Urban resilience research is recognizing the need to complement a mainstream preoccupation with “hard” infrastructure (electrical grid, storm sewers, etc.) with attention to the “soft” (social) infrastructure issues that include the increased visibility of and role for civil society, moving from (top-down, paternalistic) government to (participatory) governance. Analyses of past shock events invariably point to the need for more concerted efforts in building effective governance and networked relations between civil society groupings and formal institutions before, during, and after crisis. However, the literature contains little advice on how to go about this. In this paper, we advance a Connected Community Approach (CCA) to building community resilience with a specific focus on the relationship between community and formal institutions. In the literature review that informs this work, we assess the current, limited models for connecting communities to formal institutions, as well as the emerging role of community-based organizations in this work, and we offer our own assessment of some of the key tensions, lacunae, and trends in the community resilience field. Principally, we explore the potential of the CCA model, as spearheaded by the East Scarborough Storefront and the Centre for Connected Communities in Toronto, Canada, as a promising approach for building the relational space between civil society and the state that is so often called for in the literature. The paper concludes with future directions for research and practice.

Community Wellbeing (CW) in the built environment is acknowledged as being ‘greater than the sum of its parts’, a process that emerges when residents negotiate understandings of community within shared spaces. However, methods of evaluation have not caught up. In practice, evaluation methods and frameworks measure CW as an aggregate of individual wellbeing, and operate as a ‘pick and mix’ of dimensions and indicators. Such an approach fails to capture the resident experience as it emerges from (and is shaped by) the local community context. To bridge the gap between theory and practice, we advance participatory mixed methods to integrate CW theory with current building performance assessment methods in support of the development of a novel, evidence-based tool. The first section covers the shift from an aggregate to relational conceptual framework, employing a social practice theory lens to acknowledge how CW emerges from individual and collective interactions. We then situate CW within current building performance assessment methods by reviewing seven CW frameworks. Finally, we recommend improvements to CW assessment based on our own research, including participatory methods, local community engagement, and Photovoice.

In this commentary, we describe initial learnings from a community-based research project that explored how the relational space between residents and formal institutions in six marginalised communities in Toronto, Ontario, Canada impacted grassroots responses to the health and psycho-social stresses that were created and amplified by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Our research found that grassroots community leaders stepped up to fill the gaps left by Toronto’s formal public health and emergency management systems and were essential for mitigating the psycho-social and socioeconomic impacts of the pandemic that exacerbated pre-existing inequities and systemic failures. We suggest that building community resilience in marginalised communities in Toronto can embody health promotion in action where community members, organisational, institutional and government players create the social infrastructure necessary to build on local assets and work together to promote health by strengthening community action, advocating for healthy public policy and creating supportive environments.

Interdisciplinary building science research has emerged as a promising approach to gaining more holistic understandings of the ways in which buildings perform and are experienced by their inhabitants. The problem is that despite a desire for interdisciplinary approaches, there remains a disconnect between those trained in technical studies and those whose fields are grounded in community-based or participatory efforts. Despite its adoption in research practice, the processes involved in combining traditionally technical engineering-led efforts with those from the social sciences means there are significant implications for research design and execution when performing this type of interdisciplinary research. This article provides critical reflections on the theoretical and practical epistemological, methodological, and engagement challenges encountered and navigated by a team of interdisciplinary researchers exploring the ways in which wellbeing emerges in the built environment. These reflections address the realities of interdisciplinary building science research, bounded by the limits of time, resources and disciplinary siloes. These insights are used to identify the ways in which research teams may be able to anticipate, address and work through the challenges encountered in their own work exploring building performance and experience. PRACTICE RELEVANCE The insights in research design are useful to interdisciplinary research teams exploring building performance and experience. They may provide a foundation for project managers of interdisciplinary building research projects, as well as researchers exploring other aspects and impacts of the built environment, such as the energy transition and affiliated practices, conveying practical tips, experiences, and knowledge from the field.