Defining urban resilience: A review

Abstract

Fostering resilience in the face of environmental, socioeconomic, and political uncertainty and risk has captured the attention of academics and decision makers across disciplines, sectors, and scales. Resilience has become an important goal for cities, particularly in the face of climate change. Urban areas house the majority of the world's population, and, in addition to functioning as nodes of resource consumption and as sites for innovation, have become laboratories for resilience, both in theory and in practice. This paper reviews the scholarly literature on urban resilience and concludes that the term has not been well defined. Existing definitions are inconsistent and underdeveloped with respect to incorporation of crucial concepts found in both resilience theory and urban theory. Based on this literature review, and aided by bibliometric analysis, the paper identifies six conceptual tensions fundamental to urban resilience: (1) definition of ‘urban’; (2) understanding of system equilibrium; (3) positive vs. neutral (or negative) conceptualizations of resilience; (4) mechanisms for system change; (5) adaptation versus general adaptability; and (6) timescale of action. To advance this burgeoning field, more conceptual clarity is needed. This paper, therefore, proposes a new definition of urban resilience. This definition takes explicit positions on these tensions, but remains inclusive and flexible enough to enable uptake by, and collaboration among, varying disciplines. The paper concludes with a discussion of how the definition might serve as a boundary object, with the acknowledgement that applying resilience in different contexts requires answering: Resilience for whom and to what? When? Where? And why?

Full text

Landscape
and
Urban
Planning
147
(2016)
38–49
Contents
lists
available
at
ScienceDirect
Landscape
and
Urban
Planning
j
o
ur
na
l
ho
me
pag
e:
www.elsevier.com/locate/landurbplan
Review
Defining
urban
resilience:
A
review
Sara
Meerow∗,
Joshua
P.
Newell,
Melissa
Stults
School
of
Natural
Resources
and
Environment,
University
of
Michigan,
440
Church
Street,
Ann
Arbor,
MI
48109,
USA
h
i
g
h
l
i
g
h
t
s
•Bibliometric
analysis
reveals
the
influential
literature
on
urban
resilience.
•The
concept
of
resilience
is
beset
by
six
conceptual
tensions.
•Urban
resilience
has
been
inconsistently
defined.
•The
paper
proposes
a
new,
inclusive
definition
of
urban
resilience.
•The
paper
asks
us
to
consider
resilience
for
whom,
what,
when,
where,
and
why.
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
i
n
f
o
Article
history:
Received
27
June
2015
Received
in
revised
form
24
November
2015
Accepted
26
November
2015
Keywords:
Urban
resilience
Adaptation
Adaptive
capacity
Climate
change
Resilient
cities
Socio-ecological
systems
a
b
s
t
r
a
c
t
Fostering
resilience
in
the
face
of
environmental,
socioeconomic,
and
political
uncertainty
and
risk
has
captured
the
attention
of
academics
and
decision
makers
across
disciplines,
sectors,
and
scales.
Resilience
has
become
an
important
goal
for
cities,
particularly
in
the
face
of
climate
change.
Urban
areas
house
the
majority
of
the
world’s
population,
and,
in
addition
to
functioning
as
nodes
of
resource
consumption
and
as
sites
for
innovation,
have
become
laboratories
for
resilience,
both
in
theory
and
in
practice.
This
paper
reviews
the
scholarly
literature
on
urban
resilience
and
concludes
that
the
term
has
not
been
well
defined.
Existing
definitions
are
inconsistent
and
underdeveloped
with
respect
to
incorporation
of
crucial
concepts
found
in
both
resilience
theory
and
urban
theory.
Based
on
this
literature
review,
and
aided
by
bibliometric
analysis,
the
paper
identifies
six
conceptual
tensions
fundamental
to
urban
resilience:
(1)
definition
of
‘urban’;
(2)
understanding
of
system
equilibrium;
(3)
positive
vs.
neutral
(or
negative)
conceptualizations
of
resilience;
(4)
mechanisms
for
system
change;
(5)
adaptation
versus
general
adaptability;
and
(6)
timescale
of
action.
