Conceptual Assessment of Resilience through Its Origins, Perspectives and Attributes: From “Resilement” to Urban Resilience.

Abstract

It is clear that 2000s are the periods when the complexity science was developed and there was an increasing necessity to plan and manage for the rapidly changing disorders. At this point, the concept of “resilience” can be referred to understand how to address the changes and challenges of the uncertain world. Resilience is a positive concept that dates back to 17th century. The etymology of the word is the Latin words in Classical Times which are “resilire”, “resalire”, “resilio,” meaning to jump back, rebound, walk or leap back and bounce back. It gained various descriptions, perspectives and aspects throughout history. It is usually supposed to be the flip-side of vulnerability and it is assumed that it can turn negative circumstances into advantages. Its link with the urban related sectors started to progress firstly through ecological aspects by the work of Holling in 1973. The in-dept analysis of resilience showed how the concept could shed light on the solution of the 21st century’s uncertainty related urban problems by means of developing the capacity to “manage change”. For this reason, resilience is considered as a new “concept” addressing the notion of managing and adjusting to the unexpected changes, uncertainties and challenges continuously.

Today, there is an increasing interest in resilience but yet no clear consensus in favor of its attributes or conceptual expansion, besides, it is not clarified if it is a science or a theory, along with its relation between the grounded concepts such as sustainability and vulnerability. Therefore, this paper aims to elucidate resilience concept and consequently to understand how it can address the challenges of this uncertain era. For that reason, the paper constructs a better understanding and clarifies the peculiarities of resilience based on two sections. The primary section discusses the origins, different perspectives, dimensions and definitions of resilience; later then explains its basic attributes. Finally, the second section evaluates its relation with basic concepts such as vulnerability and sustainability as well as its position in urban related issues.

Full text

CONCEPTUAL ASSESSMENT OF RESILIENCE THROUGH ITS
ORIGINS, PERSPECTIVES AND ATTRIBUTES: FROM
“RESILEMENT” TO URBAN RESILIENCE
Zeynep Deniz YAMAN GALANTİNİ1
Abstract
It is clear that 2000s are the periods when the complexity science was developed and there was an
increasing necessity to plan and manage for the rapidly changing disorders. At this point, the concept
of “resilience” can be referred to understand how to address the changes and challenges of the
uncertain world. Resilience is a positive concept that dates back to 17th century. The etymology of the
word is the Latin words in Classical Times which are “resilire”, “resalire”, “resilio,” meaning to jump
back, rebound, walk or leap back and bounce back. It gained various descriptions, perspectives and
aspects throughout history. It is usually supposed to be the flip-side of vulnerability and it is assumed
that it can turn negative circumstances into advantages. Its link with the urban related sectors started
to progress firstly through ecological aspects by the work of Holling in 1973. The in-dept analysis of
resilience showed how the concept could shed light on the solution of the 21st century’s uncertainty
related urban problems by means of developing the capacity to “manage change”. For this reason,
resilience is considered as a new “concept” addressing the notion of managing and adjusting to the
unexpected changes, uncertainties and challenges continuously.
Today, there is an increasing interest in resilience but yet no clear consensus in favor of its attributes
or conceptual expansion, besides, it is not clarified if it is a science or a theory, along with its relation
between the grounded concepts such as sustainability and vulnerability. Therefore, this paper aims to
elucidate resilience concept and consequently to understand how it can address the challenges of this
uncertain era. For that reason, the paper constructs a better understanding and clarifies the
peculiarities of resilience in two sections. The primary section discusses the origins, definitions,
different perspectives and dimensions of resilience; later then explains its basic attributes. Finally, the
second section evaluates its relation with basic concepts such as vulnerability and sustainability as
well as its position in urban related issues.
Keywords: Complexity, Resilience, Vulnerability, Sustainability, Dynamism, Urban Resilience
DAYANIKLILIĞIN (DİRENÇLİLİĞİN) KÖKENİ, PERKSPEKTİFLERİ VE
NİTELİKLERİ ÜZERİNDEN KAVRAMSAL DEĞERLENDİRMESİ:
“RESILEMENT”DAN KENTSEL DAYANIKLILIĞA
Öz
2000'li yıllar karmaşıklık biliminin geliştiği, hızla değişen dinamikleri planlamanın ve değişimi
yönetmenin öneminin arttığı bir dönemi ifade etmektedir. Bu noktada “dayanıklılık (bazı kaynaklarda
“dirençlilik” olarak ifade edilmektedir. dirençliliğin "resistance" kavramıyla daha çok örtüştüğü
bilinmektedir)” kavramı, belirsiz dünyanın değişimlerinin ve zorluklarının nasıl ele alınacağını anlamak
için karşımıza çıkar. Dayanıklılık, kökeni 17. yüzyıla kadar uzanan bir kavramdır. Kelimenin
etimolojisi, Klasik Zamanlardaki “resilire”, “resalire”, “resilio” olan Latince kelimelerdir; geri atlamak,
geri tepmek veya geriye atlamak anlamına gelir. Tarih boyunca çeşitli açıklamalar, bakış açıları ve
tanımlar kazanmıştır. Genellikle kırılganlık kavramının zıt anlamlısı olarak kullanılır ve olumsuz
koşulları avantaja çevirebilecek bir kapasiteyi ifade ettiği düşünülür. Kent litertürüyle bağlantısı, ilk
olarak 1973'te Holling'in çalışmalarına dayanarak ekolojik temelli olarak gelişmeye başlamıştır.
Dayanıklılığın derinlemesine analizi, kavramın 21. yüzyıldaki belirsizlikle ilgili sorunların çözümüne
nasıl ışık tutulabileceğini göstermesi ve “değişimi yönetme” kapasitesini geliştirmesi bakımından
önem arz etmektedir. Bu nedenle, dayanıklılık, beklenmeyen değişikliklerin, belirsizliklerin ve
zorlukların sürekli olarak yönetilmesi ve ayarlanması fikrini ele alan yeni bir “kavram” olarak kabul
edilir.
Günümüzde, dayanıklılık kavramına artan bir ilgi olmasına rağmen, özellikleri veya kavramsal
açılımına dair net bir fikir birliği yoktur. Bunun yanı sıra, kavramın bir bilim veya teori olup olmadığı ve
kavramın sürdürülebilirlik ya da kırılganlıkla olan ilişkisi hakkında da net bir çalışma bulunmamaktadır.
Bu nedenle bu bildiri, dayanıklılık kavramını açıklamayı ve sonuç olarak bu belirsiz dönemin
1 TCDD 1. BÖLGE MÜDÜRLÜĞÜ
963

