Search results

Resilience is a topical concept in many academic disciplines world-wide and also among practitioners. In Europe, however, the current conceptualisations of urban resilience are highly specific to institutional contexts, national cultures and traditions and emergent risks faced in particular countries and their urban areas. The differences in how urban resilience is understood and applied are important, and yet such differences are only scarcely addressed in current resilience literature. This paper draws from the EU’s Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration security project HARMONISE – A Holistic Approach to Resilience and Systematic Actions to Make Large Scale Built Infrastructure Secure.

The project develops a comprehensive, multifaceted, yet mutually reinforcing concept for the enhanced security, resilience and sustainability of urban infrastructure and development. As part of the project, 61 experts were interviewed in six European countries (UK, Ireland, Germany, Italy, Spain and Finland) to establish a comprehensive understanding of the current role and position of resilience in urban-built infrastructure. These interviews elicit the current views of professionals from a number of contributory and competing disciplines.

Results indicate that there is no shared holistic understanding of urban resilience in Europe. The definitions of the concept vary across disciplines. The research identifies that there are a number of existing theoretical and practice gaps that require to be addressed.

This paper presents a number of research and practice “gaps” which are being addressed in the HARMONISE project and which require to be addressed by the wider academic and practice communities.

Urban resilience is a fairly new but rapidly emerging area of interest. Academia as well as the professional and practitioner communities are increasingly engaged in understanding the characteristics of resilience in complex urban issues. The year 2007–2008 was a historical milestone in human history for two reasons. First, the percentage of urban population to total population in the world touched 50 percent; second, the works of climate scientists were recognized as being so significant that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) received the Nobel Prize for Peace in 2007. Both events are closely associated with and provide special impetus to further research into and understanding of urban resilience, which this chapter discusses further in the following sections.

Despite striving for resilience and a sustainable urban future, European cities face a multitude of crisis caused by both natural and human-induced risks. This paper asks two key questions: How have cities experienced and managed crises situations they encountered? and What are the plans and actions for embedding sustainability at a local level within a clear decision-making structure? Hence, it aims to examine urban resilience in the context of urban crisis and the associated health concerns that took place because of crisis situations, while identifying sustainable urban development initiatives and strategies that were conceived and implemented beyond crisis.

An evidence-based analytical approach is undertaken following two lines of inquiry. The first is case-based and identifies 11 cities that have experienced crisis situations and a further 10 cities that have instigated urban resilience strategies. The second is theme-based and engages with identifying strategies relevant to sustainable urban development at city and project levels. The outcomes of the two lines of inquiry are verified by mapping the lessons learned from the analysis to recent international guidance and a further co-visioning workshop with 6 experts.

The evidence-based analysis reveals key lessons which were classified under two primary types of findings: (a) lessons learned for a future urban resilience resulting from the 1st line of Inquiry (case-based) and (b) lessons learned for a future sustainable urban development resulting from the 2nd line of inquiry (theme-based). The verified lessons provide four areas that can be utilised as key priorities for future urban resilience and sustainable urban development including (a) Governance, effective communication, and decision making for city resilience and urban sustainability; (b) the social dimension of resilience and participatory practices for sustainable urban development; (c) from implicit strategies for health to positive impact on health; and (d) diversification of initiatives and localisation of sustainable development endeavours.

There is always limitation on what a bibliometrics analysis can offer in terms of the nature of evidence and the type of knowledge generated from the investigation. This limitation manifests in the fact that the analysis engages with the body of knowledge but not based on engaging physically or socially with the contexts within which the cases took place or through empirical investigations including systematic observations, focused interviews, and attitude surveys. While the study does not generate empirical findings, the rigour of the bibliometrics analysis offers a credible and reliable evidence on how cities experienced and managed crises situations and their current plans and priority actions for embedding and localising sustainable development measures.

This research conveys significant implications for policy, practice, and action in that it crystalises the view that understanding urban resilience and sustainability, at the city or urban level, requires coupling the two. The findings offer a solid foundation for a more contextualised, evidence-based examination of urban resilience and sustainability during and beyond crisis. Highlighting urban and health challenges that emerged from experienced crisis situations, how these were managed and developing an understanding of sustainable urban development and local resilience strategies elucidate insights that can be adopted and acted upon by city councils and built environment practitioners.

The analysis provides comprehensive insights into urban resilience and sustainable urban development at both city and continental Europe scales in the form of key lessons that represent the first step towards developing rudiments for building a better urban future. Little is known about resilience and sustainability at these scales. The originality of this work lies in the breadth and depth for capturing an inclusive understanding of urban resilience and sustainable urban development based on systematic inquiry and scrutinising the body of knowledge emerged over the past 2 decades.

