|Title||Beyond bouncing back? Comparing and contesting urban resilience frames in US and Latin American contexts|
|Author||Barnett, A; Muñoz-Erickson, T A; Meerow, S; Hobbins, R; Cook, E; Iwaniec, D M; Berbés-Blázquez, M; Grimm, N B; Cordero, J; Gim, C; Miller, T R; Tandazo-Bustamante, F; Robles-Morua, A|
|Source||Landscape and Urban Planning vol. 214, 104173, 2021 p. 1-13, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2021.104173 Open Access|
|Alt Series||Natural Resources Canada, Contribution Series 20210347|
|Media||paper; on-line; digital|
|File format||pdf; html|
|Area||United States of America|
|Lat/Long WENS||-126.7569 -27.1981 48.5569 -58.3700|
|Subjects||Science and Technology; Transformation; Climate change|
|Illustrations||location maps; graphs; diagrams|
|Released||2021 07 19|
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-ecological-technological 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.
|Summary||(Plain Language Summary, not published)|
· Resilience has emerged as a major focus of research and practice in urban planning.
· However, we know little about how researchers and
practitioners frame and define the concept of resilience across different contexts and practices
· We used data from a survey of nine USA, Latin American, and Caribbean cities to explore how governmental, business, research, and hybrid
organizations define and frame resilience.
· The results highlight that in general, resilience was defined as the ability of a system to resist, cope with, or bounce back to previous conditions. Sustainability, equity, and the linkages among
social, ecological, and technological systems are rarely associated with resilience.
· While resilience literature often considers resilience to be in alignment with the concept of transformation, we did not find this alignment in practice.
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 to acknowledge the interconnections among social, ecological, and