ChapterPDF Available

Abstract and Figures

Over the past few years, there has been a proliferation of studies that focus on enhancing resilience of cities against a multitude of man-made and natural disasters. There has also been an increase in the number of frameworks and tools developed for assessing urban resilience. As climate change advances, resilience will become an even more significant topic in the science and policy circles that influence future urban development. Resilience indicators, in particular, will be essential for helping planners and decision makers understand where their communities stand in terms of resilience and develop strategies and action plans for creating more resilient cities. This chapter draws on the extensive literature on urban resilience assessment and provides a set of principles and indicators that can be used for developing an urban resilience assessment tool. Selected indicators cover multiple dimensions of urban resilience. They are divided into five main categories, namely, materials and environmental resources, society and well-being, economy, built environment and infrastructure, and governance and institutions. It is argued that resilience indicators should be used to help planners understand how best to enhance the abilities to plan/prepare for, absorb, recover, and adapt to disruptive events. The chapter concludes with proposing a matrix to relate resilience indicators with the main underlying characteristics of urban resilience that are namely, robustness, stability, flexibility, resourcefulness, redundancy, coordination capacity, diversity, foresight capacity, independence, connectivity, collaboration, agility, adaptability, self-organization, creativity, efficiency, and equity.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Urban Resilience Assessment: Multiple
Dimensions, Criteria, and Indicators
Ayyoob Shariand Yoshiki Yamagata
Abstract Over the past few years, there has been a proliferation of studies that
focus on enhancing resilience of cities against a multitude of man-made and natural
disasters. There has also been an increase in the number of frameworks and tools
developed for assessing urban resilience. As climate change advances, resilience
will become an even more signicant topic in the science and policy circles that
inuence future urban development. Resilience indicators, in particular, will be
essential for helping planners and decision makers understand where their com-
munities stand in terms of resilience and develop strategies and action plans for
creating more resilient cities. This chapter draws on the extensive literature on
urban resilience assessment and provides a set of principles and indicators that can
be used for developing an urban resilience assessment tool. Selected indicators
cover multiple dimensions of urban resilience. They are divided into ve main
categories, namely, materials and environmental resources, society and well-being,
economy, built environment and infrastructure, and governance and institutions. It
is argued that resilience indicators should be used to help planners understand how
best to enhance the abilities to plan/prepare for, absorb, recover, and adapt to
disruptive events. The chapter concludes with proposing a matrix to relate resilience
indicators with the main underlying characteristics of urban resilience that are
namely, robustness, stability, exibility, resourcefulness, redundancy, coordination
capacity, diversity, foresight capacity, independence, connectivity, collaboration,
agility, adaptability, self-organization, creativity, efciency, and equity.
Keywords Urban resilience Indicator Criteria Measurement Assessment
tool Adaptation Matrix approach
A. Shari(&)Y. Yamagata
Global Carbon Project-Tsukuba International Ofce, National Institute
for Environmental Studies, 16-2, Onogawa, Tsukuba 305-8506, Japan
©Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016
Y. Yamagata and H. Maruyama (eds.), Urban Resilience,
Advanced Sciences and Technologies for Security Applications,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-39812-9_13
1 Introduction
Cities as socio-ecological systems are facing the growing challenges posed by a
broad array of stressors such as climate change, population growth, urbanization,
natural and man-made disasters, and resource depletion. Recognition of the fact that
not all these threats can be avoided has led to the diffusion of the concept of
resilience (Renschler et al. 2010a). The increasing attention to resilience is reected
in the growing number of assessment tools and frameworks developed to measure
resilience of urban communities and various activities and projects undertaken to
operationalize assessment strategies. Resilience assessment tools are either focused
on single sectors or take a multi-sectoral approach. Those falling under the latter
category have a broad approach toward resilience and try to address different
environmental, social, economic, and institutional aspects of urban resilience.
As resilience assessment is a relatively new and still growing eld, there is a
paucity of studies elaborating on different indicators that should be incorporated
into urban resilience assessment tools. Indicators should be used to transform
resilience into a measureable concept and provide a lens through which complex-
ities of cities as socio-ecological systems can be better understood. These indicators
can later be used to develop assessment tools that, among other things, can be used
to determine baseline conditions, evaluate effectiveness of interventions, and
measure progress in achieving community goals. These functions signify the
important role of resilience indicators as building blocks of any assessment system.
An appropriate assessment tool should feature characteristics such as
multi-dimensionality and comprehensives, context-specicity, simplicity, replica-
bility, updatability, and scalability (Cutter et al. 2010). This chapter tries to elab-
orate on the multi-dimensionality and comprehensiveness characteristic of urban
resilience assessment indicators. For this purpose, the theoretical underpinnings of
urban resilience and various resiliency principles are described in the next section.
In Sect. 3various indicators, which are drawn from an extensive review of literature
on urban resilience assessment, are grouped under ve major themes. Section 4
proposes development of resilience matrices that can better explain to which stages
of the disaster risk management process each indicator relates. In addition, these
matrices can provide information on resilience characteristics associated with each
indicator. If developed, such matrices can help planners and decision makers make
more informed decisions when prioritizing resource allocation for enhancing resi-
lience of urban communities.
2 Underlying Characteristics of Urban Resilience
Resilience is a contested and normative concept. This could be explained by the fact
that it has been adopted by various disciplines that have interpreted it differently
according to their needs and priorities. It was originally developed in physics and
260 A. Shariand Y. Yamagata
psychology. Over the past four decades it has been introduced to other elds such
as ecology, engineering, and disaster risk management. Although introduction of
resilience notion to urban studies occurred comparatively late, it has been rapidly
gaining ground since the turn of the century (Shariand Yamagata 2014,2016).
Engineering resilience, ecological resilience, and socio-ecological resilience are
three major approaches that can be found in the literature. The rst approach
conceptualizes resilience of a system as its physical resistance and its capacity to
rapidly return to an equilibrium state in case the thresholds are exceeded (Shari
and Yamagata 2016). The ecological approach to resilience acknowledges that
shocks are not always predictable. It advocates enhancing the tolerance of the
system and recognizes that the system may need to shift to new equilibrium state(s)
in order to be able to retain its pre-disaster functionality (Shariand Yamagata
2016). The adaptive approach to resilience is based on the conceptualization of
(urban) system as a dynamic socio-ecological entity that continuously undergoes
transformation. Accordingly the system may not necessarily return to an equilib-
rium state after the disruptive event. System integrity, self-organization capacity,
and learning are three main components that contribute to adaptive resilience of a
system and enable it to not only bounce back from disruptions, but also bounce
forward to a more desired state (Shariand Yamagata 2016).
The fact that cities are socio-ecological systems, that feature dynamic interactions
across time and space, implies that the adaptive approach to resilience can provide a
more suitable theoretical basis for conceptualizing urban resilience (Shariand
Yamagata 2016). This approach is reected in The National Academiesdenition
of resilience as the ability to prepare and plan for, absorb, recover from and more
successfully adapt to adverse events(TNA 2012, P14) which is adopted for the
purpose of this chapter. To achieve, maintain, and strengthen these abilities, any
urban system should entail the following characteristics: robustness, stability, ex-
ibility, resourcefulness, coordination capacity, redundancy, diversity, foresight
capacity, independence, connectivity and interdependence, collaboration capacity,
agility, adaptability, self-organization, creativity and innovation, efciency, and
equity (Shariand Yamagata 2016). These criteria are distilled from the literature
and only briey explained here. These broad characteristics form the basis for
development of a matrix approach that will be discussed later on in this chapter.
A more detailed explanation can be found in Shariand Yamagata (2014,2016).
