Conceptualizing Dimensions and Characteristics of Urban Resilience

20 Pages·2017·1.06 MB·English

sustainability
Article
Conceptualizing Dimensions and Characteristics of
Urban Resilience: Insights from a Co-Design Process
AyyoobSharifi1,*,LorenzoChelleri2,3,CateFox-Lent4,SteliosGrafakos5,MinalPathak6,
MartaOlazabal7,SusieMoloney8,LilyYumagulova9andYoshikiYamagata1
1 GlobalCarbonProject,NationalInstituteforEnvironmentalStudies,16-2Onogawa,Tsukuba,
Ibaraki305-8506,Japan;[email protected]
2 ESARQSchoolofArchitecture,UniversitatInternacionaldeCatalunya(UIC),Immaculada22,
Barcelona08017,Spain;[email protected]
3 SocialSciencesUnit,GranSassoScienceInstitute(GSSI),VialeFrancescoCrispi7,67100L’Aquila,Italy
4 EnvironmentalLaboratory,USArmyEngineerResearchandDevelopmentCenter,696VirginiaRd,
Concord,MA01742,USA;[email protected]
5 InstituteforHousingandUrbanDevelopmentStudies,ErasmusUniversityRotterdam,3062PARotterdam,
TheNetherlands;[email protected]
6 DepartmentofUrbanStudiesandPlanning,MassachusettsInstituteofTechnology,Cambridge,
77MassachusettsAve,Cambridge,MA02139,USA;[email protected]
7 BasqueCentreforClimateChange(BC3),EdificioSede,Planta1,BarrioSarrienas/n,ParqueCientífico
UPV/EHU,Leioa48914,Spain;[email protected]
8 CentreforUrbanResearch,SchoolofGlobalUrbanandSocialStudies,RMITUniversity,Melbourne3000,
Australia;[email protected]
9 SchoolofCommunityandRegionalPlanning,UniversityofBritishColumbia,6333MemorialRd,
Vancouver,BCV6T1Z4,Canada;[email protected]
* Correspondence:sharifi[email protected]fi[email protected];Tel.:[phone]
Received:30March2017;Accepted:13June2017;Published:16June2017
Abstract: Resilienceisamulti-facetedconceptfrequentlyusedacrossawiderangeofdisciplines,
practices, and sectors. There is a growing recognition of the utility of resilience as a bridging
conceptthatcanfacilitateinter-andtransdisciplinaryapproachestotacklecomplexitiesinherentin
decisionmakingunderconditionsofriskanduncertainty. Suchconditionsarecommoninurban
planning, infrastructure planning, asset management, emergency planning, crisis management,
and development processes where systemic interdependencies and interests at stake influence
decisionsand outcomes. A majorchallengethat canunderminethe useofresilienceforguiding
planningactivitiesisthevalue-ladenandcontestednatureoftheconceptthatcanbeinterpretedin
avarietyofways. Becauseresilienceiscontext-specificandgenerallydependsonlocalaspirations,
thisissuecanbepartiallytackledbyadoptingparticipatoryapproachesfortheconceptualization
of resilience. This paper provides an example of how co-design methods can be employed for
conceptualizingresilience. TheStructuredInterviewMatrixwasusedasatechniquetofacilitate
discussions among a diverse group of researchers and practitioners attending the International
WorkshoponToolsandIndicatorsforAssessingUrbanResilience. Participantsdeliberatedonissues
related to constituent elements of urban resilience, including its position vis-à-vis concepts such
asadaptationandsustainability,institutionalfactorsthatcanenable/constrainresiliencebuilding,
andthechallengesofconductingandoperationalizingurbanresilienceassessment. Thispapercan
beconsideredasaninitialsteptowardsfurtherexplorationofparticipatoryapproachesforclarifying
theunderlyingdimensionsofcomplexconceptssuchasresilience.
Keywords: urbanresilience;knowledgeco-design;knowledgeco-production;bottom-upapproach;
participatorymethods;StructuredInterviewMatrix;adaptation;sustainability;transdisciplinary
Sustainability2017,9,1032;doi:10.3390/su9061032 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Sustainability2017,9,1032 2of20
1. Introduction
Today’s highly urbanized world is characterized by growing levels of risk and uncertainty.
Traditionally, mitigating the risk associated with future uncertainties (related to climate change,
economic shocks, population change, etc.) has been one of the main purposes of urban planning
activities[1]. Friedmann[2](p. 482)suggestedthat“planningisaprofessionalpracticethatspecifically
seeks to connect forms of knowledge with forms of action in the public domain”. He called
for transforming this traditional mode of planning based on instrumental rationality, blueprint
implementation,andtop-downactionintoanon-Euclidian(non-engineering)mode. Non-Euclidian
planningis“normative,innovative,political,transactive,andbasedonsociallearning”[3](p. 372).