To
advance
this
burgeoning
field,
more
conceptual
clarity
is
needed.
This
paper,
therefore,
proposes
a
new
definition
of
urban
resilience.
This
definition
takes
explicit
positions
on
these
tensions,
but
remains
inclusive
and
flexible
enough
to
enable
uptake
by,
and
collaboration
among,
varying
disciplines.
The
paper
concludes
with
a
discussion
of
how
the
definition
might
serve
as
a
boundary
object,
with
the
acknowledgement
that
applying
resilience
in
different
contexts
requires
answering:
Resilience
for
whom
and
to
what?
When?
Where?
And
why?
©
2015
Elsevier
B.V.
All
rights
reserved.
Contents
1.
Introduction
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
39
2.
Materials
and
methods
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
39
3.
Urban
resilience
research:
influential
thinkers,
definitions,
and
conceptual
tensions
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
40
3.1.
Existing
definitions
of
urban
resilience
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
40
3.2.
Characterization
of
“urban”
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
42
3.3.
Notions
of
equilibrium
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
43
3.4.
Resilience
as
a
positive
concept
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
44
3.5.
Pathways
to
urban
resilience
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
44
∗Corresponding
author.
E-mail
addresses:
sameerow@umich.edu
(S.
Meerow),
jpnewell@umich.edu
(J.P.
Newell),
stultsm@umich.edu
(M.
Stults).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.11.011
0169-2046/©
2015
Elsevier
B.V.
All
rights
reserved.

S.
Meerow
et
al.
/
Landscape
and
Urban
Planning
147
(2016)
38–49
39
3.6.
Understanding
of
adaptation.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.44
3.7.
Timescale
of
action
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
44
3.8.
An
integrative
definition
of
urban
resilience
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
45
4.
Conclusion
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
46
References
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
47
1.
Introduction
In
recent
years,
the
popularity
of
“resilience”
has
exploded
in
both
academic
and
policy
discourse,
with
numerous
explana-
tions
for
this
dramatic
rise
(Meerow
&
Newell,
2015).
Above
all
perhaps,
resilience
theory
provides
insights
into
complex
socio-
ecological
systems
and
their
sustainable
management
(Folke,
2006;
Pickett,
Cadenasso,
&
McGrath,
2013),
especially
with
respect
to
climate
change
(Leichenko,
2011;
Pierce,
Budd,
&
Lovrich,
2011;
Solecki,
Leichenko,
&
O’Brien,
2011;
Zimmerman
&
Faris,
2011).
As
socio-ecological
resilience
theory
understands
systems
as
con-
stantly
changing
in
nonlinear
ways,
it
is
a
highly
relevant
approach
for
dealing
with
future
climate
uncertainties
(Rodin,
2014;
Tyler
&
Moench,
2012).
As
a
term,
resilience
also
has
a
positive
soci-
etal
connotation
(McEvoy,
Fünfgeld,
&
Bosomworth,
2013;
O’Hare
&
White,
2013;
Shaw
&
Maythorne,
2012),
leading
some
to
sug-
gest
that
it
is
preferable
to
related,
but
more
charged
concepts
like
“vulnerability”
(Weichselgartner
&
Kelman,
2014,
p.
10).
In
particular,
resilience
has
emerged
as
an
attractive
perspec-
tive
with
respect
to
cities,
often
theorized
as
highly
complex,
adaptive
systems
(Batty,
2008;
Godschalk,
2003).
Unprecedented
urbanization
has
transformed
the
planet
from
10
percent
urban
in
1990
to
more
than
50
percent
urban
in
just
two
decades
(United
Nations
Department
of
Economic
and
Social
Affairs,
UNDESA,
2010).
Although
urban
areas
(at
least
50,000
residents)
cover
less
than
3
percent
of
the
Earth’s
surface,
they
are
responsible
for
an
estimated
71
percent
of
global
energy-related
carbon
emis-
sions
(International
Panel
on
Climate
Change,
IPCC,
2014).