Robustness and stability refer to the systems strength against short-term and
long-term shocks, respectively. Flexibility indicates the ability to rearrange structure
and functions when facing disruptions. Resourcefulness relates to availability of
resources needed for enhancing the above-mentioned four abilities of a resilience
system. Coordination capacity is needed to make optimal use for resources at dis-
posal of citizens, planners, and decision makers. Redundancy is important to ensure
that, in case components of the system are out of function, they can be substituted by
spare components that have been included for this purpose. Diversity refers to
inclusion of different components in the system that can be used simultaneously and
can make up for each others dysfunction. Foresight capacity is directly related to the
uncertainties innate in the urban system and preparatory work that needs to be done
Urban Resilience Assessment: Multiple Dimensions 261
to address potential disruptions. Independence gives the system a certain degree of
self-reliance that may be needed to survive adversities. Connectivity refers to
interactions and relations that need to be established with other systems that exist in
a broader scale. This is particularly important for shock absorption and timely
recovery. Collaboration highlights the need for an inclusive and bottom-up approach
towards urban management. Agility is related to how fast an urban system can
restore its functionality following a disruptive event. Adaptability is specically
related to the capacity to learn and to integrate the notion of living with riskin
planning and everyday life practices. Self-organization includes establishing and
strengthening community-based and voluntary activities centered on social institu-
tions and networks. Creativity is required to nd innovative solutions for addressing
emergent and unprecedented problems. Efciency entails considering costs and
benets of actions and developing strategies for maximizing benets given the
limited resources available. Last, but not the least, equity is important to ensure fair
distribution of benets and impacts across different groups in the society (Shariand
Yamagata 2014,2016).
When thinking about these characteristics it should not be forgotten that syn-
ergies and tradeoffs exist between some of them. For instance improving redun-
dancy may have adverse implications for efciency of the system. Or, a balance
point between independence and connectivity may differ from one context to
another and, generally, nding balance between these two may turn out to be very
challenging (Shariand Yamagata 2016). In order to develop a comprehensive and
informative assessment system, it is needed to further discuss these synergies and
tradeoffs and also clarify how each of the characteristics is related to
planning/preparation, absorption, recovery, and adaptation as the four major abil-
ities integrated into resilient urban systems. Addressing the former is beyond the
scope of this chapter. The latter will be briey discussed in Sect. 4when proposing
a matrix approach to facilitate a transparent and informed assessment framework
that can identify whether resilience characteristics have been reected in the urban
3 Multiple Dimensions of Urban Resilience
Resilience is a multi-faceted aspect and, ideally, all different dimensions of an urban
system should be addressed in a resilience assessment framework. This section
provides a list of various criteria that can be used for developing a resilience
assessment system. Although context specicity issues should be taken into account
when developing assessment frameworks, paying attention to all relevant criteria is
needed for enhancing integrity and content validity of the assessment system.
A detailed content analysis of 29 resilience assessment frameworks was conducted
to distill major dimensions and criteria related to resilience of urban systems.
A complete list of these assessment frameworks can be found in Table 1. The
extracted criteria have been divided into ve categories (each referring to a specic
262 A. Shariand Y. Yamagata
Table 1 The analyzed resilience assessment frameworks [adapted from the draft version of
Shari(2016). Thirty six tools have been analyzed in the published version]
Tool Year Primary developer(s) Ref
CRC 2015 Bushre and Natural Hazards CRC Morley and Parsons (2015)
DRI 2015 Earthquakes and Megacities Initiative
Khazai et al. (2015)
NIST 2015 National Institute of Standards and
NIST (2015b)
RELi 2015 American National Standards Institute
TCRI 2015 Australia Netherlands Water Challenge Perfrement and Lloyd (2015)
CoBRA 2014 UNDP | Drylands Development Centre UNDP (2014)
CRF 2014 The Rockefeller Foundation, Arup TRF (2014)
FCR 2014 International Federation of Red Cross and
Red Crescent Societies (IFRC)
IFRC (2014)
Grosvenor 2014 Grosvenor, real estate investor (industry) Barkham et al. (2014)
ICLEI 2014 ACCCRN, Rockefeller Foundation,
Gawler and Tiwari (2014)
CRS 2013 Community and Regional Resilience
Institute (CARRI); Meridian Institute;
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
CARRI (2013), White et al.
CDRST 2012 Torrens Resilience Institute Arbon et al. (2012)
BCRD 2011 RAND Corporation Chandra et al. (2011)
CART 2011 TDC/University of Oklahoma Pfefferbaum et al. (2011)
CERI 2010 AWM (Advantage West Midlands)
Strategy Team
Team (2010)
CDRI 2010 Coastal Services Center and the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Peacock et al. (2010)
CRI 2010 MS-AL Sea Grant/National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
Sempier et al. (2010)
PEOPLES 2010 National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST)
(Renschler et al. 2010b)
CRT 2009 Bay Localize project of the Earth Island
Schwind (2009)
SPUR 2009 San Francisco Planning + Urban
Research Association
Poland (2009)
CARRI 2008 Community and Regional Resilience
Cutter et al. (2008)
Hyogo 2008 UN/OCHA and UN/ISDR UN/ISDR (2008)
USAID 2008 USAID Frankenberger et al. (2013)
Urban Resilience Assessment: Multiple Dimensions 263
dimension) according to their similarities. These are materials and environmental
resources, society and well-being, economy, built environment and infrastructure,
and governance and institution. Each of these dimensions will be further discussed
in the following sections.
3.1 Materials and Environmental Resources
Criteria mentioned in Table 2are mainly related to quality, availability, accessi-
bility, and conservation of resources. Through providing ecosystem services,
environmental resources play a signicant role in enhancing resilience of com-
munities. Some resources such as wetlands are necessary for absorbing impacts of
disasters such as ood and improving recovery process. Availability and accessi-
bility to clean and affordable resources is essential for survival and prosperity of
human communities. Therefore, appropriate measures in terms of resource pro-
tection and management should be taken for achieving resilient communities.
Table 1 (continued)
Tool Year Primary developer(s) Ref
DFID 2007 Department for International
Development and other Agencies
Twigg (2009)
USIOTWT 2007 U.S. Indian Ocean Tsunami Warning
System Program
ResilUS 2006 US, Resilience Institute is part of Western
Washington Universitys Huxley College
of the Environment
Miles and Chang (2011)
THRIVE 2002 Prevention Institute THRIVE (2004)
CRM 2000 Canadian Center for Community Renewal Rowcliffe et al. (2000)
Table 2 Criteria related to materials and environmental resources [adapted from Shari(2016)]
Code Criterion
M1 Ecosystem monitoring and protection
M2 Using local and native material and species
M3 Erosion protection
M4 Protection of wetlands and watersheds
M5 Availability and accessibility of resources (air, energy, water, food, soil, etc.)
M6 Reduction of environmental impacts (various types of pollution)
M7 Quality of resources
M8 Biodiversity and wildlife conservation
M9 Material and resource management (production, consumption, conservation,
recycling, etc.)
264 A. Shariand Y. Yamagata
3.2 Society and Well-Being
Criteria related to this dimension can be found in Table 3. This dimension has
received considerable attention in the urban resilience literature and is believed to
have a strong inuence on the achievement of community self-sufciency and
resilience. This signies the recognition of the fact that physical and engineering
measures alone will not be sufcient for creating resilient communities.