While non-Euclidean planning remains limited, resilience has emerged as a major concept that is
increasinglyusedtopromoteurbanplanning,managementtheories,andmanagementpracticesaimed
ataddressingissuesrelatedtovulnerability,risk,anduncertainty[4].Ifweconsidervulnerabilityasthe
resultofexposuretodisturbance,systemsensitivity,andsystemresilience(oradaptivecapacity)[5–8],
then “each community must inevitably deal with the management of multiple and interacting
exposurestodifferentthreats”[8](p. 2230). Communityresiliencecouldbeseenasthecapacityofa
communitytomanagecurrentandemergingthreatsbyaddressingtheability(orlackthereof)toadapt
tochangingthreatsandchallengesovertime,anddriveadaptationpathwaystowardssustainable
futures[8]. Therefore,communityresiliencehasbeenframedas“bothanoutcome,especiallywhen
linkedtoimprovedadaptivecapacityofcommunities,andaprocessorpathwaylinkedtodynamic
changesovertimeassociatedwithcommunitylearningandthewillingnessofcommunitiestotake
responsibilityandcontroloftheirdevelopmentpathways”[9](p. 4). “Communityresilienceisindeed
gainingprominenceasatargetedprocessofsocietaldevelopment,bothwithinthescientificliterature
andpolicymakingdiscoursesonsustainability”[8](p. 2230). Whencommunityresilienceisexplored
throughanurbansystemsperspective,theframingandunderstandingofwhataresilientcityis,and
howurbanresilienceshouldbeconceivedandmeasuredisstillunderdebate[10]. Limitedknowledge
existsontheimplicationsofinterlinkagesbetweendifferenturbansub-systems(i.e.,environmental,
social,economic,andphysical)forachievingurbanresiliencethroughamultiscale,cross-sector,and
multidisciplinaryperspective[4,11]. Theconceptofurbanresiliencealsobringstolightemerging
societaltensionsbetween“continuity”(thecapacitytomaintaintheperformanceofrolesandfunctions
withinasociety),“change”(societalevolution),andinclusionandexclusionwithinagivensociety[12].
Furthermore,additionalclarificationisneededtoestablishhowurbanresiliencerelatestootherkey
conceptssuchasadaptation,recovery,andsustainabilityinordertomaximizesynergiesandminimize
trade-offsamongthem[13]andavoidpotentialconceptualconfusions.
Giventhevalue-ladennatureofresilience,itsconceptualizationmaydifferfromone(sub)discipline
toanotherandevenwithin(sub)disciplines[4,14,15]. Majordivisionsexistinviewingresilienceasan
actioninresponsetoidentifiedrisksandviewingresiliencethroughasystemicevolutionarylensasa
self-organizationprocess. Thesedifferencesandinconsistenciesmayrendertheconceptunsuitable
for framing and operationalizing planning and policy agendas. Despite these inconsistencies,
some scholars consider resilience as a bridging concept [16], a mobile term [17], or a boundary
object [1] that can be used to facilitate inter- and transdisciplinary collaborations [18]. As such,
resilience may be a useful umbrella concept to develop transdisciplinary projects [19]. Fulfilling
such a function will depend on proper use of consensus-based approaches (early in the planning
process)forconceptualizingurbanresilience. Utilizingbottom-up,negotiatoryprocessestospecify
dimensionsandcharacteristicsoftheurbanresilienceconceptcanberegardedasapromisingstrategy
for reducing subjectivity. Conceptualization using negotiation-based, knowledge co-design, and
co-productionapproachescanalsofacilitateoperationalizationoftheresilienceconcept,including
design,implementation,andmonitoringstages[20].
Thispapercontributestothesegapsinconceptualizingresiliencebydescribingaparticipatory
eventthatbroughttogetheragroupofscholarsandpractitionerstoutilizetheirknowledge,perceptions,
andexperience. Theobjectivesweretodevelopasharedunderstandingoftheconstituentelementsof
Sustainability2017,9,1032 3of20
urbanresilience,identifykeythemes,highlightresearchgaps,andidentifyalistofpriorityquestions
thatshouldbefurtheraddressedinfuturework. Asapointofdeparture,urbanresiliencewasinitially
definedasthecontinualprocessofenhancingwell-beingforallcitizenswhilealsostrivingtoprepare
forandenhancerecoveryfromacutedisruptiveevents.Itisworthmentioningthattheissuesdiscussed
inthispaperarenotintendedtobeexhaustive; theymainlyreflecttheideasdiscussedduringthe
exerciseconductedforthepurposeofthisresearch.
Thepaperisorganizedasfollows.Detailsaboutthemethodusedtofacilitatediscussionsbetween
the participants are reported in the next section. Findings of the exercise are reported in the third
section. Thefinalsectiondiscussestheimplicationsofthefindingsforconceptualizingurbanresilience
andhighlightssomegapsinresearchandpracticethatneedtobeaddressed.
2. MaterialsandMethods
Theexercisewasconductedduringthefour-dayInternationalWorkshoponToolsandIndicators
for Assessing Urban Resilience, held at The University of Tokyo, Japan in December 2015 (More
information about the workshop is available at: http://www.cger.nies.go.jp/gcp/workshop-on-
tools-and-indicators-for-assessing-urban-resilience.html). Participantsincludedbothresearchersand
practitionerswithprovenexperienceinurbanresiliencetheoryandpractice. Thegroupcomprised
17expertsinsustainability,resilience,publicpolicy,communityplanning,urbanplanning,engineering,
climatechange,energygrids,andimpactassessment. Furthermore,theparticipantswerefromseveral
developedanddevelopingcountries(includingAustralia,Belgium,Canada,India,Indonesia,Italy,
Japan,TheNetherlands,SolomonIslands,Spain,Thailand,Russia,UnitedStates,andVietnam)and
hadexperienceworkingwithindifferentresearchandpolicycontexts. Discussionsandpresentations
duringthefirstthreedaysoftheworkshopprovidedthecontextfortheexercise. Theattendeeshadthe
opportunitytopresenttheirworkrelatedtourbanresilienceassessmentandwereaskedtoconclude
theirpresentationsbyraisingkeyquestionsrelatedtodefiningandoperationalizingresilience. These
questionsweredistributedtotheworkshopparticipantsattheendofthethirddayandallwereasked
todeliberateonthecollectedquestionsbeforeattendingthelastdayoftheworkshop. Thelastdaywas
reservedtoholdaparticipatoryexerciseandgeneratesomeconclusionsaroundtheconceptualization
ofurbanresilience.
Many participatory methods are available for organizing workshops aimed at sharing and
generatingknowledge(e.g.,WorldCafé,Charrette,ConceptMapping,Delphimethod,MindMapping,
Marketplace/PosterExhibition,andStorytelling). Theobjectives,strengths,andweaknessesofsome
ofthesemethodsaresummarizedinTable1.