As
cities
continue
to
grow
and
grapple
with
uncertainties
and
challenges
like
climate
change,
urban
resilience
has
become
an
increasingly
favored
concept
(Carmin,
Nadkarni,
&
Rhie,
2012;
Leichenko,
2011).
But
what
exactly
is
meant
by
the
term
‘urban
resilience’?
The
etymological
roots
of
resilience
stem
from
the
Latin
word
resilio,
meaning
“to
bounce
back”
(Klein,
Nicholls,
&
Thomalla,
2003).
As
an
academic
concept,
its
origins
and
meaning
are
more
ambigu-
ous
(Adger,
2000;
Friend
&
Moench,
2013;
Lhomme,
Serre,
Diab,
&
Laganier,
2013;
Pendall,
Foster,
&
Cowell,
2010).
Resilience
has
a
conceptual
fuzziness
that
is
beneficial
in
enabling
it
to
func-
tion
as
a
“boundary
object,”
a
common
object
or
concept
that
appeals
to
multiple
“social
worlds”
and
can,
therefore,
foster
mul-
tidisciplinary
scientific
collaboration
(Star
&
Griesemer,
1989).
The
meaning
of
resilience
is
malleable,
allowing
stakeholders
to
come
together
around
a
common
terminology
without
requiring
them
to
necessarily
agree
on
an
exact
definition
(Brand
&
Jax,
2007).
But
this
vagueness
can
make
resilience
difficult
to
operationalize,
or
to
develop
generalizable
indicators
or
metrics
for
(Gunderson,
2000;
Pizzo,
2015;
Vale,
2014).
To
better
understand
how
the
term
has
been
defined
and
used
across
disciplines
and
fields
of
study,
this
paper
reviews
four
decades
of
academic
literature
on
urban
resilience
beginning
in
1973.
Guided
by
bibliometric
analysis,
the
paper
identifies
the
most
influential
thinkers
and
publications
in
this
rapidly
expand-
ing
research
area.
This
review
reveals
that
definitions
of
urban
resilience
from
this
period
are
underdeveloped
in
the
sense
that
they
have
not
explicitly
addressed
important
conceptual
tensions
apparent
in
the
urban
resilience
literature.
Moreover,
where
papers
do
discuss
these
tensions,
the
authors’
positions
are
often
inconsis-
tent.
The
first
five
tensions
(also
evident
in
the
broader
resilience
literature)
are
as
follows:
(1)
equilibrium
vs.
non-equilibrium
resilience;
(2)
positive
vs.
neutral
(or
negative)
conceptualizations
of
resilience;
(3)
mechanism
of
system
change
(i.e.,
persistence,
transitional,
or
transformative);
(4)
adaptation
vs.
general
adapt-
ability;
and
(5)
timescale
of
action.
The
sixth
conceptual
tension
is
specific
to
the
urban
resilience
literature
and
has
to
do
with
how
‘urban’
is
defined
and
characterized.
Using
the
resilience
concept
in
urban
research
and
for
policy
contexts
hinges
on
coming
to
terms
with
these
tensions.
Thus,
to
advance
scholarship
and
practice,
this
paper
proposes
a
new
def-
inition
of
urban
resilience,
one
that
explicitly
includes
these
six
conceptual
tensions,
yet
remains
flexible
enough
to
be
adopted
by
a
range
of
disciplines
and
stakeholders.
This
definition
is
as
follows:
Urban
resilience
refers
to
the
ability
of
an
urban
system-and
all
its
constituent
socio-ecological
and
socio-technical
networks
across
temporal
and
spatial
scales-to
maintain
or
rapidly
return
to
desired
functions
in
the
face
of
a
disturbance,
to
adapt
to
change,
and
to
quickly
transform
systems
that
limit
current
or
future
adaptive
capacity.