Table 3 Criteria related to society and well-being [adapted from Shari(2016)]
Asset Code Criterion
S1 Population composition
S2 Language abilities
S3 Car ownership, mobility
S4 Land and home ownership
S5 Diverse skills (to pool skills at the time of disaster)
Community bonds, social
support, and social institutions
S6 Degree of connectedness across community groups
S7 Volunteerism and civic engagement in social
S8 Collective memories, knowledge, and experience
S9 Trust, norms of reciprocity
S10 Shared assets
S11 Strong international civic organizations
S12 Place attachment and sense of community and
S13 Existence of conict resolution mechanisms
S14 Empowerment and engagement of vulnerable
groups, social safety-net mechanisms
Safety and wellbeing S15 Crime prevention and reduction
S16 Security services such as police
S17 Physical and psychological health
S18 Preventive health measures
S19 Responsive health measures
Equity and diversity S20 Gender norms and equality
S21 Ethnic equality and involvement of minorities
S22 Diverse workforce in culturally diverse places
S23 Decency, affordability, and fair access to basic
needs, infrastructure and services
Local culture and traditions S24 Past experience with disaster recovery; learning
from the past
S25 Cultural and historical preservation (identity);
awareness of indigenous knowledge and traditions
S26 Considering and respecting local culture and
specicities in the process
S27 Positive social, cultural, and behavioral norms
Urban Resilience Assessment: Multiple Dimensions 265
Criteria grouped under socio-economic characteristics can be used to measure
communitys status in terms of capacity and diversity of human resources. The second
group of criteria are related to social capital. Both structural criteria such as existence of
civic organizations and cognitive ones such as norms of reciprocity and trust should be
taken into account (Sherrieb et al. 2010). Both trust between citizens and trust in
ofcial information sources are important. Place attachment and strong sense of
community are indicators of commitment to the future of the community and enhance
chances of building networks and establishing relationships with other community
members (Chelleri et al. 2015). As mentioned earlier, however, the issue of tradeoffs
should not be undermined. For instance although place attachment enhances recovery
process, strong attachment to place may result in lack of willingness to move to safer
places. This will exacerbate the suffering from losses and accordingly it can be said that
place attachment can in some cases impair, rather than facilitateresilience (Norris
et al. 2008). Safety and well-being criteria improve stability of communities. Safe and
healthy communities are more capable of withstanding and responding to shocks
(Chandra et al. 2011). Equity and diversity are important because impacts of disasters
are often experienced unevenly in communities, with vulnerable groups suffering the
most. Enhancing equity will be an effort to tackle this problem. Finally, respecting
local cultures and traditions is an important element of the learning process which,
among other things, can improve the adaptation aspects of resilience.
3.3 Economy
The economic dimension of urban resilience includes criteria related to the structure
of the economy, its security and stability, and its dynamism (Table 4). Economic
resilience of a community depends on the capacity and skillfulness of its working
population to support the dependent population. Availability of reasonably-paid
jobs can also be associated with resilience (Burton 2014).
Appropriate planning is needed to reduce potential business interruptions. For
this purpose, availability of business mitigation plan will be essential. Such a plan
should include nancial instruments and insurance plans to ensure economic
security of the community. Community members should be aware of the impor-
tance of community savings for enhancing redundancy and resourcefulness and also
recognize the importance of collective resource ownership for maintaining access to
resources for which severe competition exists (Schwind 2009).
Inward investment and economic diversity are indicators of communitys ability
to attract and retain businesses and avoid negative impacts of economic decline
(NIST 2015a). Communities reliant on a single industry are expected to be more
vulnerable to disruptions. Both large and small businesses are needed to ensure
inward investment and business continuity.
There is evidence suggesting that, compared to large chain stores, local small
businesses are more effective in keeping the money circulating within the local
economy. This also provides other co-benets such as additional tax revenues and
266 A. Shariand Y. Yamagata
Table 4 Criteria related to economy [adapted from Shari(2016)]
Asset Code Criterion
Structure E1 Employment rate and opportunities
E2 Income (equality, multiple sources,), poverty
E3 Age structure of working population
E4 Qualications of working age population
E5 Individuals with high and multiple skills; literacy (education)
E6 Job density (housing-work proximity; extent of out commuting)
Security and
E7 Individual and community savings (stockpiles of supplies,
monetary, etc.)
E8 Collective ownership of community assets
E9 Business mitigation, response and redevelopment plan
E10 Insurance (domestic and non-domestic) and social welfare
E11 Financial instruments (contingency funds, operating funds, capital
funds etc.)
E12 Stability of prices and incomes, property value
Dynamism E13 Inward investment
E14 Investment in green jobs and green economy (self-sufciency,
urban farming, etc.)
E15 Integration with regional and global economy
E16 Business cooperative or working relations (inter and intra)
E17 Diverse economic structure and livelihood strategies
E18 Openness to micro enterprises and micro-nance services,
self-employment and dispersed ownership of assets;
E19 Public-private partnership
E20 Private investment
E21 Locally owned businesses and employers
E22 Balance of local labor market supply and demand
strong networks wherein local businesses collaborate and employ local workers
(Schwind 2009). Large businesses should also exist since evidence suggests that
they tend to be better capable of coping with change and recovering from disruptions
(Sherrieb et al. 2010). Integration with the regional economy and collaboration
agreements are also important for better absorption of shocks and for facilitating a
timely recovery process. Also, public-private partnership is needed to adequately
prepare individual businesses and also encourage them to engage in collective
actions (CARRI 2013).
3.4 Built Environment and Infrastructure
Criteria related to the built environment and infrastructure are listed in Table 5.
Infrastructure has often a long lifetime. Therefore, careful attention is needed to
avoid the risk of lock-in into vulnerable and inefcient urban infrastructure.
Urban Resilience Assessment: Multiple Dimensions 267
Redundancy facilitates substitutability of infrastructure in case some parts stop
functioning. Robustness implies enhancing resistance of infrastructure and forti-
fying them against shocks. This may, however, result in complacency and a false
perception of safety in the community. Multi-functionality of urban spaces and
facilities improves diversity and efciency characteristics which are essential for
shock absorption and timely recovery. For instance, while parks and green spaces
are mainly used for purposes such as recreation, thermal comfort provision, and air
pollution mitigation, they can provide additional benets in terms of evacuation and
ood mitigation. Similarly, sport arenas and educational facilities can be used for
temporary sheltering when needed.
In order to enhance infrastructure efciency, regular monitoring is needed to
inform planners and citizens of the need for actions such as retrot, refurbishment,
and technology update.
Of the various types of infrastructure, more emphasis has been put on com-
munication and transportation systems. Good communication and information
sharing are regarded as fundamental for enhancing resilience (Norris et al. 2008).
The main role of transportation infrastructure systems is in survivor evacuation, and
rescue and aid operations (Faturechi and Miller-Hooks 2015).
Criteria related to land use and urban design have major implications for
resource security and management in cities. They can also provide resilience
against threats such as urban ooding and extreme heat events. It must be kept in
mind that the optimum state with respect to some of these criteria may vary
depending on the context and type of disruption. For instance while higher levels of
density increase energy resilience of cities, there is evidence showing that lower
density is better for resilience against oods and hurricanes (Burton 2014).
3.5 Governance and Institutions
Governance is a cross-cutting dimension that has various inter-relationships with
the other dimensions explained above. Governance and institutional criteria are
shown in Table 6and can be used to evaluate the efciency and effectiveness of
relationships between and within community organizations and entities.
Governance and institutional rules dene how different activities are commu-
nicated and what mechanisms exist to make contingency and mitigation plans and
ensure that they are implemented. Strong leadership enhances resilience by
strengthening linkages between various elements of the system and empowering
bonding and bridging social networks (Frankenberger et al. 2013).