Urban communities can be faced with many destructive events that can disrupt the daily functioning of activities and livelihood of people living in the communities. In this regard, during the last couple of years, many governments have put a lot of efforts into building resilient urban communities. Essentially, a resilient urban community has the capacity to anticipate future disasters, prepare for and recover timely from adverse effects of disasters and unexpected circumstances. Considering this, it is therefore important for the need to continuously review the existing urban community resilience indicators, in order to identify emerging ones to enable comprehensive evaluation of urban communities in the future against unexpected events. This study therefore aims to conduct a systematic review to develop and critically analyse the emerging and leading urban community resilience indicators.

Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRSIMA) protocol, 53 journal articles were selected using Scopus. The selected papers were subjected to thorough content analysis.

From the review, 45 urban community resilience indicators were identified. These indicators were grouped into eight broad categories namely, Socio-demographic, Economic, Institutional Resilience, Infrastructure and Housing Resilience, Collaboration, Community Capital, Risk Data Accumulation and Geographical and Spatial characteristics of community. Further, the results indicated that the U.S had the highest number of publications, followed by Australia, China, New Zealand and Taiwan. In fact, very few studies emanated from developing economies.

The outputs of this study will inform policymakers, practitioners and researchers on the new and emerging indicators that should be considered when evaluating the resilience level of urban communities. The findings will also serve as a theoretical foundation for further detailed empirical investigation.

The United Nations Sustainable Development Goal (UN SDG) number 13 calls for urgent action to combat climate change impacts. Urban resilience planning documents often articulate partnerships and collaborations (P&Cs) as critical strategies. This study aims to identify the actors, the topics, processes, and visions of collaboration.

This paper explores the characterization of urban resilience partnerships via a thematic content analysis of resilience strategy documents produced in US cities through the 100 Resilient Cities Project.

P&Cs are defined broadly, taking several forms to meet various objectives. They act as boundary objects engaging across social groups, but the details of the P&Cs are rarely articulated, which is problematic for their implementation. P&Cs are commonly discussed in relation to the focus of the work; therefore, they less often define the specific actors, processes or transformative visions involved.

This research focuses only on the resilience plans written in US cities, showing the perspective of US policymakers. Documents analyzed were produced via the Rockefeller Foundation's 100 Resilient Cities Project.

Understanding and categorizing the who, what, when and why of P&Cs for urban resilience provide a deeper understanding of how these strategies are being described and offer a starting point for tangibly actualizing partnerships and collaborations outside planning documents.

To reach vital urban resilience goals, P&Cs must be designed and managed appropriately. Understanding the shortcoming of current P&C policies can help managers mitigate problems and find better approaches.

To the best of the author’s knowledge, this paper is the first to analyze how P&Cs are being articulated and described in urban resilience plans. The United Nations Sustainable Development Goal number 13 calls for urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts. As urbanization continues and the effects of climate change escalate, city governments are finding themselves responsible for the resilience of large populations. To cope, increasing numbers of municipalities are developing urban resilience plans. These documents often articulate partnerships and collaborations (P&Cs) as critical strategies for enhancing resilience capacity and implementing resilience policies. Although specific case studies of resilience-related collaborative practices are well documented in urban resilience literature, little is known about the proliferation of P&C strategies collectively. Furthermore, questions remain regarding the characterization of resilience P&Cs by practitioners, including who is involved and what types of projects they undertake. Therefore, this analysis explores urban resilience P&Cs via a thematic content analysis of resilience strategy documents produced in 16 US cities through the 100 Resilient Cities Project. Results indicate that cities prioritize P&Cs in resilience policy implementation, but they often fall short in defining the key components of P&Cs that are vital to their success. The analysis exposes the most common actors, topics, processes and visions described in resilience P&Cs and makes recommendations for how urban resilience P&Cs can be improved in the future.

Ongoing climate risks require all levels of society to be resilient. Urban areas, which are densely developed with huge levels of population and infrastructure, are critical places to develop adaptation and resilience strategies. This study aims to conceptualize evolutionary urban climate resilience strategies with a step-by-step analytic framework that will be called 3R: Recognition–Readiness–Response.

This analytic framework is then applied to assess whether and to what extent the components of urban climate resilience are incorporated into the pertinent ordinances and policies of the Seoul Metropolitan Government, including climate change, urban planning and disaster management.

The findings of this study suggest that the climate change ordinances of Seoul have focused on climate mitigation rather than resilience.

