4.7 Article

Beyond bouncing back? Comparing and contesting urban resilience frames in US and Latin American contexts

Journal

LANDSCAPE AND URBAN PLANNING
Volume 214, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2021.104173

Keywords

Urban resilience; Transformation; Social-ecological-technological systems; Sustainability; Equity; Climate change

Funding

  1. US National Science Foundation [1444755, 1832016, 1934933]
  2. Chilean CONICYT-FONDECYT (Science Technology, Knowledge and Innovation Ministry of Chile) [3150290]
  3. ITSON's Programa de Fomento y Apoyo a Proyectos de Investigacion (PROFAPI)
  4. Division Of Environmental Biology
  5. Direct For Biological Sciences [1832016] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper examines the conceptualizations of urban resilience in different urban contexts and across various governance sectors. Results show that most cities define resilience as the ability to resist, cope with, or return to previous conditions, while rarely associating it with sustainability, equity, and social-ecological-technological systems perspectives. Differences in resilience conceptualizations across cities and governance actors indicate geographic and political variations in the way resilience is understood.
Urban resilience has gained considerable popularity in planning and policy to address cities' capacity to cope with climate change. While many studies discuss the different ways that academics define resilience, little attention has been given to how resilience is conceptualized across different urban contexts and among the actors that engage in building resilience 'on the ground'. Given the implications that resilience frames can have for the solutions that are pursued (and who benefits from them), it is important to examine how transformative definitions of urban resilience are in practice. In this paper, we use data from a survey of nine US and Latin American and Caribbean cities to explore how the concept is framed across multiple governance sectors, including governmental, non-governmental, business, research, and hybrid organizations. We examine these framings in light of recent conceptual developments and tensions found in the literature. The results highlight that, in general across the nine cities, framings converge with definitions of resilience as the ability to resist, cope with, or bounce back to previous conditions, whereas sustainability, equity, and social-ecologicaltechnological systems (SETS) perspectives are rarely associated with resilience. There are noticeable differences across cities and governance actors that point to geographic and political variation in the way resilience is conceptualized. We unpack these differences and discuss their implications for resilience research and practice moving forward. We argue that if resilience is going to remain a major goal for city policies into the future, it needs to be conceived in a more transformative, anticipatory, and equitable way, and acknowledge interconnected SETS.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available