Also, bottom up citizen involvement and transparent decision making is needed
to enhance legitimacy of actions and make sure that they have a high level of buy in
from the local community. Decentralized and bottom-up initiatives reduce hierar-
chical complexities. This provides a platform for civic collaborations, encourages
community mobilization, and facilitates exchange of ideas and experiences leading
to better preparation and response to disasters (Renschler et al. 2010b). A shared
268 A. Shariand Y. Yamagata
Table 5 Criteria related to the built environment and infrastructure [adapted from Shari(2016)]
Asset Code Criterion
Robustness and redundancy of critical infrastructure B1 Redundancy of critical infrastructure, facilities, and stocks
B2 Robustness and fortication (of critical infrastructure, buildings, vital assets, ecosystems, etc.)
B3 Spatial distribution of critical infrastructure (measure against cascading effects)
B4 Location of critical infrastructure and facilities
B5 Consolidation of critical utilities and collaboration between utility providers
B6 Multi-functionality of spaces and facilities
B7 Shelter and relief facilities and services
Infrastructure efciency B8 Regular monitoring, maintenance, and upgrade of critical infrastructure
B9 Retrot, renewal, and refurbishment of the built environment
B10 Promotion of efcient infrastructure (technology update, metering, etc.)
ICT infrastructure B11 Diverse and reliable information and communication technology (ICT) networks
B12 Emergency communication infrastructure (before, during, after disaster)
Transportation infrastructure B13 Capacity, safety, reliability, integratedness (connectivity), and efciency of transportation
B14 Inclusive and multi-modal transport networks and facilities
Land use and urban design B15 Accessibility of basic needs and services throughout different stages (food, water, shelter, energy, health, education)
B16 Site selection and avoiding risk areas and habitat areas (oodplain, ood prone; exposed coastal zone, greeneld)
B17 Urban form (compact, dispersed, etc., SVF, aspect ratio)
B18 Mixed-use development
B19 Street type and connectivity
B20 Density of development
B21 Public spaces and communal facilities (for recreation, physical activity, etc.)
B22 Green and blue infrastructure
B23 Amount (percent) of impervious surfaces
B24 Aesthetics, visual qualities, walkability
B25 Landscape-based passive cooling
B26 Passive lighting
B27 Passive heating
B28 Passive cooling
Urban Resilience Assessment: Multiple Dimensions 269
Table 6 Criteria related to governance and institutions [adapted from Shari(2016)]
Asset Code Criterion
Leadership and participation G1 Strong leadership
G2 Stability of leadership and political stability
G3 Shared, updated, and integrated planning vision (long term)
G4 Transparency, accountability, corruption etc.
G5 Multi-stakeholder planning and decision making
G6 Decentralized responsibilities and resources
Management of resources G7 Efcient management of resources (funds, staff, etc.)
G8 Skilled personnel and emergency practitioners
G9 Population with emergency response and recovery skills (rst aid, etc.)
G10 Redundant capacity in terms of personnel
Contingency, emergency, and recovery
G11 Integration of risk reduction and resilience into development plans and policies
G12 Existence of climate change and environmental policy and plans
G13 Understanding risk patterns and trends
G14 Continuous and updated risk assessment; scenario making for different kind of infrastructure and
services (costs, losses, etc.)
G15 Emergency planning and existence of emergency operation center that integrates different agencies and
G16 Availability and update of contingency plans (e.g. post-storm trafc management)
G17 Availability of mitigation plan
G18 Early warning, evacuation plan, and access to evacuation information
G19 Inclusion of transient population (tourists, etc.) in emergency planning
G20 Inclusion of disaster resilience and lessons learned in the recovery plan
G21 Speed of recovery and restoration
G22 Ongoing process of revising and monitoring plans and assessments
G23 Standardized, updated, and integrated databases for action planning, monitoring and evaluation purposes
270 A. Shariand Y. Yamagata
Table 6 (continued)
Asset Code Criterion
Collaboration G24 Cross-sector collaboration (alignment of aims) and partnership among organizations
G25 MOUs and MOAs with neighboring communities and agencies within the broader region
G26 Knowledge and information transfer and best practice sharing (inter and intra city)
R&D G27 Innovation and technology update
G28 Research (funds, facilities) on risks and academy-society collaborations
Regulations/enforcement G29 Availability and enforcement of legislations (policing, crime, building code, environmental law,
business law, etc.)
G30 Management of informal settlements
Education and training G31 Behavioral issues and demand management
G32 Education (from elementary or secondary school), training, and communication
G33 Drills and exercises
G34 Education and training for all linguistic groups; and all groups generally
G35 Capacity building and enhancing awareness; dissemination of data and assessment results
G36 Incentives for encouraging mitigation and adaptation (including self-mobilization, self-organization,
Urban Resilience Assessment: Multiple Dimensions 271
vision should be established and guide all the planning activities in the community.
This is argued to be essential for enhancing resilience (Norris et al. 2008).
Due to the complexity of various stressors such as climate change, it would be
unlikely that communities be capable of addressing various problems indepen-
dently. Therefore, collaboration, learning, and information exchange should be
necessary components of any resilience planning efforts. Organizational connec-
tivity and presence of interconnected networks is argued to be important for
enhancing resilience (Norris et al. 2008). Establishing an integrated network of
organizations and individuals can also be effective in increasing trust and knowl-
edge exchange among the members and improve their willingness to partake in
mitigation and preparation, and recovery plans (Chandra et al. 2011).
4 Proposed Resilience Matrices
In Sect. 2resilience was dened as the ability to prepare and plan for, absorb,
recover from and more successfully adapt to adverse events(TNA 2012, P14). It
was also discussed that any resilient system should entail different characteristics,
namely robustness, stability, exibility, resourcefulness, coordination capacity,
redundancy, diversity, foresight capacity, independence, connectivity and interde-
pendence, collaboration capacity, agility, adaptability, self-organization, creativity
and innovation, efciency, and equity. The main purpose of any resilience
assessment framework should be the achievement of better-informed decisions.
Following the Resilience Matrixapproach proposed by Fox-Lent et al. (2015),
here, it is argued that creating matrices that specify to which ability each charac-
teristic may relate could further aware planners and decision makers of the
importance of each ability and characteristic. The proposed matrix would have a
structure as shown in Table 7.
It would also be useful to develop other matrices based on abilities, character-
istics, and criteria mentioned in this chapter. First, a set of matrices that identify to
which ability each criterion mentioned in Tables 2,3,4,5and 6is related. Second, a
set of matrices that show which characteristics are inuenced as a result of inclusion
of the resilience criteria in the planning process. The relationships can be indicated
by checking the respective cells in the matrix. However, as some of the relationships
(or inuences) may be characterized as either positive or negative, it is preferable to
also display the direction of the relationships. As demonstrated in Fox-Lent et al.
(2015), it can also be possible to use qualitative and/or quantitative indicators to
calculate estimated scores for performance of each cell [e.g. score in terms of
planning/preparation for ecosystem monitoring and protection(M1)]. This matrix
approach can be used for prioritization of activities and resource allocation and lends
itself to better planning towards urban resilience. The proposed structure for these
matrices is shown in Tables 8and 9. Here only the proposed matrices for criteria
related to materials and environmental resources are shown. Similar matrices should
be developed for criteria related to the other four dimensions of urban resilience.