zorluklarını nasıl çözebileceğini anlatmayı amaçlamaktadır. Bu itibarla, bildiri iki temel bölüme
ayrılarak dayanıklılığın kavramsal açılımını sağlamaktadır. Birincil bölüm, öncelikle kavramın kökenini,
farklı bakış açılarını, boyutlarını ve tanımlarını; daha sonra temel özelliklerini açıklamaktadır. Son
olarak ikinci bölüm, kırılganlık ve sürdürülebilirlik gibi temel kavramlarla olan ilişkisini ve aynı zamanda
kent/kent planlama literatüründeki konumunu değerlendirmektedir.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Karmaşıklık, Dayanıklılık-Dirençlilik, Kırılganlık, Sürdürülebilirlik, Dinamizm,
Kentsel Dayanıklılık
1. INTRODUCTION- WHAT IS MEANT BY “RESILIENCE”?
The publications on resilience in Thomson Reuters Web of Science database show that
1990s is the period when resilience key worded publications started to raise significance. In
2010, there were over 2000 publications of resilience which were related to various fields
from psychology to urban planning. However, there is not a clear consensus about the
definitions, dimensions or attributes of resilience. Therefore, this paper offers a conceptual
analysis of resilience to clarify what it refers to, how it is used to upgrade other well-known
concepts like vulnerability and sustainability and how to place it in urban planning
paradigms.
The College Dictionary (1975) and The Oxford English Dictionary define resilience as the
ability 1. to return to the original form or position after being bent, compressed or stretched;
elasticity, and 2. to recover readily from illness, depression, adversity, or the like; buoyancy
(Yaman-Galantini, 2018a; 2018b). However, resilience is an older Latin word in Classical
Times (Alexander, 2013) “resilire”, “resalire,”, “resilio,” meaning to jump back, rebound and
bounce back (Klein et al. 2003). Sir Francis Bacon did the first known scientific use of
resilience in English during the period 1616–26. While, the first known dictionary definition of
resilience: the Glossographia compiled by the lawyer and antiquarian Thomas Blount (1618–
79) with a dual meaning: to rebound and to go back on one’s word (as in resilement, an
obsolete derivative). In the first half of the 19th century, resilience was still used in the sense
of rebounding and significantly, from 1839 the term was used to signify the ability to recover
from adversity, in the sense of strength (Alexander, 2013). From 19th century to today,
resilience has become a term of various fields.
Following Holling’s seminal work entitled “Resilience and Stability of Ecological Systems”
(1973), resilience gained currency in the sphere of ecology. This period can also be
interpreted as the rise of resilience in urban related issues. Many classifications or in other
words more detailed descriptions of resilience were also developed afterwards. For
example, Folke et al. (2010) and Miller et al. (2010) identified the distinction between
“general resilience” (resilience of a large-scale system to all kinds of shocks) and
“specific/targeted resilience” (tries to understand the key slow variables, which are
configuring the system). Another different interpretation was “transformative resilience”
which refers to an analytical tool to guide research on the nature of system change,
innovation, and creativity in the face of stress or trauma (Gotham and Campanella, 2010).
On the other hand, “evolutionary resilience” advocated that the very nature of systems may
change over time with or without an external disturbance and resilience is not perceived as a
return to normality, but rather as the ability to change, adapt, and crucially transform in
response to stresses (Davoudi, 2012). Finally, Rose (2009) explained “adaptive resilience”
which refers to the ability in crises to maintain function. Consequently, the most common
definitions of resilience were decided as 1. the amount of disturbance a system can absorb
and still remain within the same state or domain of attraction; 2. the degree to which the
system is capable of self-organization; and 3. the ability to build and increase the capacity
for learning and adaptation (Carpenter et al. 2001; Berkes et al. 2003; CSIRO, 2007). Thus,
resilience refers to a capacity to “manage change” constantly through understanding,
adapting to and surviving from complexity. This promotes a passage from static, equilibrium
position toward a dynamic, non-equilibrium position.
964