In
this
definition,
urban
resilience
is
dynamic
and
offers
multiple
pathways
to
resilience
(e.g.,
persistence,
transition,
and
trans-
formation).
It
recognizes
the
importance
of
temporal
scale,
and
advocates
general
adaptability
rather
than
specific
adaptedness.
The
urban
system
is
conceptualized
as
complex
and
adaptive,
and
it
is
composed
of
socio-ecological
and
socio-technical
networks
that
extend
across
multiple
spatial
scales.
Resilience
is
framed
as
an
explicitly
desirable
state
and,
therefore,
should
be
negotiated
among
those
who
enact
it
empirically.
The
remainder
of
this
paper
focuses
on
the
theoretical
rationale
for
this
definition.
Section
2
describes
the
methodology
used
to
con-
duct
the
literature
review,
including
the
classification
of
previous
definitions
of
urban
resilience.
Section
3
analyzes
the
field’s
influen-
tial
literature
and
expands
on
the
six
conceptual
tensions.
Section
4
parses
the
specific
components
of
this
new
definition
and
the
rationale
for
their
selection.
The
paper
concludes
with
a
discussion
of
how
urban
resilience
as
a
term
can
serve
as
a
boundary
object,
enabling
the
collaboration
necessary
to
contemplate
resilience
for
whom,
for
what,
for
when,
for
where,
and
why.
2.
Materials
and
methods
The
academic
literature
on
urban
resilience
was
reviewed
to
(1)
identify
the
most
influential
studies,
(2)
trace
the
theoretical
origins
and
development
of
the
field,
(3)
compare
how
urban
resilience
is
defined
across
studies
and
disciplines,
and
(4)
develop
a
refined
definition
of
urban
resilience
that
is
grounded
in
the
literature
and
addresses
conceptual
tensions.
First,
Elsevier’s
Scopus
and
Thompson
Reuters
Web
of
Sci-
ence
(WoS)
citation
databases
were
used
to
identify
the
literature
on
urban
resilience
over
a
41-year
period,
beginning
in
1973
(when
Holling
wrote
his
seminal
article
on
resilience)
and
end-
ing
in
2013.
Although
relatively
comprehensive,
these
databases
do
not
generally
include
books,
and
by
focusing
mainly
on
English-
language
publications,
they
have
an
Anglo-American
bias
(Newell
&
Cousins,
2015).
Given
the
rapid
development
of
the
urban
resilience
field,
additional
definitions
may
have
been
published
since
the
analysis
was
conducted.
The
search
terms
“urban
resilience”
and
“resilient
cities”
yielded
139
results
in
Scopus
and
100
in
WoS.
When
combined,
the
urban
resilience
dataset
included
172
unique

40
S.
Meerow
et
al.
/
Landscape
and
Urban
Planning
147
(2016)
38–49
publications
from
a
variety
of
disciplines
(i.e.,
articles,
book
chap-
ters,
conference
proceedings,
reviews,
and
editorials).
“Discipline”
in
this
paper
refers
to
an
“organized
perspective
on
phenomena
that
is
sustained
by
academic
training
or
the
disciplining
of
the
mind”
(Turner,
2006,
p.
183)
and
“publication”
is
used
to
denote
a
specific
academic
study
(journal
article,
book
chapter,
etc.).
Co-citation
analysis
was
then
conducted
on
this
urban
resilience
dataset.
Co-citation
analysis
is
a
bibliometric
method
used
to
quan-
titatively
evaluate
academic
literature
based
on
the
rationale
that
shared
references
imply
an
intellectual
relationship
(Newell
&
Cousins,
2015;
Noyons,
2001;
Small,
1973).
Co-citations
measure
how
often
two
or
more
studies
are
cited
together
within
a
body
of
literature,
thereby
identifying
influential
publications
and
scho-
lars
in
a
given
research
domain
and
providing
insight
into
a
field’s
intellectual
origins.
To
assess
these
co-citations,
the
bibliometric
software
Bibexcel
(Persson,
Danell,
&
Schneider,
2009)
was
used.