272 A. Shariand Y. Yamagata
Table 8 Proposed matrix structure to explore association between resilience abilities and urban
resilience criteria
M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M8 M9
Plan/prepare for
Table 9 Proposed matrix structure to explore association between resilience characteristics and
urban resilience criteria
M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M8 M9
Coordination capacity
Foresight capacity
Table 7 Proposed matrix to indicate the relationship between resilience abilities and character-
Coordination ca-
Foresight capacity
Plan/prepare for
Urban Resilience Assessment: Multiple Dimensions 273
5 Conclusions
Resilience thinking is rapidly gaining ground in science and policy circles. Among
other benets, developing resilience assessment frameworks can be regarded as
useful for reducing the complexities of urban resilience and clarifying the
inter-relationships between various aspects of resilience. To this end, it is necessary
to understand different characteristics of resilience systems and also identify various
dimensions of resilience. In addition to identifying major resilience characteristics,
this study introduced ve major dimensions of urban resilience and an extensive list
of criteria related to them. Subsequently a matrix approach was proposed that can
be used to further explore the relationship between these criteria and characteristics.
Also, it was suggested that additional work is needed to investigate how the four
dening abilities of resilience are related to resilience characteristics and criteria.
What discussed in this chapter provides a conceptual framework for developing
resilience assessment tools. This should be regarded as a preliminary work that
needs to be further developed in the future. The next step should be focused on
methodologies to complete the matrices proposed in Sect. 4. The matrices could be
completed by either using stakeholder/expert opinions, or by taking evidence-based
approaches such as literature review and/or analysis of actual behavior of urban
systems in response to disasters. Although some components of the matrices could
be regarded as generic, some others may be context specic and the nal output is
likely to vary from one context to another. Resilience assessment will also require
identifying specic indicators related to each criterion. This will also be a highly
context-specic task. Due to context-specicity issues, it is likely that not all criteria
mentioned in this chapter will be useful for application in all contexts.
Another essential task required for building comprehensive and informative
resilience assessment tools would be explaining synergies and tradeoffs that may
exist between the different components of the system. This would be necessary for
achieving better-informed decision making.
Acknowledgements The authors appreciate the nancial support of the Asia-Pacic Network for
Global Change Research.
Arbon, P., Gebbie, K., Cusack, L., Perera, S., & Verdonk, S. (2012). Developing a model and tool
to measure community disaster resilience. Adelaide: Torrents Resilience Institute.
Barkham, R., Brown, K., Parpa, C., Breen, C., Carver, S., & Hooton, C. (2014). Resilient cities: A
Grosvenor research report. Grosvenor.
Burton, C. G. (2014). A validation of metrics for community resilience to natural hazards and
disasters using the recovery from Hurricane Katrina as a case study. Annals of the Association
of American Geographers, 105,6786.
CARRI. (2013). Building resilience in Americas communities: observations and implications of
the CRS pilots. Community and Regional Resilience Institute.
274 A. Shariand Y. Yamagata
Chandra, A., Acosta, J., Stern, S., Uscher-Pines, L., & Williams, M. V. (2011). Building
community resilience to disasters: A way forward to enhance national health security. Rand
Chelleri, L., Waters, J. J., Olazabal, M., & Minucci, G. (2015). Resilience trade-offs: Addressing
multiple scales and temporal aspects of urban resilience. Environment and Urbanization, 27,
Cutter, S. L., Barnes, L., Berry, M., Burton, C. G., Evans, E., Tate, E. C., et al. (2008). Community
and regional resilience: Perspectives from hazards, disasters, and emergency management.
CARRI Research Report 1 Community and Regional Resilience Institute, Oak Ridge, TN.
Cutter, S. L., Burton, C. G., & Emrich, C. T. (2010). Disaster resilience indicators for
benchmarking baseline conditions. Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency
Management, 7(1). doi:10.2202/1547-7355.1732
Faturechi, R., & Miller-Hooks, E. (2015) Measuring the performance of transportation
infrastructure systems in disasters: A comprehensive review. Journal of infrastructure systems,
Fox-Lent, C., Bates, M. E., & Linkov, I. (2015). A matrix approach to community resilience
assessment: An illustrative case at Rockaway Peninsula. Environment Systems and Decisions,
35(2), 209218. doi:10.1007/s10669-015-9555-4
Frankenberger, T., Mueller, M., Spangler, T., & Alexander, S. (2013). Community resilience:
Conceptual framework and measurement feed the future learning Agenda (p. 1). Rockville,
MD: Westat.
Gawler, S., & Tiwari, S. (2014). ICLEI ACCCRN PROCESS building urban climate change
resilience: A toolkit for local governments. ICLEI South Asia.
IFRC (2014). IFRC framework for community resilience. International Federation of Red Cross
and Red Crescent Societies, Geneva, Switzerland.
Khazai, B., Bendimerad, F., Cardona, O. D., Carreno, M. L., Barbat, A. H., & Buton, C. G. (2015).
A guide to measuring urban risk resilience: Principles, tools and practice of urban indicators.
The Philippines: Earthquakes and Megacities Initiative (EMI).
Miles, S. B., & Chang, S. E. (2011). ResilUS: A community based disaster resilience model.
Cartography and Geographic Information Science, 38,3651.
Morley, P., & Parsons, M. (2015). The Australian Natural Disaster Resilience Index Annual
Report 2014.
NIST. (2015a). Community resilience planning guide for buildings and infrastructure systems,
volume II. National Institute of Standards and Technology.
NIST. (2015b). Community resilience planning guide for buildings and infrastructure systems,
volume I. National Institute of Standards and Technology.
Norris, F. H., Stevens, S. P., Pfefferbaum, B., Wyche, K. F., & Pfefferbaum, R. L. (2008).
Community resilience as a metaphor, theory, set of capacities, and strategy for disaster
readiness. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41, 127150.
Peacock, W. G., Brody, S., Seitz, W., Merrell, W., Vedlitz, A., Zahran, S., et al. (2010).
Advancing Resilience of Coastal Localities: Developing, Implementing, and Sustaining the
Use of Coastal Resilience Indicators: A Final Report. Hazard Reduction and Recovery Center.
Perfrement, T., & Lloyd, T. (2015). The resilience index: The modelling tool to measure and
improve community resilience to natural hazards. (ac-
cessed November 10, 2015).
Pfefferbaum, R., Pfefferbaum, B., & Van Horn, R. (2011). Communities advancing resilience
toolkit (CART): The CART integrated system. Oklahoma City, OK: Terrorism and Disaster
Center at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center.
Poland, C. (2009). The resilient city: Dening what San Francisco needs from its seismic
mitigation polices. San Francisco, CA, USA: San Francisco Planning and Urban Research
Association report.
Renschler, C., Frazier, A., Arendt, L., Cimellaro, G. P., Reinhorn, A., & Bruneau, M. (2010a).
Developing the PEOPLESresilience framework for dening and measuring disaster
Urban Resilience Assessment: Multiple Dimensions 275
resilience at the community scale. In Proceedings of the 9th US National and 10th Canadian
Conference on Earthquake Engineering (9USN/10CCEE) (pp. 2529), Toronto.
Renschler, C. S., Frazier, A., Arendt, L., Cimellaro, G. -P., Reinhorn, A. M., & Bruneau, M.
(2010b). A framework for dening and measuring resilience at the community scale:
The PEOPLES resilience framework. MCEER.
Rowcliffe, P., Lewis, M., & Port, A. (2000). The community resilience manual: A resource for
rural recovery & renewal. Centre for Community Enterprise.
Schwind, K. (2009). Community resilience toolkit: A workshop guide for community resilience
planning. Oakland, California: Bay Localize.
Sempier, T., Swann, D., Emmer, R., Sempier, S., & Schneider, M. (2010). Coastal community
resilience index: A community self-assessment.
662/coastal_community_resilience_index.pdf. Accessed July 17, 2015.