Considering all these diverse explanations and the increasing popularity of the term, it was
already crucial to discuss if resilience has become a new field of “science”, it can be called
as a “theory” or a “paradigm”. For instance, Pizzo (2015) argues that it is not clear yet if
resilience should become a paradigm. Moreover, it is argued that resilience is not a science
or a theory. In order to build “resilience theory,” it would be required to develop a set of
hypotheses, conduct controlled experiments to test them, and through this process develop
a set of basic facts (Walker et al. 2006). Thus, resilience does not come down to a single
testable theory or hypothesis. In addition, Folke (2006) indicates, resilience as an
“approach”, a way of thinking, to guide and organize thoughts. Likewise, Carpenter and
Brock (2008) stress that; resilience is a broad, multifaceted cluster of concepts related to
transformation and persistence. From this point of view, resilience can be interpreted as a
positive concept addressing recovery from adversity and adaptation to new conditions. So, it
refers to a “dynamic” feature associated with a process of “continual adjustment”. In other
words, as Yaman-Galantini (2018a) described, resilience can be considered as a new
“concept” reflecting a new “approach” addressing “dynamism”.
Subsequently, considering this expansion of resilience and its raising popularity in urban
related issues, then, in order to assess the resilience of urban systems or integrate it with
urban planning process, there can be two important points; first of all, it is required to define
its basic attributes and through which dynamic characteristics it can relate to urban planning.
These attributes can be considered as “indicators of resilience”. They can be grouped as
more stability related and dynamism or action related attributes, parallel with its meaning to
“manage change”. More specifically, there are two options to manage change; keeping the
system work/stable or making the system transform. On the other hand, as Yaman-Galantini
(2018a) suggested, the basic criteria of reduced consequences from failures, reduced time
to recovery and learning to live with change and uncertainty are also fundamental to provide
resilience. Secondly, assessing resilience of urban systems can be handled through
constructing its associations with other prominent terms such as “vulnerability” and
“sustainability”. This helps not only to clarify the similarities or differences among the terms,
but also clarify the attributes and the “uniqueness” of resilience.
2. WHAT DOES “URBAN RESILIENCE” REFER?
It is clear that, in order to understand how resilience can contribute to urban studies, it has to
be measured and eventually determined if urban systems are resilient enough or they need
to develop specific capacity to be resilient. In this sense, to assess the “resilience in cities”,
“resilience of cities” (Ernstson et al. 2010) or how “resilient” the “urbanism” is (Gleeson,
2008), it is necessary to develop clear resilience indicators. As it was mentioned, basic
attributes of resilience can give a clue about its indicators. However, to interpret the results,
it is useful to consider the relation of resilience between vulnerability and sustainability.
Buckle et al. (2001), Berkes (2007) and Gallopín, (2006; 2007) studied the relation between
resilience and vulnerability in order to analyze if resilience mentions “recovering from
vulnerabilities”. Based on a wide literature review, Yaman-Galantini (2018a) reflected a clear
correlation. Therefore, the concepts can be; 1. flip side/opposite; 2. not necessarily opposite
and 3. interrelated concepts. According to Buckle et al. (2001), the higher the resilience, the
less likely damage may be, and the faster and more effective recovery is likely to be and
vice versa. On the other hand, Gallopín (2006) noted that vulnerability is sometimes taken to
be the exact opposite of resilience, but this is not clear. For example, a certain level of
exposure increasing overall vulnerability could actually create the opportunity for
experiences that enhance overall system resilience. Finally, Miller et. al (2010) listed that
both vulnerability and resilience; 1. are concerned with how systems respond to change; 2.
focus on the interaction of slower and more rapid dynamics; 3. are concerned with multiscale
temporal processes; 4. are oriented toward responses to stress and perturbations, and the
interaction of slow and rapid changes; 5. need to move beyond mutual understanding; and
6. can advance a more integrated understanding of social-ecological change. Hence, this
social-ecological convergence of the two areas provides conceptual and methodological
965