Thus, comprehensive efforts are required to incorporate evolutionary urban climate resilience strategies into ordinances and practices.

This paper contributes to build an analytic framework that provides a step-by-step process with check-list questions based on the sub-components of urban climate resilience procedure.

This paper aims to describe an updated urban planning process to expose a theoretical model bridging the resilience concept and urban planning, and then it explains this process through Istanbul case.

A hypothetical framework is proposed based on the three different but complementary aspects of resilience which are identified as “resilience to what”, “resilience where” and “resilience how”, as well as “five elements process” referring the upgraded components of urban planning processes. Additionally, the methodology conducted to figure out a resilient urban planning process is listed as an expert opinion survey, a two-stage policy Delphi survey, public opinion survey and multi-criteria analysis.

It is possible to apply this process in many different case studies for various scales and temporalities for coping with the key vulnerabilities and promote the administrative response capacity.

Considering size of the study area and the unclarified roles of urban authorities, it is difficult to have a consensus on the key vulnerabilities and the prior urban policies.

The proposed process is beneficial in addressing the most prominent vulnerabilities and developing capacity to manage unexpected changes, through the collaborative decisions of a wide range of urban planning authorities. Depending on the severity of the disturbances, applying this process to identify changing priorities can be a crucial policy, both for long- or short-term urban policy-making, for further studies.

Resilience has recently attracted widespread interest in the field of urban planning and theory. However, the research that has been conducted on urban resilience in Africa has major theoretical and methodological gaps. This can lead to problems when designing and implementing resilience strategies there. Understanding African perspectives can be a way of tackling these. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

Using the example of Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, this paper analyses expert interviews based on a grounded theory approach. The goal is to explore locally specific perceptions of and pathways to urban resilience. By comparing these findings to those reported in the existing literature, differences and overlaps are identified.

This study provides evidence for the existence of locally specific perceptions of and pathways to urban resilience. Furthermore, it identifies urban development pathways such as complete urban makeover (tabula rasa) and complete negation of change (resistance).

Because this study uses Addis Ababa as a singular case and expert interviews as method, it rather represents an initial attempt at exploring a new research field than claiming generalisability. Its quality and significance lie in its discursive approach and theory formation.

This exemplary study from Ethiopia demonstrates that a regionally specific understanding of urban resilience is valuable for the design and implementation of urban resilience strategies.

This study offers unique insights into urban resilience from an African perspective and into the manifestation of urban resilience in Addis Ababa.

This paper aims to present the concepts of two different ways of generating a dynamic structure of the urban system to further allow in understanding specific urban behavior facing against flood and further evaluate the potential effect of specific resilience strategies aiming to decrease the exposure and vulnerability of the system.

Two system dynamics model structures are presented in form of Casual Loop Diagrams.

The main differences among the tow approaches are the time horizon and the approach that regulates the assessment of the resilience through a dynamic composite indicator: the first model refers to baseline at initial simulation time; the second model is focused on the ratio service supply to demand.

Within the approach, the purpose is to properly and efficiently evaluate the effect of different Flood Risk Management strategies, i.e. prevention, defence, mitigation, preparation and recovery for consistent and resilient flood governance plans with different type of resilience scenarios.

The need for such tool is underlined by a lack on the assessment of urban resilience to flood as whole, considering the physical and social dimensions and the complex interaction among their main components. There are several assessment tools based on an indicator approach that have been proposed to meet this need. Nevertheless, indicator-based approach has the limitation to exclude the complexity of the system and its systemic interaction in terms of feedbacks’ effects among the identified components or variables selected for the system description. This peculiarity can be provided by System Dynamics modeling.

The sheer complexity and unpredictability characterising cities challenges the adequacy of existing disciplinary knowledge and tools in urban design and highlights the necessity to incorporate explicitly the element of change and the dimension of time in the understanding of, and intervention on, the form of cities. To this regard the concept of resilience is a powerful lens through which to understand and engage with a changing world. However, resilience is currently only superficially addressed by urban designers, and an explicit effort to relate elements of urban form to resilience principles is still lacking. This represents a great limit for urban designers, as the physical dimension of cities is the matter they work with in the first place. In this paper, we combine established knowledge in urban morphology and resilience theory. We firstly look at resilience theory and consistently define five proxies of resilience in urban form, namely diversity, redundancy, modularity, connectivity and efficiency. Secondly, we discuss the configuration of, and interdependencies between, several constituent elements of the physical city, as defined in urban morphology and design, in light of the mentioned five proxies. Finally, we conduct this exploration at five scales that are relevant to urban morphology and design: plot, street edge, block, street and sanctuary area / district.