Shari, A. (2016). A critical review of selected tools for assessing community resilience.
Ecological Indicators, 69, 629647. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.05.023
Shari, A., & Yamagata, Y. (2014). Major principles and criteria for development of an urban
resilience assessment index. In 2014 International Conference and Utility Exhibition on Green
Energy for Sustainable Development (ICUE) (pp. 15). IEEE.
Shari, A., & Yamagata, Y. (2016). Principles and criteria for assessing urban energy resilience: A
literature review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 60, 16541677. doi:10.1016/j.
Sherrieb, K., Norris, F. H., & Galea, S. (2010). Measuring capacities for community resilience.
Social Indicators Research, 99, 227247.
Team, A. S. (2010). Community economic resilience index. Birmingham, UK.
THRIVE. (2004). A community approach to address health disparities. In Toolkit for health &
resilience in vulnerable environments. Prevention Institute.
TNA. (2012). Disaster resilience: A national imperative. National Academies Press.
TRF. (2014). City resilience index: City resilience framework. The Rockefeller Foundation and
Twigg, J. (2009). Characteristics of a disaster-resilient community: A guidance note (version 2).
UN/ISDR. (2008). Indicators of progress: Guidance on measuring the reduction of disaster risks
and the implementation of the Hyogo framework for action. United Nations.
UNDP. (2014). Community based resilience analysis (CoBRA): Conceptual framework and
UNISDR. (2014). Disaster resilience scorecard for cities. United Nations Ofce for Disaster Risk
USIOTWSP. (2007). How resilient is your coastal community? A guide for evaluating coastal
community resilience to Tsunamis and other hazards. Bangkok, Thailand: U.S. Indian Ocean
Tsunami Warning System Program supported by the United States Agency for International
Development and Partners.
White, R. K., Edwards, W. C., Farrar, A., & Plodinec, M. J. (2014). A practical approach to
building resilience in Americas communities. American Behavioral Scientist, 59, 200219.
276 A. Shariand Y. Yamagata
... Recently, the resilience theory has attracted a lot of attention in policy and funding (Meerow and Newell, 2015;Fekete and Fiedrich, 2018). The concept of resilience is multifaceted and has many dimensions, including social, economic, physical, infrastructural, environmental, institutional, etc. (Sharifi and Yamagata, 2016b;Moradi et al., 2021). Social resilience is defined as the ability of societies to cope with events Conflict of interest: The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare that they are relevant to the content of this study. ...
... Economic resilience refers to the ability of society to absorb or control economic damages caused by all kinds of disasters and measures the level of economic wellbeing of the system (Rose, 2004;Cutter et al., 2014). Environmental resilience refers to the availability of resources and the quality of the environment to mitigate the adverse impacts of natural and man-made disasters (Cutter et al., 2014;Sharifi and Yamagata, 2016b). Institutional resilience is defined as an organization's ability to anticipate, prepare and adapt to abrupt changes and disruptions (Cutter et al., 2010;Burton, 2012). ...
... It is worth noting that, during a disaster, narrow alleys may make it difficult to provide relief (Sharifi, . Some authors stated that transportation systems play a key role in rescue and aid operations and survivor evacuation (Faturechi and Miller-Hooks, 2015;Sharifi and Yamagata, 2016b). ...
Full-text available
Purpose In Iran, the frequent occurrence of disasters has always been a major problem. In recent decades, disasters have created considerable challenges, especially in cities. Hence, understanding the levels of urban resilience (UR) and planning for addressing vulnerabilities plays a key role in the era of increasing risks and uncertainties. The present study aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the state of resilience of Iranian cities. Design/methodology/approach A systematic literature review method was used to determine how resilient Iranian cities are. To find relevant studies, the authors searched Iranian and international databases such as Scopus, ScienceDirect, SID and Magiran. There was no restriction on the inclusion date, meaning that all papers published up until September 16, 2021 were considered for inclusion. The PRISMA framework was used for literature search and selection and, finally, 153 studies focused on 52 cities of Iran were selected for the systematic review. Findings In general, the results showed that the level of resilience was low in Iranian cities. Also, informal settlements, worn-out urban fabrics and the central parts of cities showed lower resilience than other parts. Originality/value The results of the study can be used to inform municipal authorities, urban planners and non-governmental organizations of the actions that need to be taken to enhance the resilience of Iranian cities.
... Moreover, due to the complexity and diversity of urban resilience (Folke et al. 2002;Berkes 2007;Elmqvist et al. 2019), some other studies have developed a comprehensive assessment framework to quantify urban resilience. Different from the perspective of subsystems, the comprehensive assessment framework integrates multiple dimensions of city, including urban economy, society, ecology, infrastructure, and management (Khazai et al. 2018;Sharifi and Yamagata 2016). Recently, urban resilience studies are turning from theoretical exploration to practice actions with paying enthusiastic attention to the local resilience policies. ...
... In a review of studies surrounding urban resilience assessment, we found that it is necessary to understand the properties and dimensions of urban resilience, which is closely related to the further selection of indicators. According to several systematic reviews of urban resilience (Sharifi and Yamagata 2016;Meerow et al. 2016;Sanchez et al. 2018;Peng et al. 2021), the most suggested dimensions are economic resilience, social resilience, infrastructure resilience, and ecological resilience. Specifically, (1) economic resilience focuses on strong economic scale, diversified economic structure, and innovation-driven economic model, so as to enhance city's ability to deal with external economic turmoil (Simmie and Martin 2010; Spaans and Waterhout . ...
Full-text available
Urban resilience efficiency is an important indicator to explore the relationship between resource consumption and urban resilience, shedding new light on the study of urban sustainable development. Based on the panel data of 2008, 2012, and 2017, this paper makes a spatiotemporal assessment on the urban resilience efficiency of 126 cities in the Yangtze River Economic Belt (YREB) in China by applying an entropy weight-TOPSIS method and a slack-based measure (SBM) model. Combined with the analysis of a geographically weighted regression model (GWR), the influencing factors on resilience efficiency are also investigated. The results show that both the resource consumption index (RC, inputs) and the urban resilience index (UR, outputs) presented a steady upward trend, and their spatial distribution characteristics were similar, showing a gradual decrease from the eastern coastal cities to the central and western inland cities. Derived from inputs and outputs, the mean values of resilience efficiency index (RE) in three periods were 0.3149, 0.2906, and 0.1625, respectively, revealing that there had been a noticeable decline. Spatially, its spatial distribution has evolved from a relatively balanced pattern to an unbalanced one, showing a gradual decrease from west to east. The results of the GWR model analysis indicate that the total electricity consumption and area of construction land had a considerable correlation with the overall urban resilience of the YREB. Furthermore, total quantity of water supply and science and technology (S&T) expenditure continued to be the main driving factors on urban resilience of the upstream cities. The midstream regions mainly depended on the scale of construction land, and the influencing factors are relatively single. The influencing factors in the downstream areas have changed from dominance of resources and capital factors to the single dominance of resource factors, and total electricity consumption had a strong explanatory power. Based on these findings, we had put forward the overall and local regional policy implications.
... These elements form the characteristics of urban physical resilience. The characteristics agreed upon by other researchers and frequently mentioned in the literature are diversity, connectivity, redundancy, robustness, modularity, adaptability, multifunctionality, and efficiency [29,42,46,[66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76][77]. ...