synergy and it can be interpreted as both concepts are interrelated. More importantly, this
perspective also spread the idea to use vulnerability indicators to measure resilience. Surely,
vulnerability indicators won’t be enough to measure the “dynamic character” of resilience,
however, it is useful to assess resilience from a “static” point of view.
Furthermore, the discussion of the influences of resilience on sustainability was a hot issue
in 1990s. A comprehensive evaluation was made by Yaman-Galantini (2018a; 2018b)
referring that there can be three possible assumptions; 1. sustainability is the overall aim so
resilience is sustainability’s subset; 2. resilience is a more comprehensive concept and it is
necessary precondition/key concept for sustainability; 3. both terms comprehend almost the
same meaning and they can be used interchangeably. Nonetheless, the relation between
resilience-sustainability differs from the relation between vulnerability-resilience. Novotny et
al. (2010) clarifies this distinction through the rising role of change, dynamics and uncertainty
over sustainability as a different perception. It gets more important to question if
sustainability is still adequate in terms of the principal idea to preserve resources from
generation to generation in view of the global challenges. Survival is one of the key points of
sustainability and learning to live with the limits and avoid the collapse of the systems should
be the solution. Therefore, it main issue is to overcome the deficiency of sustainability in
terms of the dynamic and non-equilibrium perspective, ever since sustainability used to be a
concept proposing durability and stability. Thus, as Yaman-Galantini (2018b) pointed out,
the reliability and rationality of a stable system’s sustainability in the context of unexpected
disturbances and changes have to be questioned. Consequently, the three main attributes of
sustainability described in the Brundtland Report (1987) which are “the provision of needs,
development and inter and intra-generational equity-justice in terms of resource
maintenance”, should be updated and upgraded based on todays “non-linear” “needs”,
“development” and “equity” approaches. So, resilience attributes can contribute to this
required upgrade.
Resilience does not definitely aim to replace sustainability, neither it aims to beat
vulnerability, however, it has the dynamic perspective of change, uncertainty, unpredictability
and adaptability that are needed in the turbulent global systems. From this point of view, if
the urban policies are developed and indicators are inferred from this aspect, then urban
planning practices can help not only for the creation of resilient cities, but also the provision,
enhancement and the maintenance of urban resilience. With this regard, it is possible to
declare that urban resilience can contribute to fostering new approaches for urban planning
practices. Indeed, to appraise how resilience can address the bottlenecks of contemporary
urban planning, it is indispensable to answer where to locate resilience in planning
paradigms.
Figure. Where to place “Resilience” in urban planning paradigms
Even if not descried properly, there was already a tendency to provide resilience in urban
plans in the 1980s with the emphasis on environmental issues. Moreover, as Plodinec
(2009) explained, 1980s is the period where resilience started to be used as a physical
infrastructure term in disaster related issues. Following this period, in 1990s and 2000s,
strategic spatial planning was recuperated as a reaction to the complex and uncertain global
challenges (Yaman-Galantini, 2018a; 2018c). Nonetheless, though the dominance of
966

