, The Economist,
January 26.
Escobar, A. (1995), Encountering Development: The Making and Unmaking of the Third World,
Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
Farmer, P. (1994), The Uses of Haiti, Common Courage Press, Monroe, ME.
Downloaded by University of Phoenix At 02:44 22 January 2015 (PT)
Farmer, P. (2011), Haiti After the Earthquake, Public Affairs, New York, NY.
Ferguson, B. and Navarrete, J. (2008), “A financial framework for reducing slums”,
in Sernau, S. (Ed.), Contemporary Readings in Globalization, Sage, London.
Ferguson, J. (2005), “Seeing like an oil company: space, security and global capitalism in
neoliberal Africa”, American Anthropologist, Vol. 107 No. 3, pp. 377-82.
(The) Gazette (2011), “Haiti: after the quake”, Montreal: The Gazette, available at: www.
montrealgazette.com/news/haiti-quake/index.html (accessed July 15).
Gilbert, A. (2004), “Helping the poor through housing subsidies: lessons from Chile, Colombia
and South Africa”, Habitat International, Vol. 28, pp. 13-40.
Gouvernement de la République d’Haı̈ti (2010), Plan d’action pour le relèvement et le
développement d’Haı̈ti, Gouvernement de la République d’Haı̈ti, Port-au-Prince.
Groupe de Réflexion et d’action pour une Haı̈ti nouvelle (2010), Plan d’action, Montreal,
Document of presentation.
Huchzermeyer, M. (2001), “Housing for the poor? Negotiated housing policy in South Africa”,
Habitat International, Vol. 25, pp. 303-31.
Klein, N. (2007), “Disaster capitalism: the new economy of catastrophe”, Harper’s, October,
pp. 47-58.
Lizarralde, G. (2010), “Stakeholder participation and incremental housing in subsidized housing
projects in Colombia and South Africa”, Habitat International, Vol. 35, pp. 175-87.
Lizarralde, G. and Raynaud, M.M. (2011), “The capability approach in housing development and
reconstruction”, Post Earthquake Reconstruction – Lessons Learnt and Way Forward.
Government of Gujarat, Government of Gujarat, Ahmedabad.
Lizarralde, G., Davidson, C. and Johnson, C. (2009), Rebuilding After Disasters: From Emergency
to Sustainability, Taylor & Francis, London.
Lundy, G. (2010), “The Haiti earthquake of 2010: the politics of a natural disaster”, Journal of
Black Studies, Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 127-30.
McEntire, D. (2011), “Understanding and reducing vulnerability: from the approach of liabilities
and capabilities”, Disaster Prevention and Management, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 294-313.
McEntire, D., Fuller, C., Johnston, C. and Weber, R. (2002), “A comparison of disaster paradigms:
the search for a holistic policy guide”, Public Administration Review, Vol. 62, pp. 267-81.
Pelling, M. (2003), The Vulnerability of Cities: Natural Disasters and Social Resilience, Earthscan,
London.
IJDRBE Polese, M. (n.d.), “The resilient city: on the determinants of successful urban economies”,
in Paddison, R. and Hutton, T. (Eds), Cities and Economic Change, Sage, London.
4,1 Rein, M. and Schön, D. (1993), “Reframing policy discourse”, in Fischer, F. and Forester, J. (Eds),
The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning, UCL, London.
Reno, W. (1998), Warlord Politics and African States, Lynne Rienner, Boulder, CO.
Republique d’Haiti – CIAT (2010), Haiti Demain, Objectifs et Strategies Territoriales Pour la
56 Reconstruction, Republique d’Haiti – CIAT, Port-au-Prince.
Roe, E. (1994), Narrative Policy Analysis, Duke University Press, Durham.
Schön, D. and Rein, M. (1994), Frame Reflection: Toward the Resolution of Intractable Policy
Controversies, Basic Books, New York, NY.
Schuller, M. (2009), “Gluing globalization: NGOs as intermediaries in Haiti”, PoLAR: Political and
Legal Anthropology Review, Vol. 32, pp. 84-104.