Full-text available
As complex man-made systems that are home to the majority of the world population, cities have always faced a wide range of risks such as earthquakes. As the backbone of urban systems, physical components, including buildings, transportation networks, communication networks, and open and green spaces, are also vulnerable to disasters. To enhance the capacity to deal with disaster risks, enhancing urban resilience has recently become an essential priority for cities. This study aims to develop and pilot test a framework to evaluate urban physical resilience based on resilience characteristics and associated physical indicators. Interpretive Structural Modelling (ISM) was used to determine the relationships between physical indicators, and Multi-Criteria Decision-Making methods were applied to determine the relative importance of the characteristics. The results showed that the ‘Robustness of Building’, ‘Building Density’, ‘Aspect Ratio’, and ‘Street Width’ are the most important among the twenty physical indicators considered in the proposed framework. Subsequently, the proposed framework was applied to one of the districts of Kerman, a major city located in the southwest, earthquake-prone part of Iran. Overall results indicate low levels of physical resilience. The findings of this study can provide urban planners and decision-makers with more transparent and practical insights into the physical resilience of cities. Results can also be used to design and implement policies and programs to improve the current conditions.
... An urban resilient environment stays functional and sound despite disruptions due to its capabilities of remembering, learning and self-organising. In contrast to the concept of equilibrium resilience the system is not only potentially able to return to a balanced state but also to improve its performance through evolution (Sharifi and Yamagata, 2016). ...
... Beyond having resilience characteristics, such as flexibility, preparedness, redundancy, adaptability, and absorption capability [32], cities need good and resilient governance to deal with the dire situation caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. As Chu et al. (2021, p. 1) have stated: " Unlike natural disasters, which are usually not under human control, the impact of pandemic disasters varies greatly in scale due to different levels of urban preparedness and intervention measure" [33]. ...
Full-text available
Social resilience is an essential need for societies faced with adverse events such as pandemics. The recent COVID-19 outbreak has affected many communities around the globe. In fact, in addition to unprecedented mortality and infection rates, it has also caused major anxieties and social problems. Iran has been one of the hardest-hit countries and is among those that have experienced multiple waves of the outbreak. In this study, we try to identify major factors that can contribute to urban social resilience during the COVID-19 pandemic in Urmia, a major city located in Northwestern Iran. Data for the study were collected via a field visit and a semi-structured interview survey involving 194 participants. Findings show that several factors related to the following three themes play a significant role in promoting social resilience: (1) participative and supportive governance, (2) resource accessibility, and (3) citizen participation and lawfulness. Results can inform local authorities in Urmia and other contexts to deal with COVID-19 and similar pandemics.
... According to some previous studies, urban resilience assessment consists of several dimensions. The institutions and governance, including participation, resources management, training, education, leadership, regulations, and collaboration, are the updated ones (Sharifi & Yamagata, 2016;Tong, 2021). In the findings of the research conducted by Birchall and Bonnett (Birchall & Bonnett, 2021), the ability of resilience-building agents to policies and achieve goals is determined by the robustness of systems and institutions, including policies, strategic plans, ecosystems, and infrastructure. ...
Full-text available
The exposure of built environment systems to climate-related disturbances increases over time. As such, the resilience of the built environment against climate change shocks and stresses has increasingly become a concern on the local, national, and global levels. Therefore, there is a need to measure the impact, build coping and adaptive capacities, and improve the functionality of the vulnerable systems. In addition, the systems must adopt the minimum resilience functioning methods and practices. Hence, this paper reviewed the most common resilience qualities (RQs), capacities, and dimensions of the built environment and their interdependencies. The research method is based on analyzing the relevant peer-reviewed journal papers published in renowned international journal papers and databases during the past two decades. The scope of the study is narrowed down by following specific guidelines to ensure a proper selection of up-to-date research articles to provide a precise understanding of the research progress on the built environment RQs. It provides an overview of the different definitions and indicators in which RQs have been applied to built environment planning, analysis, and design, emphasizing the various dimensions and relevant capacities. The study concludes that integrated resilience indicators, planning, and design methodology are crucial for incorporating RQs into the framework that influences the built environment. The built environment RQs demonstrated by this study include reflectivity (Rf), robustness (Rb), redundancy (Rd), flexibility (Fx), resourcefulness (Rs), rapidity (Rp), inclusivity (Ic), and integration (It). Nevertheless, the built environment RQs are still growing, requiring further study to develop plans and policies for effective and timely responses to climate change effects.
Smart cities are often characterized by using ICT-enabled solutions in various socio-economic, institutional, and environmental fields to enhance quality of life, sustainability, and resilience and to preserve the competitive potential of cities in an increasingly interconnected network of cities. While the concept of “smart city” has been around for a while, recently there is a growing interest in using smart city solutions and technologies for enhancing resilience worldwide. It is vital to recognize the effect of smart cities on improving urban resilience, especially with regard to climate adaptation and mitigation. As a preliminary step toward this goal, we have created a database of smart city projects and initiatives with actual and/or potential contributions to resilience. Our database of approximately 300 case studies tries to investigate the resilience steps and smart solutions taken by smart cities around the world under categorized indicator sets. Results show that most of the smart city projects are mainly aimed at the reduction of CO2 emission. Regarding the resilience stage, we considered four stages, namely, planning, absorption, recovery, and adaptation. It was found that the projects are related to different stages, particularly, adaptation and absorption. In terms of sectoral focus, energy sector has received the most attention by the smart city planners and policymakers. Concerning smart city dimensions, “living” has received the utmost attention, followed by “mobility” and “data” that have also received considerable attention. Much of the projects are owned by the government and are participatory in terms of governance. It is important to note that most of the projects have paid attention to multiple smart city “dimensions” and can contribute to different “resilience characteristics.” This evidence-based quantitative analysis of global smart city projects could be used to highlight the success factors, trends, and gaps. The results can be used to develop more effective future pathways that could contribute to achieving sustainable development goals.
Full-text available
Role of Wind Flow Corridors in Promoting Resilience in Ancient Desert Cities (Case Study: City of Yazd). Neglecting basic urban ecological indicators leads to a reduction in resilience to changing environmental conditions. Ancient socio-ecological systems are the result of several millennia of interventions in the landscape and a valuable repository of successful and unsuccessful experiences that can act as a stimulus or deterrent to decisions in future planning processes. This study aims to deduce the ecological wisdom principles and rules governing wind flow corridors and to present structural-functional strategies in the ecological networks of ancient desert cities (Yazd as a case study) to promote resilience. The research method based on the analysis of the content reviews the importance of ecological corridors in promoting urban resilience, deduces the ecological wisdom principles, recognizes the ecological wisdom principles and rules governing wind flow networks with exploratory analysis in the city of Yazd, in three scales: macro (urban-suburban), mezzo (neighborhood) and micro (building). The results indicate that structural-functional patterns, positioning and orientation, proportions and geometric order, connections, texture, and color of construction materials, structural-functional diversity, and structural-functional composition in wind flow corridors and regeneration strategies based on ecological wisdom in access networks and urban corridors are important in creating ecological networks and promoting urban resilience.
Considering the rapid urbanization trends in many parts of the world and the increasing consequences of climate change, more and more cities are at risk of natural disasters and other environmental, socio-economic, and political disruptions. To address these issues, resilience thinking has attracted the attention of a wide range of stakeholders. However, despite considerable attention to this concept and its frequent usage, resilience remains ambiguous with diverse interpretations in policy discussions and academic debates about cities. Since such vague interpretations would lead to difficulties in theory and practice, the present study aims to clarify some of these concepts by providing a comprehensive review focused on resilience features and comparing different perspectives regarding urban resilience. The study results showed that the main reason behind such ambiguities is that resilience has undergone fundamental changes since its inception, and recent approaches to resilience are generally based on the non-equilibrium model of resilience. There are three main dimensions, including systems, agents, and institutions, as well as three main approaches to urban resilience, including recovery, adaptation, and transformation. This study's conceptual framework of urban resilience provides scholars and policymakers with a more transparent and comprehensive picture of urban resilience and helps them make better-informed decisions.