sustainability and strategic planning in the contemporary urban development, the growing
influence of complexity in 2000s resulted in the requirement of a more comprehensive
approach (Figure). At this point, the aim of maintaining urban resilience can offer a new
method to solve the complexities of the 21st century, comprehending the past, present and
future movements, addressing all kinds of weaknesses and defining thresholds for
unexpected changes, with a multi-dimensional, multi-scale and process oriented aspect.
This requires to respond in a wider perspective. As Healey (2008) and Balducci et al (2011)
express, urban planning should comprehend the new emerged development paths which
brings about the transformation in the purpose and fundamentals of urban planning. Thus, it
is relevant that the natural evolution of urban planning paradigms already promotes the
incorporation of resilience and urban planning (Yaman-Galantini, 2018a; 2018c).
Recent case studies about this integration of urban resilience and urban planning can be
identified in two ways; studies referring to the approach or insights, and studies referring to
the process. In the meanwhile, the basic subjects are mitigation and adaptation to climate
change; disaster planning, management and recovery; energy and environmental security;
urban water management and urban design. Since the novelty of resilience that it refers not
only to the key logic of sustainability through “stability” but also the way out of “chaos”
through “recovery or transformation” (Yaman-Galantini, 2018a; 2018c), this supports the
idea that resilience cannot be an approach only for disaster mitigation but also it has the
tools in a larger scale in promoting economic, spatial, environmental and social
enhancement. So as Yaman-Galantini and Tezer (2016) described, the integration between
resilience and urban planning is actually a “forward-looking- comprehensive - strategic -
systems planning approach”. Therefore, this kind of urban planning is desired to solve the
gaps between the old-fashioned plans and the new knowledge, to be multi-dimensional,
action and process oriented, which can address existing vulnerabilities and possible ones
across scales. That means, “dynamic” character of resilience can upgrade and update the
steps and the basic elements of the contemporary urban planning.
3. CONCLUSION
To conclude, rooted for centuries, today, resilience succeeded to have a place in urban
studies, and it filled a crucial gap in terms of the necessity for dynamism and adapting to
changing circumstances. So, successful urban planning based on a resilience perspective is
crucial for;
• giving a direction to uncertainty and preparation for an innovative transformation,
• being liable to come up against unpredicted events or accidents,
• being not only the key logic of sustainability through “stability” but also the way out of
“chaos” through “recovery or transformation”.
These perspectives decisively should embrace a multi-dimensional approach, need to be
“case specific” and take into account the “changing targets” – with reference to “changing
resilience attributes” for each case study.
REFERENCES
Alexander, D.E. (2013), Resilience and disaster risk reduction: an etymological journey, Nat.
Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 13, 2707–2716.
Balducci, A., Boelens, L., Hillier, J., Nyseth, T., Wilkinson, C. (2011). Introduction, Strategic
spatial planning in uncertainty: theory and exploratory practice, Town Planning Review 82
(5), DOI: 10.3828/tpr.2011.29.
Berkes, F. (2007). Understanding uncertainty and reducing vulnerability: lessons from
resilience thinking, Natural Hazards 41, 283-295.
Berkes, F., Colding, J., Folke, C. (Eds.) (2003). Navigating Social-Ecological Systems:
Management Practices and Social Mechanisms for Building Resilience. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
967