Files
generated
in
Bibexcel
were
then
imported
into
the
open-source
software
Gephi
(Bastian
&
Heymann,
2009)
to
visualize
and
analyze
the
co-citation
network,
thereby
revealing
the
“intellectual
structure”
of
the
litera-
ture
(Yu,
Davis,
&
Dijkema,
2013,
p.
281).
Node
size
in
the
network
reflects
degree
centrality
(i.e.,
the
more
edges
that
connect
to
a
node,
the
larger
its
size)
and
serves
as
an
indicator
of
a
study’s
influence.
The
172
studies
were
then
reviewed
to
determine
if
they
actu-
ally
defined
urban
resilience.
They
were
excluded
if
they
(a)
failed
to
define
the
term
or
(b)
used
another
scholar’s
definition.
This
analysis
unveiled
22
distinct
definitions.
Three
additional
defini-
tions
(Alberti
et
al.,
2003;
Brown,
Dayal,
&
Rumbaitis
Del
Rio,
2012;
Tyler
&
Moench,
2012)
were
uncovered
during
the
review
of
the
aforementioned
articles,
leading
to
a
total
of
25
definitions
of
urban
resilience.
Table
1
lists
the
25
major
definitions
of
urban
resilience
identified
in
the
literature
by
citation
count
and
their
Scopus
sub-
ject
area.
These
definitions
were
then
compared
and
categorized
based
on
their
positions
with
respect
to
six
conceptual
tensions
that
were
identified
in
the
urban
resilience
literature.
None
of
the
definitions
explicitly
addressed
all
six
tensions,
so
the
authors’
positions
had
to
be
inferred
based
on
a
reading
of
the
publication.
Although
resulting
categorizations
admittedly
represent
a
simplification
of
complex
concepts
and
studies,
the
objective
was
to
provide
a
general
repre-
sentation
of
how
definitions
theorize
these
tensions.
Finally,
a
new
definition
of
urban
resilience
and
a
conceptual
schematic
of
the
urban
system
were
developed
by
drawing
on
this
literature
and
the
reviewed
resilience
and
urban
literatures
more
broadly.
3.
Urban
resilience
research:
influential
thinkers,
definitions,
and
conceptual
tensions
Although
the
concept
has
a
long
history
of
use
in
engineer-
ing,
psychology,
and
disasters
literature
(Matyas
&
Pelling,
2014),
ecologist
C.S.
Holling’s
seminal
paper
(1973)
on
the
resilience
of
ecological
systems
is
often
cited
as
the
origin
of
modern
resilience
theory
(Folke,
2006;
Klein
et
al.,
2003;
Meerow
&
Newell,
2015).
Holling’s
study
is
the
largest
node
in
the
co-citation
network
(Fig.
1),
confirming
its
central
importance
for
the
urban
resilience
field.
By
recognizing
ecosystems
as
dynamic
with
multiple
stable
states,
Holling’s
work
was
a
marked
departure
from
the
traditional
“sta-
bility”
paradigm
of
ecology
often
associated
with
the
work
of
Clements
(1936).
Effectively,
Holling
used
resilience
to
describe
the
ability
of
an
ecological
system
to
continue
functioning—or
to
“persist”—when
changed,
but
not
necessarily
to
remain
the
same.
This
contrasts
with
“engineering
resilience,”
which
focuses
on
a
single
state
of
equilibrium
or
stability
to
which
a
resilient
system
would
revert
after
a
disruption
(Holling,
1996).
Non-equilibrium
resilience
is
now
paradigmatic
in
ecology,
and
Holling’s
writing
on
resilience
sparked
a
rich
body
of
work
at
the
socio-ecological
interface
(Folke,
2006;
Wu
&
Wu,
2013).
Within
the
socio-ecological
systems
(SES)
framework,
resilience
is
often
defined
as
“the
capacity
of
a
system
to
absorb
disturbance
and
reor-
ganize
while
undergoing
change
so
as
to
still
retain
essentially
the
same
function,
structure,
identity,
and
feedbacks”
(Walker,
Holling,
Carpenter,
&
Kinzig,
2004,
p.