Geo-physical, socio-cultural, politico-institutional, and techno-economic context affect communities’ resilience competency to disasters. As the contextual characteristics of urban and rural communities differ, they may perform differently in resilience practice. Taking a case of the 2015 Nepal earthquake, this paper explored community resilience in urban and rural areas by employing binary multilevel models against the monthly survey questionnaire data on relief progress at first; and then adopted cross-level interaction models to examine whether and how urbanization would modify the contributions of resilience factors to post-disaster performances of communities. The results showed an urban-rural disparity of community resilience, with rural residents reporting higher relief scores than their urban counterparts. Whilst, resilience factors, including leadership, fairness, and preparedness, appeared to be crucial to both urban and rural communities, problem solving, information and communication, and civic engagement were only contributing to rural communities. Communities featured with different levels of urbanization do not uniformly experience the impacts of community resilience factors. Urbanization was proofed to interfere with the effects of some community factors like problem solving, information and communication, civic engagement, but reinforce that of the preparedness factor. These findings enrich our understanding of the urban-rural disparity in community resilience, and shed light on the importance of public-centric and context-specific resilience policies in coping with the contextual changes resulted through urbanization processes.
Full-text available
An electronic version of this guidance note can be downloaded from the Benfield UCL Hazard Research Centre website. Go to communitydrrindicators/community_drr_indicators_index.htm The guidance note has also been translated into Spanish by Diego Bunge. It is available from the same web page.
Conference Paper
Full-text available
Australia's recently adopted National Strategy for Disaster Resilience recognizes four characteristics of disaster resilient communities: 1) they function well while under stress 2) they adapt successfully 3) they are self-reliant and 4) they have strong social capacity. However important questions are raised. How would progress towards the development of resilient communities be assessed? What are the specific priorities needed to improve resilience for various communities? How should investments to develop disaster resilience be evaluated and reported? This project will develop an Australian Natural Disaster Resilience Index as a tool for assessing, evaluating and reporting resilience to natural hazards in Australia.
Full-text available
Characteristics of a Disaster-Resilient Community is a guidance note for government and civil society organizations working on disaster risk reduction (DRR) and climate change adaptation (CCA) initiatives at community level in partnership with vulnerable communities. It shows what a ‘disaster-resilient community’ might consist of, by setting out the many different elements of resilience. It also provides some ideas about how to progress towards resilience.
Full-text available
The objective of this research was to establish a holistic framework for defining and measuring disaster resilience for a community at various scales. Seven dimensions of community resilience have been identified and are represented by the acronym PEOPLES: Population and Demographics, Environmental/ Ecosystem, Organized Governmental Services, Physical Infrastructure, Lifestyle and Community Competence, Economic Development, and Social-Cultural Capital. The proposed PEOPLES Resilience Framework provides the basis for development of quantitative and qualitative models that measure continuously the resilience of communities against extreme events or disasters in any or a combination of the above-mentioned dimensions. Over the longer term, this framework will enable the development of geospatial and temporal decision support software tools that help planners and other key decision makers and stakeholders to assess and enhance the resilience of their communities.
Full-text available
The concept of resilience is increasingly used in academic and policy circles. To operationalize this concept and reduce the ambiguities surrounding it, since the turn of the century, various resilience assessment methodologies have been introduced. This paper provides a critical review of 36 selected community resilience assessment tools. These tools have been developed by a variety of entities, including national and local organizations, international donor organizations, and academic researchers. First, an overview of the selected tools is presented. This overview analysis shows that while some commonalities exist, there are also considerable differences between the tools. Next, based on literature review, an analytical framework is developed that identifies six criteria for evaluating performance of resilience assessment tools. These are, namely, addressing multiple dimensions of resilience, accounting for cross-scale relationships, capturing temporal dynamism, addressing uncertainties, employing participatory approaches, and developing action plans. Results show that limited success has been achieved in addressing these criteria. In terms of comprehensiveness, the environmental dimension has received relatively less attention in spite of its significance for building community resilience. Further improvements are needed to account for dynamics over time and across space. More attention to employing iterative processes that involve scenario-based planning is needed to better address challenges associated with uncertainties. Results also show that more attention needs to be paid to stakeholder participation in developing assessment tools. The paper concludes by highlighting several other areas of weakness that need to be addressed and discussing major challenges that still remain.
Full-text available
Between 60% and 80% of global energy is consumed in urban areas and given the projected increase in world׳s urban population, this share is expected to further increase in the future. Continuity of energy supply in cities is affected by climate change and a growing array of other threats such as cyber attacks, terrorism, technical deficiencies, and market volatility. Determined efforts, acknowledging the interactions and interlinkages between energy and other sectors, are needed to avoid adverse consequences of disruption in energy supply. Resilience thinking is an approach to management of socio-ecological systems that aims to develop an integrated framework for bringing together the (often) fragmented, diverse research on disaster risk management. The literature on urban resilience is immense and still growing. This paper reviews literature related to energy resilience to develop a conceptual framework for assessing urban energy resilience, identify planning and design criteria that can be used for assessing urban energy resilience, and examine the relationship of these criteria with the underlying components of the conceptual framework. In the conceptual framework, it is proposed that in order to be resilient, urban energy system needs to be capable of “planning and preparing for”, “absorbing”, “recovering from”, and “adapting” to any adverse events that may happen in the future. Integrating these four abilities into the system would enable it to continuously address “availability”, “accessibility”, “affordability”, and “acceptability” as the four sustainability-related dimensions of energy. The paper explains different resilience principles associated with these abilities and sustainability dimensions. Also, different planning and design criteria were extracted from the literature and categorized into five themes: infrastructure; resources; land use, urban geometry and morphology; governance; and socio-demographic aspects and human behavior. Examination of the relationship of these criteria with the underlying components of the conceptual framework highlighted the complexity and multi-faceted nature of energy resilience. Exploration of the relevance of the identified criteria to climate change mitigation and adaptation revealed that most of the identified criteria can provide both mitigation and adaptation benefits.
Technical Report
Full-text available
The objective of this research was to establish a holistic framework for defining and measuring disaster resilience for a community at various scales. Seven dimensions characterizing community functionality have been identified and are represented by the acronym PEOPLES: Population and Demographics, Environmental/Ecosystem, Organized Governmental Services, Physical Infrastructure, Lifestyle and Community Competence, Economic Development, and Social-Cultural Capital. The proposed PEOPLES Resilience Framework provides the basis for development of quantitative and qualitative models that measure continuously the functionality and resilience of communities against extreme events or disasters in any or a combination of the above-mentioned dimensions. Over the longer term, this framework will enable the development of geospatial and temporal decision-support software tools that help planners and other key decision makers and stakeholders to assess and enhance the resilience of their communities.
Full-text available
The Community and Regional Resilience Institute has conducted a number of projects and case studies examining the nature and characteristics of community resilience in order to identify processes, tools, and resources that could assist communities in strengthening their resilient capacities. This article begins by describing a theoretical framework for community resilience developed from literature review and community practice. The authors review the Community and Regional Resilience Institute’s practical work to assist selected communities in understanding and improving their resilience through two rounds of case studies and provide summaries of community outcomes and implications of the community work. The article also briefly describes the collaborative development process used to build a web-enabled system of tools, resources, and resilience knowledge that can be used by all communities to build and strengthen resilience. Finally, the article presents key observations arising from the community and collaborative development work and discusses their implications for other communities desiring to improve their resilience.