Buckle, P., Marsh, G., Smale, S. (2001). Assessing Resilience & Vulnerability: Principles,
Strategies & Actions, Strengthening Resilience in Post-disaster Situations, 245-255.
Carpenter, S.R. and Brock, W.A. (2008) Adaptive capacity and traps, Ecology and Society
13, 2, 40.
Carpenter, S.R., Walker, B., Anderies, J.M., Abel, M. (2001). From metaphor to
measurement: resilience of what to what?, Ecosystems 4, 765–781.
CSIRO. (2007). Urban Resilience: Research Prospectus a Resilience Alliance Initiative for
Transmitting Urban Systems towards Sustainable Futures, Retrieved June 10, 2012, from
http://citiesforpeople.ca/wp-
content/uploads/2014/02/urbanresilienceresearchprospectusv7feb07.pdf
Davoudi, S. (2012). Resilience: A Bridging Concept or a Dead End? “Reframing” Resilience:
Challenges for Planning Theory and Practice Interacting Traps: Resilience Assessment of a
Pasture Management System in Northern Afghanistan Urban Resilience: What Does it Mean
in Planning Practice? Resilience as a Useful Concept for Climate Change Adaptation? The
Politics of Resilience for Planning: A Cautionary Note, Planning Theory & Practice 13 (2),
299-333.
Ernstson, H., van der Leeuw, S.E., Redman, C.L., Meffert, D.J., Davis, G., Alfsen, C.,
Elmqvist, T. (2010). Urban transitions: on urban resilience and human-dominated
ecosystems, Ambio 39 (8), 531-545.
Folke, C. (2006). Resilience: The emergence of a perspective for social–ecological systems
analyses, Global Environmental Change 1, 253–267.
Folke, C., Carpenter, S.R., Walker, B., Scheffer, M., Chapin, T., Rockström, J. (2010).
Resilience thinking: integrating resilience, adaptability and transformability, Ecology and
Society 15 (4), 20.
Gallopín, G. (2006), Linkages between vulnerability, resilience, and adaptive capacity, Global
Environmental Change 16, 293-303.
Gallopín, G. (2007). Formal Approach to Vulnerability. In Potsdam Institute for Climate
Impact Research. Proceedings of the Linkages Between Vulnerability, Resilience, and
Adaptive Capacity Workshop, Potsdam, 13-14 September.
Gleeson, B.J. (2008). Waking from the dream: towards urban resilience in the face of sudden
threat, Urban Studies 45 (13), 2653-2668.
Gotham, K.F. and Campanella, R. (2010). Toward a Research Agenda on Transformative
Resilience: Challenges and Opportunities for Post-Trauma Urban Ecosystems, Critical
Planning Summer 2010, 9-23.
Healey, P. (2008). Editorial, Planning Theory and Practice, 9 (4), 431-434.
Holling, C.S. (1973). Resilience and Stability of Ecological Systems, Annual Review of
Ecology and Systematics 4, 1-23.
Klein R.J.T., Nicholls, R.J., Thomalla, F. (2003). Resilience to natural hazards: How useful is
this concept?. Environmental Hazards 5, 35–45.
Miller, F., Osbahr, H., Boyd, E., Thomalla, F., Bharwani, S., Ziervogel, G., Walker, B.,
Birkmann, J., Van der Leeuw, S., Rockström, J., Hinkel, J., Downing, T., Folke, C.,
Nelson D. (2010). Resilience and vulnerability: complementary or conflicting concepts?,
Ecology and Society 15 (3), 11.
Novotny, V., Ahern, J., Brown, P. (2010). Water Centric Sustainable Communities: Planning,
Retrofitting and Building the Next Urban Environment. Hoboken, NJ: J. Wiley.
Pizzo, B. (2015). Problematizing Resilience: Implications for Planning Theory and Practice,
Cities 43, 133-140.
968

Plodinec, J.M. (2009). Definitions of Resilience-An Analysis. Community and Regional
Resilience Institute. Retrieved October 1, 2012, from http://www.resilientus.org/about-
us/definition-of-community-resilience.html.
Rose, A. (2009). Economic Resilience to Disasters (CARRI Research Report 8). Oak Ridge:
Community and Regional Resilience Institute.
Thomson Reuters Web of Science Database, <https://science.thomsonreuters.com/>, date
retrieved 03.04. 2018.
Walker, B.H., Anderies, J.M., Kinzig, A.P., Ryan, P. (2006). Exploring Resilience in Social-
Ecological Systems through Comparative Studies and Theory Development: Introduction to
the Special Issue, Ecology and Society 11, 12.
World Commission on Environment and Development (1987). Brundtland Report, Our
common future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Yaman-Galantini, Z.D. and Tezer, A. (2016). Urban Planning for Urban Resilience as
Component of Istanbul’s Resilient Urban Development. In Proceedings of 41st IAHS World
Congress, Algarve, Portugal, 13-16 September.
Yaman-Galantini, Z.D. (2018a). Urban Resilience as A Policy Paradigm for Sustainable
Urban Planning and Urban Development: The Case of Istanbul. (PhD Thesis), Istanbul
Technical University, Turkey.
Yaman-Galantini, Z.D., Tezer, A. (2018b). Review: In The Complex Epoch is Sustainability
“Out” Resilience “In”?, ITU AZ Journal 15 (3), 41-59. doi: 10.5505/itujfa.2018.77598.
Yaman-Galantini, Z.D., Tezer, A. (2018c). Resilient Urban Planning Process in Question:
Istanbul Case, International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 9(1), 48-
57. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJDRBE-10-2016-00.
969