during and after adverse events (keeping in mind common denominators offered in
prior conceptualizations [7]), we could say, for example, that a health-resilient
solution is likely better than a solution just meant to realize health. So health is the
value which is being engineered, and “health-resilience” (the enduring conservation
of health even during and after adverse events) is the “added value”. In other words,
an engineer who tries to achieve a healthy solution does not guarantee that the state
of achieved health will be a long-term one for society at large, during and after
disasters.
It is also noteworthy that aiming for “resilient” solutions instead of just healthy
ones or uncostly ones is something which makes engineering more valuable, and is
something which the engineering community should aspire for itself. Here, lessons
learnt from the past century urge the engineers to recall that, the societal value of a
technology (whether resilient or not) should be decided by its citizens. Resilience
will not be required for a societally unrequired branch of expertise (no matter how
those experts may believe that the technology will be more valuable once performing resiliently). Care is also required in conceiving of “resilient communities”.
The notion—just like any other non-resilient paradigm for modern societies—sees
communities in light of engineering interests. These are interests which tend to
repel exceptions or transitions of lifestyle, and retain control over society.
3.2 How This Research Approach Can Contribute
to Engineering Resilience
As aforementioned, resilience can be considered as an “added value” to a solution
realizing a societal value. Care is needed not to assume the value in question
actually is valued, just because the solution is resilient. This means that significance
remains in the attempt of this research to “discussing values” and clarify “what
matters and why” for citizens upon deciding societal solutions. There may also be
the need to give special attention to social values in disaster situations, since priorities may change. There may be multiple lifesaving triages, perhaps with heavier
priorities on younger generations or the socially vulnerable. While it is unrealistic to
attempt a thorough discussion of values during crises, it is possible to go over past
cases and obtain citizen input into reconsideration of measures taken during
emergencies. This is likely a key research agenda for Fukushima studies, and is
necessary to investigate engineering challenges for “resilient communities”, yet
efforts heretofore seem fragmented and insufficient.
Another point to make is that introducing “resilience” into solutions (healthy
solutions -> health-resilient solutions) requires more collaboration between “experts” and “non-experts” upon considering how they may be engineered. This is
because more input of those who use the system (the majority of who are
“non-experts”) becomes more important when considering engineering in abnormal
situations. For instance, looking for components in the techno-social system which
Incorporating Value Discussions into High Level …
331
prior conceptualizations [7]), we could say, for example, that a health-resilient
solution is likely better than a solution just meant to realize health. So health is the
value which is being engineered, and “health-resilience” (the enduring conservation
of health even during and after adverse events) is the “added value”. In other words,
an engineer who tries to achieve a healthy solution does not guarantee that the state
of achieved health will be a long-term one for society at large, during and after
disasters.
It is also noteworthy that aiming for “resilient” solutions instead of just healthy
ones or uncostly ones is something which makes engineering more valuable, and is
something which the engineering community should aspire for itself. Here, lessons
learnt from the past century urge the engineers to recall that, the societal value of a
technology (whether resilient or not) should be decided by its citizens. Resilience
will not be required for a societally unrequired branch of expertise (no matter how
those experts may believe that the technology will be more valuable once performing resiliently). Care is also required in conceiving of “resilient communities”.
The notion—just like any other non-resilient paradigm for modern societies—sees
communities in light of engineering interests. These are interests which tend to
repel exceptions or transitions of lifestyle, and retain control over society.
3.2 How This Research Approach Can Contribute
to Engineering Resilience
As aforementioned, resilience can be considered as an “added value” to a solution
realizing a societal value. Care is needed not to assume the value in question
actually is valued, just because the solution is resilient. This means that significance
remains in the attempt of this research to “discussing values” and clarify “what
matters and why” for citizens upon deciding societal solutions. There may also be
the need to give special attention to social values in disaster situations, since priorities may change. There may be multiple lifesaving triages, perhaps with heavier
priorities on younger generations or the socially vulnerable. While it is unrealistic to
attempt a thorough discussion of values during crises, it is possible to go over past
cases and obtain citizen input into reconsideration of measures taken during
emergencies. This is likely a key research agenda for Fukushima studies, and is
necessary to investigate engineering challenges for “resilient communities”, yet
efforts heretofore seem fragmented and insufficient.
Another point to make is that introducing “resilience” into solutions (healthy
solutions -> health-resilient solutions) requires more collaboration between “experts” and “non-experts” upon considering how they may be engineered. This is
because more input of those who use the system (the majority of who are
“non-experts”) becomes more important when considering engineering in abnormal
situations. For instance, looking for components in the techno-social system which
Incorporating Value Discussions into High Level …
331