1).
This
work
led
to
the
formation
of
the
Resilience
Alliance,
an
interdisciplinary
research
network
devoted
to
resilience
thinking
(Walker
&
Salt,
2006).
Key
mem-
bers
of
the
Resilience
Alliance
collaborated
to
develop
the
panarchy
model,
essentially
a
heuristic
for
understanding
how
complex
sys-
tems
progress
over
time
through
multi-scalar
adaptive
cycles
of
destruction
and
reorganization
(Gunderson
&
Holling,
2002).
Thus,
the
theory
was
extended
from
Holling’s
definition
of
resilience
as
a
measurable,
descriptive
concept
to
“a
way
of
thinking”
(Folke,
2006,
p.
260).
As
a
result,
resilience
evolved
from
a
system
charac-
teristic,
which
could
be
positive
or
negative,
to
more
of
a
normative
vision
(Cote
&
Nightingale,
2011).
The
influence
of
established
SES
resilience
scholars
on
the
urban
resilience
literature
is
also
evident;
some
of
the
most
prominent
nodes
in
the
co-citation
network
are
Folke
(2006),
Carpenter,
Walker,
Anderies,
and
Abel
(2001),
and
Gunderson
and
Holling
(2002).
However,
resilience
theory
is
by
no
means
limited
to
ecological
or
SES
research.
It
is
increasingly
applied
across
a
growing
num-
ber
of
fields
and
focus
areas,
including
natural
disasters
and
risk
management
(Coaffee,
2008;
Cutter
et
al.,
2008;
Gaillard,
2010;
Rose,
2007);
hazards
(Godschalk,
2003;
Klein
et
al.,
2003;
Serre
&
Barroca,
2013);
climate
change
adaptation
(Nelson,
Adger,
&
Brown,
2007;
Tanner,
Mitchell,
Polack,
&
Guenther,
2009;
Tyler
&
Moench,
2012);
international
development
(Brown
&
Westaway,
2011;
Perrings,
2006);
engineering
(Fiksel,
2006);
energy
systems
(McLellan,
Zhang,
Farzaneh,
Utama,
&
Ishihara,
2012;
Meerow
&
Baud,
2012;
Molyneaux,
Wagner,
Froome,
&
Foster,
2012;
Newman,
Beatley,
&
Boyer,
2009);
and
planning
(Ahern,
2011;
Davoudi
et
al.,
2012;
Wilkinson,
2011),
among
others.
As
evidenced
by
the
co-citation
network
(Fig.
1),
the
urban
resilience
literature
spans
and
draws
from
diverse
research
domains.
This
includes
work
by
urban
ecologists
(i.e.,
Grimm,
Grove,
Pickett,
&
Redman,
2000;
Grimm
et
al.,
2008)
and
urban
the-
orists
more
generally
(Harvey,
1996;
Jacobs,
1961;
McHarg,
1969).
Also
featuring
prominently
is
Adger’s
(2000)
research
on
social
resilience
and
Cutter,
Boruff,
and
Shirley
(2003)
on
social
vulnera-
bility.
A
predominant
topical
focus
of
the
literature
is
coping
with
disturbances
due
to
climate
change
(Leichenko,
2011;
Wardekker,
de
Jong,
Knoop,
&
van
der
Sluijs,
2010)
or
hazards
and
disasters
(Burby,
Deyle,
Godschalk,
&
Olshansky,
2000;
Campanella,
2006;
Godschalk,
2003;
Pelling,
2003).
3.1.
Existing
definitions
of
urban
resilience
As
noted
earlier,
our
review
identified
25
definitions
of
urban
resilience
in
the
literature
(Table
1).
A
reading
of
these
definitions
and
the
publications
in
which
they
appear
confirms
that
urban
resilience
is
a
contested
concept
and
lacks
clarity
due
to
incon-
sistencies
and
ambiguity.