Sustainability2017,9,1032 4of20
Table1.Selectedparticipatorymethodsfororganizingworkshops(developedbasedonauthors’experienceandtheinformationprovidedin[21]and[22]).
Method Objectives Strengths Weaknesses
Participantsaredividedintosmalltablegroupsand Suitableforsharingandgeneratingknowledge
Needsclearquestions
discussissuesinmultiplerounds.Participants(except Canaccommodatealargenumberofparticipants
Concretedecisionsandactionplanscannot
forthetablefacilitator)movetoanewgroupat Suitableforengagingawiderangeofparticipants
WorldCafé necessarilybederivedattheendoftheprocess
regularintervalsandthisenablescross-fertilizationof Moderateresourcerequirements(venue,trained
Challengetofacilitatorstoavoidvocalspeakers
ideas.Tablehostssummarizeandpresentthemain facilitators,costs)
dominatingtheconversation.
ideasinaplenarysession. Shorttomediumtimerequirements
Expertsmaydominatetheprocess
Thismethodisappliedtocreateconsensusfor Suitableforgeneratingandsharingknowledge
Medium-highresourcerequirements,depending
Charrette projectsincommunitiesthroughdirectinvolvement Canaccommodatealargenumberofparticipants
onthelengthoftheprocess
ofcitizensintheplanningprocess. Suitableforengagingawiderangeofparticipants
Consensusbuildingmaytaketime
Medium-highresourcerequirements
Facilitatesknowledgegatheringandinformation
Hightimerequirements
sharingbetweenagroupofpeople.Itcanprovide
Dominatingparticipantscanbeavoided Notsuitableforaccommodatingalargenumber
usefulinformationontherelationshipbetweenkey
ConceptMapping Suitableforsharingandgeneratingknowledge ofparticipants
conceptsdiscussed.Thetechniqueallowsindividuals
Suitableforengagingawiderangeofparticipants Theprocesscanbecomplicatedfor
togetinvolvedineffectivegroupdiscussionswithout
someparticipants
losingdetailedindividualideas.
Reachingconsensusisnoteasy
Medium-hightimerequirements
Thismethodisusedtoextractopinionsofagroupof
Mainlytargetingexperts
expertsonacertaintopic.Expertstakepartby Dominatingparticipantscanbeavoided
DelphiMethod Notsuitableforaccommodatingalargenumber
answeringquestionnairesandrevisingtheiranswers Costsarelow
ofparticipants
inseveralrounds.
Lacksdialoguebetweenparticipants
Thistechniqueisusedtofacilitatediscussions
Dominatingparticipantscanbeavoided
betweenseveralgroupsofparticipantstoelicit
Suitableforsharingandgeneratingknowledge Needsclearquestions
knowledgefromthem.Knowledgeisgeneratedand
StructuredInterview Suitableforengagingawiderangeofparticipants Notsuitableforaccommodatingalargenumber
sharedthroughengagementinone-on-oneinterviews
Matrix Moderateresourcerequirements(venue,trained ofparticipants
andgroupsandplenarydiscussions.SimilartoWorld
facilitators,costs) Relativelynewandnotfrequentlyused
Cafebutemploysinterviewingstrategiesratherthan
Shorttomediumtimerequirements
generalconversation.
Sustainability 2017, 9, 1032 5 of 21
Sustainability2017,9,1032 5of20
For the purpose of this study, a method was sought that is easy to work with, can minimize
For the purpose of this study, a method was sought that is easy to work with, can minimize
dominant participants (as several participants were early-career researchers and capacity building
dominantparticipants(asseveralparticipantswereearly-careerresearchersandcapacitybuilding
was one of the objectives of the workshop), and can facilitate sharing and generating knowledge
was one of the objectives of the workshop), and can facilitate sharing and generating knowledge
between a small group of participants within a short-medium time period. As can be seen from Table
betweenasmallgroupofparticipantswithinashort-mediumtimeperiod. AscanbeseenfromTable1,
1, the Structured Interview Matrix (SIM) fulfills these requirements and, therefore, was selected to
the Structured Interview Matrix (SIM) fulfills these requirements and, therefore, was selected to
structure the discussions. The SIM sessions were conducted according to the methodology outlined
structurethediscussions. TheSIMsessionswereconductedaccordingtothemethodologyoutlinedin
in O’Sullivan and Kuziemsky [23] and O’Sullivan and Corneil [24]. Although this method has
O’SullivanandKuziemsky[23]andO’SullivanandCorneil[24]. Althoughthismethodhaspreviously
previously been used mostly for community asset mapping, in this study SIM was used as a
beenusedmostlyforcommunityassetmapping,inthisstudySIMwasusedasatechniquetofacilitate
technique to facilitate discussions between several groups of experts and to elicit knowledge from
discussions between several groups of experts and to elicit knowledge from them. The method
them. The method generally consists of the following steps (see Figure 1):
generallyconsistsofthefollowingsteps(seeFigure1):
Step 1 Participants are grouped into small teams, A, B, C, D, each given a different topic
Step1 Participantsaregroupedintosmallteams,A,B,C,D,eachgivenadifferenttopic(question).
(question).
Step2 Membersofeachgroupperformone-on-oneinterviewswithamemberfromeachofthe
Step 2 Members of each group perform one-on-one interviews with a member from each of the
othergroupstoobtainanswerstotheirassignedquestions.
other groups to obtain answers to their assigned questions.
Step3 Participantsreturntotheiroriginalgroupsanddiscusstheiroriginallyassignedquestions/topics
Step 3 Participants return to their original groups and discuss their originally assigned
basedontheinterviewresults.
questions/topics based on the interview results.
