Group cohesiveness | EPFL Graph Search

Group cohesiveness, also called group cohesion or social cohesion, arises when bonds link members of a social group to one another and to the group as a whole. Although cohesion is a multi-faceted process, it can be broken down into four main components: social relations, task relations, perceived unity, and emotions. Members of strongly cohesive groups are more inclined to participate readily and to stay with the group. From Neo-Latin cohaesio and French cohésion, in physics, cohesion means "the force that unites the molecules of a liquid or of a solid". Thereby, there are different ways to define group cohesion, depending on how researchers conceptualize this concept. However, most researchers define cohesion to be task commitment and interpersonal attraction to the group. Cohesion can be more specifically defined as the tendency for a group to be in unity while working towards a goal or to satisfy the emotional needs of its members. This definition includes important aspects of cohesiveness, including its multidimensionality, dynamic nature, instrumental basis, and emotional dimension. Its multidimensionality refers to how cohesion is based on many factors. Its dynamic nature refers to how it gradually changes over time in its strength and form from the time a group is formed to when a group is disbanded. Its instrumental basis refers to how people cohere for some purpose, whether it be for a task or for social reasons. Its emotional dimension refers to how cohesion is pleasing to its group members. This definition can be generalized to most groups characterized by the group definition discussed above. These groups include sports teams, work groups, military units, fraternity groups, and social groups. However, it is important to note that other researchers claim that cohesion cannot be generalized across many groups. The bonds between group members do not develop spontaneously. They develop from a number of components such as attraction, coordination, sense of belonging and shared emotions.

The challenges of impact evaluation: Attempting to measure the effectiveness of community-based disaster risk management

Anthony Christopher Davison, Nicola Mary Banwell, Silvia Hostettler, Alfredo Rafael Kägi Trejo

Although disaster risk management is becoming increasingly important in development cooperation, there is still a lack of robust evidence regarding its effectiveness. Few studies based on a counterfactual have been conducted in the fields of disaster management and disaster risk reduction. This article describes a methodological approach to enabling more rigorous evidence-based decision-making in community-based disaster risk mitigation, and notably for assessing the degree to which it increases preparedness for the adverse effects of hazards in vulnerable communities. The effects of actions designed to reduce disaster-induced loss, damage, injuries, fatalities and resource degradation were evaluated at a Swiss and Honduran Red Cross’ intervention area in Honduras. Our results show that the intervention has had a significant positive effect in three important areas of resilience: knowledge and preparedness (e.g., existence of an early warning system); social cohesion (e.g., community institutions); and management of natural assets (e.g., firewood consumption). Our findings indicate that the intervention program has enhanced the capacities of treated communities to prepare for future hazards and to respond in case of an emergency at both household and community levels.

2020

Rome, quelles centralités pour une ville diffuse? Requalification de la périphérie, un stade pour Bufalotta (Rome, I)

Robin Schweizer

Rome est une ville multiple. Elle se compose d'un centre historique, d'une couronne stabilisée et d'une aire périphérique dispersée. Dans cette dernière zone se concentrent les enjeux actuels du développement de la métropole. Face aux problèmes d'identité, de cohésion et d'accessibilité de cette ville diffuse, la commune tente de réagir en créant de nouvelles centralités. Trois pôles principaux se cristallisent aujourd'hui : Fiumicino près de l'aéroport, dédié aux foires et congrès, Tor Vergata à l'est, doté de centres universitaires et commerciaux et Bufalotta au nord, concentrant des programmes tertiaires et de loisir. Nous avons choisi de dynamiser ce dernier pôle par l'implantation d'un nouveau stade, impliquant la création d'espaces publics et la restructuration des réseaux de circulation. La zone d'intervention est la porte d'entrée de la ville, située au point de rencontre entre le périphérique autoroutier et les grands réseaux en provenance de Florence. Le site retenu, Saxa Rubra, est situé dans un méandre du Tibre, au sein d'un paysage urbain composé de grands équipements. La lecture de la morphologie de la ville nous a conduit à mettre en place un espace public de référence tangent au fleuve, qui articule et connecte les éléments du projet : d'un côté un parc regroupant le stade et d'autres activités sportives, de l'autre côté la ville, composée de zones commerciales, tertiaires et d'habitation, dans laquelle vient s'insérer un pôle de transport multimodal. Le stade d'une capacité de 80'000 places est principalement dédié au football, ainsi qu'à des événements culturels tels que des concerts. Le besoin d'un nouveau stade pour la ville est ressenti autant par les spectateurs que par les dirigeants des clubs de football. Le stade olympique de Rome, construit en 1953 et prévu initialement pour l'athlétisme, est peu polyvalent et n'offre pas une bonne visibilité. Le projet abrite donc un programme plus complexe, permettant de diversifier les utilisations. Il apporte également plus de confort aux utilisateurs, en matière d'accueil, de visibilité et d'espace à disposition.

2003

Rome, quelles centralités pour une ville diffuse? Requalification de la périphérie, un stade pour Bufalotta (Rome, I)

Robin Schweizer

2003