Given
the
challenges
associated
with
defining
and
characterizing
“urban”
and
“resilience”
individually,
and
the
numerous
disciplines
engaged
in
this
field
of
study
(Da
Silva,
Kernaghan,
&
Luque,
2012),
it
is
not
surprising
that
multi-
ple
definitions
and
conceptual
tensions
persist.
What
is
surprising
is
just
how
few
definitions
of
urban
resilience
explicitly
address
these
tensions.
In
some
cases
an
author’s
perspective
on
a
par-
ticular
tension
can
be
inferred
from
the
discussion,
but,
in
many
instances,
it
is
unclear.
These
conceptual
inconsistencies
make
it
difficult
to
apply
or
test
the
theory
empirically,
although
some
spe-
cific
resilience
metrics
and
indices
have
been
suggested
(i.e.,
Cutter,

S.
Meerow
et
al.
/
Landscape
and
Urban
Planning
147
(2016)
38–49
41
Table
1
Definitions
of
urban
resilience.
Author
(year)
Subject
area
Citation
count
Definition
1
Alberti
et
al.
(2003)
Agricultural
and
biological
sciences;
environmental
science
212
“.
.
.
the
degree
to
which
cities
tolerate
alteration
before
reorganizing
around
a
new
set
of
structures
and
processes”
(p.
1170).
2
Godschalk
(2003)
Engineering
113
“.
.
.
a
sustainable
network
of
physical
systems
and
human
communities”
(p.
137).
3
Pickett
et
al.
(2004)
Agricultural
and
biological
sciences;
environmental
science
101
“.
.
.
the
ability
of
a
system
to
adjust
in
the
face
of
changing
conditions”
(p.
373).
4
Ernstson
et
al.
(2010)
Environmental
science;
social
sciences
46
“To
sustain
a
certain
dynamic
regime,
urban
governance
also
needs
to
build
transformative
capacity
to
face
uncertainty
and
change”
(p.
533).
5
Campanella
(2006)
Social
sciences
44
“.
.
.
the
capacity
of
a
city
to
rebound
from
destruction”
(p.
141).
6
Wardekker
et
al.
(2010)
Business
management
and
accounting;
psychology
30
“.
.
.
a
system
that
can
tolerate
disturbances
(events
and
trends)
through
characteristics
or
measures
that
limit
their
impacts,
by
reducing
or
counteracting
the
damage
and
disruption,
and
allow
the
system
to
respond,
recover,
and
adapt
quickly
to
such
disturbances”
(p.
988).
7
Ahern
(2011)
Environmental
science
24
“.
.
.
the
capacity
of
systems
to
reorganize
and
recover
from
change
and
disturbance
without
changing
to
other
states
.
.
.
systems
that
are
“safe
to
fail”
(p.
341).
8
Leichenko
(2011)
Environmental
science;
social
sciences
20
“.
.
.
the
ability
.
.
.
to
withstand
a
wide
array
of
shocks
and
stresses”
(p.
164).
9
Tyler
and
Moench
(2012)
Environmental
science;
social
sciences
11
“.
.
.
encourages
practitioners
to
consider
innovation
and
change
to
aid
recovery
from
stresses
and
shocks
that
may
or
may
not
be
predictable”
(p.
312).
10
Liao
(2012)
Environmental
science
6
“.
.
.
the
capacity
of
the
city
to
tolerate
flooding
and
to
reorganize
should
physical
damage
and
socioeconomic
disruption
occur,
so
as
to
prevent
deaths
and
injuries
and
maintain
current
socioeconomic
identity”
(p.
5).
11
Brown
et
al.
(2012)
Environmental
science;
social
sciences
5
“.
.
.
the
capacity
.
.
.
to
dynamically
and
effectively
respond
to
shifting
climate
circumstances
while
continuing
to
function
at
an
acceptable
level.