SStteepp 44 GGroruopuspss ysnytnhtehseisziezek ekyeyid iedaesasa nadndre rpeoprotrbt abcakckto toth tehew whohloeleg rgoruopu.p.

FFiigguurree 11.. SScchheemmaattiicc oovveerrvviieeww ooff tthhee SSttrruuccttuurreedd IInntteerrvviieeww MMaattrriixx ((SSIIMM)) pprroocceessss..
Before starting the SIM exercise, a brainstorming session was held to identify (and re-formulate)
BeforestartingtheSIMexercise,abrainstormingsessionwasheldtoidentify(andre-formulate)
the four most prominent questions to be addressed during the exercise. Care was taken to formulate
thefourmostprominentquestionstobeaddressedduringtheexercise. Carewastakentoformulate
broad and open-ended questions that covered most of the concerns and challenges raised during the
broad and open-ended questions that covered most of the concerns and challenges raised during
workshop and that would facilitate further deliberation by the participants. The following four
theworkshopandthatwouldfacilitatefurtherdeliberationbytheparticipants. Thefollowingfour
questions were selected for the exercise:
questionswereselectedfortheexercise:
A. How does urban resilience relate to adaptation, recovery, and sustainability? What are the
A. How does urban resilience relate to adaptation, recovery, and sustainability? What are the
synergies/tensions?
synergies/tensions?
B. What are the elements of the built environment that influence community resilience?
B. Whataretheelementsofthebuiltenvironmentthatinfluencecommunityresilience?
C. What are the elements of the institutional/regulatory context that enable and/or constrain
C. What are the elements of the institutional/regulatory context that enable and/or constrain
building resilience?
buildingresilience?
D. What are the challenges of conducting resilience assessment and utilizing results to inform
D. What are the challenges of conducting resilience assessment and utilizing results to inform
decision making?
decisionmaking?
The exercise was conducted in four steps following the sequential process illustrated in Figure
TheexercisewasconductedinfourstepsfollowingthesequentialprocessillustratedinFigure1.
1. First, the attendees were divided into four groups. Due to the odd number of participants, Group
First,theattendeesweredividedintofourgroups. Duetotheoddnumberofparticipants,GroupC
C was given five members, two of whom were paired for the purpose of consistency. Each group was
wasgivenfivemembers,twoofwhomwerepairedforthepurposeofconsistency. Eachgroupwas
assigned a unique question (A, B, C, or D) and a matrix was set up so that individuals in each group
assignedauniquequestion(A,B,C,orD)andamatrixwassetupsothatindividualsineachgroup
collect answers for their unique question by conducting one-on-one interviews with members from
collectanswersfortheiruniquequestionbyconductingone-on-oneinterviewswithmembersfrom
other groups (Step 2). The maximum allowable time for one interview was ten minutes. At the end
other groups (Step 2). The maximum allowable time for one interview was ten minutes. At the
of this step, everyone had been interviewed by three individuals from three distinct groups on
Sustainability 2017, 9, 1032 6 of 21
questions/topics different from the one they had been originally assigned, and in return had
Sustainability2017,9,1032 6of20
interviewed three individuals on the subject of their assigned question.
When the second step was complete, participants returned to their original tables to elaborate
eonnd thoef rtehsipsosntespes, tehveeyr yhoande choalldecbteeden (Sitnetpe r3v, iFewigeudreb 2y). tHhreeree,i nthdeiyv iwduearels aflrsoom astkherde etod aisdtdin tchtegirr oouwpns
oinnpuqut, essytinotnhse/sitzoep itchse ddiifsfceuresnsitofnrso,m antdh ereoanceh tchoenysehnasdusb oeenn a olrisigt ionfa tlhlyemasessi grneleadte,da ntod tihnerire tausrsnighnaedd
iqnuteesrvtiioenwse. dThthe rfeienainl dstievpid (uSatelsp o4n) itnhveosluvbejde cat pofletnhaeriry assessisginoend, wquheesrteiionn p.articipants reported back the
resulWts hoef nthtehier sdeicsocundssisotenps wtoa asllc opmarptilceitpea,nptasr taincidp arenctseirveetdur fneeeddbtoactkh efirroomri tghine aalutdabielensceto. elaborateon
thereEsapcohn pseasrttihceipyahnat dwcaosl laesckteedd (tSot etapk3e, nFoigteusr edu2)r.inHge trhee, tihnetyerwvieerwesa.l sAolsaos,k aeldl tthoea cdodntvheerisraotiwonnsi nwpeuret,
sreycnothrdeesidz eusthinegd disicguitsasli oaunsd,iaon rdecroeradcehrsc.o Anste tnhseu esnodn oaf tlhiset dofayth, ethmeesse rmelaatteerdiatlos twheeirre acsoslilgencteeddq buye gstrioounps.
Trehperefisneanltastteivpe(sS ttoe ppr4e)pianrveo al vseydntahepsliesn oafr tyhsee dssisiocuns,swiohnesr etoin bpe asrhtaicriepda wntisthr etphoe rrteesdt obfa tchket phaerrteicsiuplatsntosf.
tRheefiirndedis cvuesrssiioonnss toof athllepsea rstyicnitphaenstiss arenpdorretcse ciavne dbefe feodubnadc kinf rSoemctitohne 3a.u d ience.

Figure 2. Participants completing the third step of the exercise.
Figure2.Participantscompletingthethirdstepoftheexercise.
3. Results
Eachparticipantwasaskedtotakenotesduringtheinterviews. Also,alltheconversationswere
recorTdhede uarsginugmdeingtista tlhaautd wioerreec doredveerlso.pAedt tihne reensdpoonfsthe etod atyh,et hfoesuer mquateesrtiiaolnssw peoresecdo lilnec tthede bpyregvrioouups
rseepctrieosne natraet ipvreessteontperde pina rtehae sfoylnlothweisnisgo ffotuhre sduibs-csuescstiioonnss,t orebsepeschtaivreedlyw, aitnhdt hareer ecostnotefxtthueapliazretdic ibpya nthtse.