Scott, J. (1998), Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have
Downloaded by University of Phoenix At 02:44 22 January 2015 (PT)
Further reading
Cannon, T. (2008), “Vulnerability, ‘innocent’ disasters and the imperative of cultural
understanding”, Disaster Prevention and Management, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 350-7.
Collier, D. (1976), Squatters and Oligarchs: Authoritarian Rule and Policy Change in Peru,
John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD.
Davis, I. (1978), Shelter After Disaster, Oxford Polytechnic, Oxford.
Davis, I. (1981), Disasters and the Small Dwelling, Pergamon Press, Oxford.
Gasper, D. (2007), “What is the capability approach? Its core, rationale, partners and dangers”,
Journal of Socio-Economics, Vol. 36, pp. 335-59.
Li, T.M. (2005), “Beyond ‘the state’ and failed schemes”, American Anthropologist, Vol. 107, pp. 383-94.
Lizarralde, G., Johnson, C. and Davidson, C. (2003), “Houses of candied sugar: comparative
research on controversial temporary housing after earthquake disasters in Colombia and
Turkey”, Proceedings from the International Association for Housing Science 31st World
Congress on Housing Process and Product, Montréal, Canada, June 23-27.
Lyons, M. (2009), “Building back better: the large-scale impact of small-scale approaches to
reconstruction”, World Development, Vol. 37, pp. 385-98.
Maskrey, A. (1989), Disaster Mitigation: a Community Based Approach, Oxfam, Oxford.
Mason, C. (2011), “Foreign aid as a gift”, Critical Studies in Media Communication, Vol. 28 No. 2,
pp. 94-112.
Norris, F.H., Stevens, S.P., Pfefferbaum, B. and Wyche, K.F. (2008), “Community resilience as a
metaphor, theory, set of capacities, and strategy for disaster readiness”, American Journal
of Community Psychology, Vol. 41, pp. 127-50.
Pierre-Louis, F. (2011), “Earthquakes, nongovernmental organizations, and governance in Haiti”, Responses to
Journal of Black Studies, Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 186-202.
Turner, J.F.C. (1977), Housing by People: Towards Autonomy in Building Environments,
post-earthquake
Pantheon Books, New York, NY. Haiti
UNDRO (1982), Shelter After Disaster: Guidelines for Assistance, UNDRO, New York, NY.
important research in the fields of low-cost housing and project management. He has taught at
the University of Cape Town (South Africa); McGill University, Université de Montréal, and
Universidad Javeriana (Colombia). He conducted Post Doctorate research in the Department of
Construction Economics and Management of the University of Cape Town. He is the Director of
the IF Research Group (grif) of Université de Montréal, which studies the processes related to the
planning and development of construction projects. He is the co-author of the book Rebuilding
After Disasters: From Emergency to Sustainabiity. Gonzalo Lizarralde is the corresponding
author and can be contacted at: [email protected]
Kevin A. Gould is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Geography, Planning and
Environment at Concordia University. He completed his PhD at the University of British
Columbia in 2009. His dissertation analyzes the material and ideological production of a rural
land market in contemporary Guatemala. He has broad research interests in critical development
studies, political ecology, and economic geography. His current work examines how race, nature,
and markets are produced through economic development policies.
Colin Davidson is a Professor Emeritus of Architecture, founder of the programs installation
and management of development projects (University of Montreal), and founder of the Research
Group IFgrif. He is a specialist in the field of innovation and technology transfer. His research
interests also include communication in the construction sector, and in particular on the use of
knowledge from research. After a career in Britain, Italy and the USA, he joined the Faculty in
1968 (he was Dean of the Faculty from 1975 to 1985). He has also taught in the USA (including
Harvard and Washington University), Brazil (at the University of Rio Grande do Sul) and Italy
(University Institute of Architecture of Venice). He holds a Master’s of Architecture from MIT.
He was a member of the IBC from 1972 to 2010 and is recipient of “Distinguished Professor”
of the Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture.
1. Dzulkarnaen Ismail, Taksiah A. Majid, Ruhizal Roosli, Noorazam Ab Samah. 2014. Project Management
Success for Post-disaster Reconstruction Projects: International NGOs Perspectives. Procedia Economics
and Finance 18, 120-127. [CrossRef]
Downloaded by University of Phoenix At 02:44 22 January 2015 (PT)