This
definition
includes
the
ability
to
resist
or
withstand
impacts,
as
well
as
the
ability
to
recover
and
re-organize
in
order
to
establish
the
necessary
functionality
to
prevent
catastrophic
failure
at
a
minimum
and
the
ability
to
thrive
at
best”
(p.
534).
12
Lamond
and
Proverbs
(2009)
Engineering
5
“.
.
.
encompasses
the
idea
that
towns
and
cities
should
be
able
to
recover
quickly
from
major
and
minor
disasters”
(p.
63).
13
Lhomme
et
al.
(2013)
Earth
and
planetary
sciences
4
“.
.
.
the
ability
of
a
city
to
absorb
disturbance
and
recover
its
functions
after
a
disturbance”
(p.
222).
14
Wamsler
et
al.
(2013)
Business
management
and
accounting;
energy;
engineering;
environmental
science
3
“A
disaster
resilient
city
can
be
understood
as
a
city
that
has
managed.
.
.
to:
(a)
reduce
or
avoid
current
and
future
hazards;
(b)
reduce
current
and
future
susceptibility
to
hazards;
(c)
establish
functioning
mechanisms
and
structures
for
disaster
response;
and
(d)
establish
functioning
mechanisms
and
structures
for
disaster
recovery”
(p.
71).
15
Chelleri
(2012)
Earth
and
planetary
sciences;
social
sciences
2
“.
.
.
should
be
framed
within
the
resilience
(system
persistence),
transition
(system
incremental
change)
and
transformation
(system
reconfiguration)
views”
(p.
287).
16
Hamilton
(2009)
Engineering;
social
sciences
2
“ability
to
recover
and
continue
to
provide
their
main
functions
of
living,
commerce,
industry,
government
and
social
gathering
in
the
face
of
calamities
and
other
hazards”
(p.
109)
17
Brugmann
(2012)
Environmental
science;
social
sciences
1
“the
ability
of
an
urban
asset,
location
and/or
system
to
provide
predictable
performance
–
benefits
and
utility
and
associated
rents
and
other
cash
flows
–
under
a
wide
range
of
circumstances”
(p.
217).
18
Coaffee
(2013)
Social
sciences
1
“.
.
.
the
capacity
to
withstand
and
rebound
from
disruptive
challenges
.
.
.”
(p.
323).
19
Desouza
and
Flanery
(2013)
Business
management
and
accounting;
social
sciences
1
“ability
to
absorb,
adapt
and
respond
to
changes
in
urban
systems”
(p.
89).
20
Lu
and
Stead
(2013)
Business
management
and
accounting;
social
sciences
1
“.
.
.
the
ability
of
a
city
to
absorb
disturbance
while
maintaining
its
functions
and
structures”
(p.
200).
21
Romero-
Lankao
and
Gnatz
(2013)
Environmental
science;
social
sciences
1
“.
.
.
a
capacity
of
urban
populations
and
systems
to
endure
a
wide
array
of
hazards
and
stresses”
(p.
358).
22
Asprone
and
Latora
(2013)
Engineering
0
“.
.
.
capacity
to
adapt
or
respond
to
unusual
often
radically
destructive
events”
(p.
4069).
23
Henstra
(2012)
Social
sciences
0
“A
climate-resilient
city
.
.
.
has
the
capacity
to
withstand
climate
change
stresses,
to
respond
effectively
to
climate-related
hazards,
and
to
recover
quickly
from
residual
negative
impacts”
(p.
178).
24
Thornbush
et
al.
(2013)
Energy;
engineering;
social
sciences
0
“.
.
.
a
general
quality
of
the
city’s
social,
economic,
and
natural
systems
to
be
sufficiently
future-proof”
(p.
2).
25
Wagner
and
Breil
(2013)
Agricultural
and
biological
sciences
0
“.
.
.
the
general
capacity
and
ability
of
a
community
to
withstand
stress,
survive,
adapt
and
bounce
back
from
a
crisis
or
disaster
and
rapidly
move
on”
(p.
114).