Rcuerfirneendt lviteerrsaitounrse owfhtheerese aspypnrtohpersiiastree. p ortscanbefoundinSection3.
33..1R. Reseulalttisonship between Resilience and Adaptation, Recovery, and Sustainability
TInh tehaer ugrubmane nctosnttheaxtt, wreesrieliednecvee ilnoiptieadllyin emreesprgoends east oa tchoencfeoputr mquaiensltyio rneslapteods etdo dinistahseteprsr e[2v5io] uosr
scelicmtiaotne acrheapnrgees ernetlaetdedin cthhaellfeonllgoews i[n2g6]f.o Tuhres ucba-psaeccittiioens st,or ersepceocvteivr ealyn,da nbdouanrecec obnatcekx ttuoa plirzee-ddibsyasttheer
ccuonrrdeintitolnitse rhaatvuer ebewehne mreaainpsptrroeapmria cthe.aracteristics underlying the concept of urban resilience [27]. Only
recently has greater attention been devoted to exploring the possibility of broadening resilience
3.1. RelationshipbetweenResilienceandAdaptation,Recovery,andSustainability
approaches in order to include transformational capacities [28]. With the rapid evolution of resilience
as anI novtehrearucrhbianng ccoonntceexptt, [r1e6s]i,l ipeonscseibinlei tsiyalnlyeregmiese ragnedd caosnafliccotsn wceiptht motahienrl ykerye leaxteisdtintog dcoisnacseteprtss a[2n5d]
oaprpclriomaachteesc htoa nugrebarnel aptleadnncihnagl laenndg edse[v2e6l]o.pTmheencta phaavciet iteos btoe rideceonvtiefireadn idn boorduenrc etob ianctkegtorapter er-edsiisliaesntceer
cmoenadniitniognfuslhlya vanedb cereinticmalalyin isnttroe aumrbacnh athraecotreyr iasntidcs purancdtiecrely. Hinogwt hdeoecso nthcee pctonocfeuprtb oafn urrbesainli reenscielie[n27ce].
Orenlalyter teoc eandtalypthaatisognr, eraetceorvaetrtye,n atinodn sbuesetnaidneavboiltietyd?t Hooexwp lcoarnin rgestihlieenpcoes sbieb icloitmymofubnriocaadteedn iinng ar wesailyie tnhcaet
awpipllr nooact hleeasdin too rcdoenrfutosiionnc lwuditeht orathnesfro cromnacteipontsa, ltchaupsa dciitfifeussi[n28g] .itWs mitheatnhienrga panidde ivnoclruetaisoinngo farmesbiilgieunictye
aasndan sokvepertaicricshmin?g Tchoenscee pqtu[e1s6t]i,opnos swsiberlee sdyinsceurgsiseesda nwditcho nreflgicatrsdw toit hpootshseibrlke esyyenxeirsgtiinesg caonndc etepntssiaonnds
abpetpwroeaecnh uersbtaonu rrebsailniepnlcaen annindg aadnadptdaetivoenlo, premcoevnetrhya, vaendto sbuestiadiennatbifiilietdy.i n ordertointegrateresilience
meanRinesgifluielnlycea nwdacsr diteicsaclrliybeindt obyu trhbea ngrthoueopr yasa an dprporaaccttiivcee .aHpporwoadcohe, setmhpehcoasniczeinpgt obfeuinrgb apnrerepsairlieedn ctoe
raedldatreestos apdoaspsitbalteio snh,orcekcos,v ecrriys,easn, dors usstrtaeisnsaobrsil.i tIym?pHoortwancta ansrpeesciltise nocf erbeseilcioemncme uwneircea tnedamineda,w sauychth aast
wroibllunsotntelesasd, atdoacpotnafbuisliiotyn, wanitdh tortahnesrfocormncaebpitlsit,yth. uInsidtiiaflfluys, iintg witassm acekannionwglaenddgeindc trheaast ianlgl tahmrebeig cuointyceapntds
sfikt etpotgiceitshmer? Tanhdes ewqeuree srtieolantsewd.e rTehdesisec uasrsee dovweritlhaprpeginagrd ptaorptso sosfi btlhees yrenseirlgieinescea ncdontecenpsito nansdb eittw weeans
uemrbpahnarseiszielide nthceata rnedsialidenapceta sthioonu,lrde cinocvoerrpy,oarantde sthuestmai.n Haboiwliteyv.er, the question arose in how far each—
Resilience was described by the group as a proactive approach, emphasizing being prepared
toaddresspossibleshocks,crises,orstressors. Importantaspectsofresiliencewerenamed,suchas
Sustainability2017,9,1032 7of20
robustness,adaptability,andtransformability. Initially,itwasacknowledgedthatallthreeconceptsfit
togetherandwererelated. Theseareoverlappingpartsoftheresilienceconceptanditwasemphasized
thatresilienceshouldincorporatethem. However,thequestionaroseinhowfareach—adaptation,
recovery,andsustainability—areinterrelatedwithresilienceandthesignificanceofeachofthemin
thiscontext.
Itwasstressedthatincreasingresilience(asahighordergoal)canbefacilitatedthroughcontinuous
andincrementaladaptationefforts. Moreover,theparticipantsarguedthattheprocessesofrecovery
as well as disaster risk reduction actions provide support to achieve adaptation. Adaptation is
a mid- to long-term process, based on predictions regarding possible stressors or shocks (it was
definedas‘predictandact’),whereasrecoveryisashort-tomid-termreactiontocrisis,disturbances,
or shocks. An emerging field of recovery planning also offers strong synergies with adaptation.
Recovery planning is based on creating a collective vision before a disaster strikes, to establish a
frameworkformulti-stakeholderandinter-organizationalaction. Groupmembersemphasizedthat
incrementaladaptationhelpstoprepareforrecoveryfromstressorsorshocksandcanbedefinedas
a component of resilience. It was also pointed out that there is a relationship between adaptation
andrecoveryduetotheassumptionthatafterrecovery,anadaptationprocessusuallystarts. Inthis
context,resilienceasthepreparednessforcrisesorshocksisaproactiveapproachwhichcloselylinks
recovery,asthereactiontoacrisis,andadaptation,asrespondingtopredictions(‘predictandact’).
Itwasalsostatedthatresilienceisaboutlearninghowtoperformfundamentalfunctionsdifferently
and, therefore, should consider climate adaptation, recovery, as well as disaster risk reduction as
equallyimportantandequallybalanced. Thisbalancefurtheremergedasanimportanttopicinthe
discussion,especiallywhenfocusingonthepreparednessofacommunity. Participantsemphasized
the importance of having a balance between small incremental adaptation actions/measures and
a focused transformative adaptation. Adaptation measures are often incremental and in response
tominordisruptions. However,whenahighlyvulnerablesystemfacesrelativelysevereshocksat
shorttimeintervals,itmaycrossthresholdsandshiftintocompletelydifferentregimes. Undersuch
conditions,incrementaladaptationmaynotbesufficientandtransformativeadaptationswouldbe
neededtofacilitatethetransitionofthesystemfromonestabilitydomaintoanother[15,28,29].
In the context of adaptation, the group members specifically discussed the need to preserve
ecosystems and ecosystem services to enhance the ability to adapt. Additionally, the synergy of
ecosystempreservationwithsocio-ecologicalresilienceandsustainabilitywereemphasized. Itwas
stressed that the maintenance of ecosystems and ecosystem health is imperative for the resilience
ofhumansocieties. Aswasreiteratedbysomegroupmembers, adisregardofecosystemservices
inthelongruncouldleadtoconflictsarisingfromecosystemfragmentationandbiodiversityloss;
ultimately, the sustainability of the ecosystem itself and the associated ecosystem services will be
undermined [30–32]. Climate mitigation was also highlighted as important for sustainability and
fitting within the broader frame of resilience. Enhancing mitigation in the long-run (e.g., climate
changemitigation)reducestheneedforadaptation,sincedisastersorclimatechangeimpactswillbe
reduced[33]. Thus,resilienceisdirectlyenhancedaswell[15].
Theparticipantsarticulatedthatsustainabilityandresiliencearedistinctandnotinterchangeable.
Acommunitywhichseemstobesafeguardingtheneedsofbothcurrentandfuturegenerationsmay
notnecessarilyberesilienttoshocksorcrises. Asdescribedabove,resilienceisaboutdealingwith
uncertaintiesandlearninghowtomaintainthefunctionalityofthesystemunderconstantlychanging
conditionsanddynamics.Therefore,communitiesthatseemtobesustainablebuthavenotexperienced
crisesorshocksinrecenthistorymaynothavelearnedhowtopreparethemselvesagainstthesethreats
totheirsocialfunctioning. Itisalsoviceversa—acommunitycanberesilientbutnotsustainable.
Inaddition,specificallyaddressingdisasterresilience,aconcernwasraisedaboutconflictsthatcan
emergewhenattemptingtoquicklyrecoverfromshocks. Acommunityneedstoadaptquicklyaftera
shockorcrisis,butadaptationdoesnotensurelongtermsustainabilityforthecommunity. Moreover,
itwascontendedthatlong-termsustainabilitycannotbeachievedwithcertainresiliencemeasures.
Sustainability2017,9,1032 8of20
Forexample,furtherinvestmentoncentralized,redundantfossilfuel-basedenergygenerationplants
canenhanceshort-termresilience(throughimprovingrobustness),butithasnegativeimplications
forsustainability. Alternatively,sustainabilitymeasuresdonotnecessarilyprepareforfutureshocks
andenhanceresilience,duetoashortertemporalscaleofthelatter. Theparticipantsidentifiedthese
potentialconflictsbetweensustainabilityandresilienceprioritiesasabarriertodecisionmaking. Some
suggestedthattheimperativeofsustainabilityhadlostmomentumduetotheincreasingattention
paidtoclimateadaptationandresiliencewithinexpertcommunitiesandthus,ledtofurthertensions
betweentheseplanninggroups.
Regardingthemanagementofcommunityresilienceincities,theopportunitytocreatesynergies
byworkingtogetherasacommunityandcreatingcollaborativenetworksofexpertsandcommunity
members was identified. Establishing collaborative networks can facilitate coordination between
differentgovernmentalandnon-governmentalstakeholders. Thismayincludegroupswithdifferent
interests. Networking activities should not necessarily be restricted within city boundaries. The
importance of establishing global networks for the promotion of collaborations between cities is
gainingincreasingattention. Suchnetworkscanbolsterurbanresiliencebyprovidingmutualsupport
andcreatingaplatformforsharingknowledgeandexperienceandfacilitatingpeertopeerlearning[34],
evenintheabsenceofactionatthehigherlevelsofgovernment.
Inall,therewasconsensusthattheconceptsoffocushadmoresynergiesthantensions. Thekey
concernswereregardingtensionsinexpertcommunitiesandtheneedtobetterarticulatepotential
conflicts of priorities between different approaches. Concepts like climate change mitigation and
disasterriskreductionwerealsoacknowledgedasimportantcomponentsofresiliencebythegroup.
Therefore,addressingvarioussocio-economicandenvironmentaldimensionsofresilienceisessential
forenhancingpreparation,absorption,recovery,andadaptationcapacitiesofhumancommunities.
Fromanurbanplanningperspective,adaptation,recovery,resilience,disasterriskreduction,climate
change mitigation, and sustainability (and their underpinning processes) are all interrelated and
interdependentconceptsthat,ideally,shouldnotbeinvestigatedinisolation.
3.2. CommunityResilienceandtheBuiltEnvironment
The built environment plays a key role in community by providing support for sustaining
different social needs such as housing, socio-economic activities, recreation, industry, and other
critical services [35]. According to Hassler and Kohler [18], buildings and infrastructure stocks
arethemaincomponentsofthebuiltenvironment. Thephysical,environmental,social,economic,
and cultural resources of the city are developed as a result of interactions between humans and
these components [18]. Hassler and Kohler [18] also characterize urban structure as a “complex
socio-technicalsystem”composedofdifferentscales,rangingfrombuildings,toblocks,neighborhoods,
cities,andregions. Eachofthesescalesischaracterizedbydifferentagents,temporaldynamics,and
institutionalsystems[18]. Accordingtothisdefinition,thebuiltenvironmentisnotjustaphysical
construct. Instead,itisa“socialconstruct”withdistinctivephysical(e.g.,buildingandinfrastructure
stocks, transportation networks, etc.) and non-physical components (e.g., laws and regulations,
socio-economicrelations,socialcapital,values,institutions,etc.)[18].
As this paper confirms through the following subsections, the built environment only makes
sense in relation to social processes and within legislative and institutional frameworks. In this
section,wereportthefindingsofGroupB,whichdiscussedtheelementsofthebuiltenvironmentthat
influencecommunityresilienceincities. Participants’initialdiscussionsonlinkingtheurbanbuilt
environmentandcommunitythroughresiliencecapacitieswererelatedtobuildingresistancetoshocks
(robustnessthroughbuildingcodes)andthecapacityofstreetsandsquarestoaccommodateinhabitants
in case of emergency. Aligning urban form and the building codes with resilience principles can
indeedminimizetheexposuretothreatsandenhancerobustnessofthesystem,therebycontributing
tocommunitysafetyandresilience. Throughrelatedreasoning,resiliencewasdescribedasthecapacity
for “accessing” the city and its services. Accessibility of infrastructures and urban services is indeed
Sustainability2017,9,1032 9of20
a key factor, both from the physical point of view (having the infrastructures in place, and being
resistant/robusttodifferentpotentialimpacts)andthesocio-economicpointofview(havingequitable
accesstoinfrastructuresandrelatedservices).
Thelinkagesamongaccess,resilience,andthebuiltenvironmenthavealsobeenframedasthe
interactionsbetweeninfrastructures’“physicalform”andtheirmanagementmodels. Centralizationor
decentralizationofurbaninfrastructuresisakeyaspectlimitingorfacilitatingcommunityresilience,
inrelationtourbanmetabolism,andinducedbythe(economic)managementmodelofthecity. Water
and energy providers could manage infrastructures in either a centralized or decentralized way.
Similarly,waste,food,andcommunicationscanalsobemanagedbyrelyingonadominantprovider,
controllingthelevelofandaccesstotheserviceprovided,orthroughinfrastructuresthatareco-shared
andco-managedatahouseholdorcommunitylevel. Therewasconsensusamongparticipantsthat
decentralizedinfrastructuresarenotonlymoreresilienttobothshort-andlong-termshocks(because
ofthephysicalredundancyofthenetworkswhichdistributesriskandreducesvulnerabilitytosupply
chain disruptions), but also contribute to sustainability transitions, if framed according to a more
renewable resources paradigm. Simultaneously, other resilience co-benefits can be accrued from
distributedanddecentralizedinfrastructure[15,36,37]. Decentralizationimprovesaccess,enableslocal
controloverplanningandresourcemanagement,andprovideslearningopportunitiesbyengaging
differentstakeholdersintheco-managementoftheinfrastructureandrelatedservices[15,36,37]. These
decentralized-distribution options can also contribute to empowerment toward a socio-economic
transformation(e.g.,evidenceshowsthatpromotionofdecentralizedenergysystemsenhancesenergy
affordability,improveslocalawareness,andpromoteslocalinvolvementinplanninganddecision
making[15,38]). Duringsuchatransformation, thecommunitywillexperiencearedistributionof
benefitsandresponsibilities,whilealsocontributingtoanincreaseinthediversity,modularity,and
redundancyofthenetworksprovidingthebasicservicestourbanlife. Onthecontrary,according
toparticipants,acentralizedapproachtothemanagementofinfrastructuresleadstoinfrastructure
lock-inandpathdependencies,evenifcontributingtoamoreefficientmanagementofinvestments.
Fromanotherpointofview,butagainlinkedtothedebateoncentralizationversusdispersal,
orresilienceversusefficiency,therelationshipbetween‘density’andresiliencewasalsodiscussed,
revealingthenuancednatureoftrade-offsinvolvedinurbanresiliencepraxis. Itwasnotclearfrom
thediscussions,whetherurbandensityperse,whilecontributingtoeconomicefficiency,contributes
positively or negatively to resilience. It was argued that when building codes and capacities to
enforcethemareavailable,highdensitycouldindirectlyallowtheeconomicallyfeasibleapplicationof
advancedconstructiontechniques(e.g.,buildingreinforcement,anti-seismicmeasures,etc.),which
canhelpimproveresilience. Density,however,canalsopresentachallengeduringdisasters,dueto
thehighdependenceonfunctioningofcentralizedinfrastructure(e.g.,asinglemasstransitcorridor,
orelevators(andthuselectricity)inhighrises). Increasingdensityindisaster-pronelocationscan
degraderesiliencebyexposingalargerpopulationtorisk(e.g.,denselowincomehousinginlow-lying
floodproneareasorinhillyseismically-activeorlandslide-proneareas)[39]. Inpoorurbanareas,
highdensityisoftenassociatedwithincreasedvulnerability(mainlyduetothelackoffinancialand
knowledgeresources,orlackofproperspacesandaccessesduringpotentialemergencysituations)
whichpresentsamorechallengingpathwaytoenhancingurbanresilience.
Disasterresilienceindenseurbanareasalsoledtothementionofstreetnetworks(inthecontext
ofurbanform)andmobilityasotheressentialrecurringelementsduringtheSIMsessiondiscussions.
Participantshighlightedtheneedforincreasedmobilityefficiencywithinurbansystemsinorderto
increasecommunityresilience.Aresilientstreetnetworkshouldfacilitatethesmoothandunobstructed
movementofpeopleandvehiclestoenhancebotheverydayperformanceandemergencyresponse.
Specificmorphologicalaspectscouldberelatedtoresilience. Thisrequiresacarefulconsiderationof
thetrade-offsinvolved,forexample,betweenincreasingthenumberofbikelanesalongmajorarteries
vs. spaceneededtoensuretheappropriateturningradiusofanemergencyvehicle(e.g.,afiretruck).
Thestreetnetworkanditsassociatedelements(e.g.,squares)shouldbedesignedinawaythatnot
Sustainability2017,9,1032 10of20
onlyfacilitatessafeandrapidevacuationfollowingdisasters,butalsoprovidetemporaryshelterin
emergencysituations[40]. Anappropriatedesignmarginisneededinordertoaccommodatepossible
future demands. Street networks offer an opportunity to build in climate responsiveness through
integrationofgreenandblueinfrastructures. Climate-sensitivestreetdesignenhancesresilienceby
providingvariousenvironmental,economic,social,andculturalbenefitsandecosystemservices[41].
Streetnetworksshouldalsofacilitatelandscapeconnectivitybycreatinglinkagesbetweendifferent
urbanscales(fromurbanneighborhoodstothehinterlands). Landscapeconnectivityandecological
networksareessentialforthemovementofspeciesandcirculationofenergyandmatterneededfor
properurbanfunctioning[42].
Asintroducedatthebeginningofthissection,thebuiltenvironmentisasocialconstructwith
bothphysicalandnon-physicalaspects[18]. Anon-physicalattributeofresilience,bridgingthebuilt
environmentcharacteristicsandcommunityadaptivecapacities,isrepresentedbythesenseofplace.
From the perspective of those who participated in this exercise, the sense of place was defined as
thedynamicprocesslinkingsociallifeandcharacteristicsofacommunitytoasharedgeographical
area (e.g., a neighborhood). Viewed through this lens, places where people feel comfortable are
characterizedbyactiveengagementofresidentsinthemanagementandmaintenanceofthequalityof
thebuiltenvironment.
Participants identified several trade-offs that can arise when making policies and planning
decisions around the elements identified above. Among these, a recurring concern was relatedto
possibleconflictsbetweeneconomicgrowthplansandenvironmentalandsocialresilienceofcommunities.
Forexample,asoneparticipantnoted,buildinganairportenhancesthecommunityeconomicresilience
byincreasingmarketconnectivityandopeningopportunitiesforinternationalization,learning,andthe
sharingofresources. However,itcould,atthesametime,havesocial-environmentalconsequencesand
impacts(fromgentrificationtopollution)whichwillsimultaneouslydecreaseotherfacetsofcommunity
resilience. Alongdebatearoundpotentialtrade-offsconcludedthat,inordertosystematicallyexplore
therelationshipbetweensocialprocessesandthebuiltenvironmentthrougharesiliencelens,aclearer
conceptualframingof(urban)communityresilienceisneeded. Indeed,definingurbancommunity,its
capacities,andhierarchieswhichemergewithinthecommunity,remainsamajorchallengeforurban
resilienceresearch. Also,elaboratingontheconceptofcommunityresiliencecouldhelptoassesshow
itislinkedtootherresiliencedomains(builtenvironmentresilience,ecologicalresilience,economic
resilience). Suchaconceptualframingcouldassistindeterminingwhetherandhow(andonwhat
grounds)anytrade-offsbetweendifferentresiliencecharacteristicscanbejustifiedinthecontextof
broaderplanningvisionsandobjectives.
3.3. InstitutionalElementsthatEnableand/orConstrainBuildingResilience
The foundation of resilience building rests on the institutional capacity to understand and
anticipatefutureevents,planandmanageresourcestomeetthesechallenges,andenhanceinstitutional
capacitiestodelivertheoutcomes. Thisinvolvesdecisionsoverland-useandresources,qualityof
provisionandcoverageofinfrastructureandservices,priorityofnewinvestments,andintegrationof
theneedsofthepresentandfuturecommunitiesinlocalplansandpolicies[43,44]. Urbanplanning
actionsforresiliencebuildingmaybeincrementalandcontinuousorlarge-scaleandtransformative.
Asthenatureofurbanrisksevolves,governanceandinstitutionalresponseswillrequireare-framing
oftraditionalapproachestourbangovernance. Discussionsfocusedontheelementsofthegovernance
andinstitutionalframeworkthatarecentraltoenablingresilience.
The importance of multi-level governance for urban sustainability and especially for climate
change has been established in the literature [45,46]. Not surprisingly, integrated synergistic
collaborationbetweengovernmentsandamongdepartmentswithinthegovernment(horizontally
and vertically) was identified as a significant factor influencing resilience. For example, the
managementofsharedwaterresourcesbetweenastateandlocalgovernmentorbetweentwolocal
governments calls for collaborative planning, both for resource sustainability as well as disaster