Access to this full-text is provided by MDPI.
Content available from Sustainability
This content is subject to copyright.
Citation: Zeng, X.; Yu, Y.; Yang, S.; Lv,
Y.; Sarker, M.N.I. Urban Resilience for
Urban Sustainability: Concepts,
Dimensions, and Perspectives.
Sustainability 2022,14, 2481. https://
doi.org/10.3390/su14052481
Academic Editor: Agnieszka Bieda
Received: 6 January 2022
Accepted: 18 February 2022
Published: 22 February 2022
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
sustainability
Review
Urban Resilience for Urban Sustainability: Concepts,
Dimensions, and Perspectives
Xun Zeng 1, Yuanchun Yu 1,*, San Yang 2, Yang Lv 3and Md Nazirul Islam Sarker 4, *
1School of Management, Sichuan University of Science and Engineering, Zigong 643000, China;
zengxun@suse.edu.cn
2School of Public Affairs and Administration, University of Electronic Science and Technology of
China (UESTC), Chengdu 611731, China; kangjian@uestc.edu.cn
3College of Teachers, Chengdu University, Chengdu 610106, China; lvyang@cdu.edu.cn
4School of Political Science and Public Administration, Neijiang Normal University, Neijiang 641112, China
*Correspondence: yuanchun1981@suse.edu.cn (Y.Y.); sarker.scu@yahoo.com (M.N.I.S.)
Abstract:
Urbanization is a continuous process for a city’s economic development. Though rapid
urbanization provides a huge employment opportunity for people, urban threats also increase propor-
tionately due to natural and man-made hazards. Understanding urban resilience and sustainability
is an urgent matter to face hazards in the rapidly urbanized world. Therefore, this study aims
to clarify the concept and develop key indications of urban resilience and sustainability from the
existing literature. A systematic literature review guided by PRISMA has been conducted using
literature from 1 January 2001 to 30 November 2021. It argues that sustainability and resilience are
interrelated paradigms that emphasize a system’s capacity to move toward desirable development
paths. Resilience and sustainability are fundamentally concerned with preserving societal health and
well-being within the context of a broader framework of environmental change. There are significant
differences in their emphasis and time scales, particularly in the context of urbanization. This study
has identified key indicators of urban resilience under three major components like adaptive capacity
(education, health, food, and water), absorptive capacity (community support, urban green space,
protective infrastructure, access to transport), and transformative capacity (communication technol-
ogy, collaboration of multi-stakeholders, emergency services of government, community-oriented
urban planning). This study also identified several indicators under major dimensions (social, eco-
nomic, and environmental) of urban sustainability. The findings will be fruitful in understanding the
dynamics of urban vulnerability and resilience and its measurement and management strategy from
developed indicators.
Keywords:
vulnerability; urban planning; sustainability; urban management; disaster management;
resilience
1. Introduction
In the last few years, the rapid rate of urbanization has resulted in a massive rise in
urban populations, infrastructure, and urban settings [
1
]. An urban area comprises citizen,
settlements, and a built-environment [
1
]. More than 70% of the global population will
live in cities by 2050, requiring trillions of dollars to update and improve infrastructure
within a short period [
1
]. As a result of these changes, people become more vulnerable to
climate variability and the costs of environmental damage. Climate change, which includes
an increase in global temperature and the magnitude of extreme weather events, affects
human populations and stresses the built environment [
2
]. Most recent climatic models
predict that climate change will produce a diverse global impact, with the effects being
more extreme in urban areas [
3
]. This is attributed to the increasing density of human
beings, construction materials, and land-use patterns in the urban environment [
4
]. It is
critical to understand how urban forms alter the climate locally and how climatic variability
Sustainability 2022,14, 2481. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14052481 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Sustainability 2022,14, 2481 2 of 27
can significantly affect urban environments as the world’s population shifts from villages
to cities [
5
]. Short-term regular or monthly changes in temperature, precipitation, and wind
within a given geographical area are important factors for understanding the vulnerability
level in urban areas [6].
Rapid urbanization, urban regeneration, immigration, and economic cycles are only a
few of the diverse factors that urban areas face [
7
]. Natural hazards add more complexity
to the urban system. This is especially critical in cities in emerging economies experienc-
ing rapid urbanization characterized by poor planning, weak institutional systems, and
insufficient essential urban public services [
8
]. Due to a lack of capability, political will, or
funding to combat climate change, preventive action is considered significant or feasible if
it leads to changes in the quality of urban life. Failure to ensure basic services creates social
and economic urban vulnerability, while natural hazards increase urban vulnerability and
reduce urban resilience [9].
Resilience and sustainability are considered effective strategies to face any hazards and
help the urban planning process [10]. Since sustainable development goals (SDG) viewed
sustainability and resilience are inherently connected, scholar’s understanding of these
concepts is necessary to use in related fields [
11
]. Scholars have different opinions on the
interrelationship, meanings, dimensions and perspectives of sustainability and resilience.
For example, Redmen [
12
] mentioned that sustainability and resilience are complementary
approaches, used interchangeably occasionally, and shared several principles. Zhang
and Li [
4
] reported that urban resilience and sustainability focus on a city’s vulnerability
and tenacity, and meanings overlap, though overlapping weakens them. There are many
variances in how resilience and sustainability are defined and used in the burgeoning
literature. Miller [
13
] examined other approaches to sustainability. According to Brand
and Jax [
14
], ambiguous and unclear interpretations impede scientific advancement since
they are challenging concepts to apply. Wubneh [
15
] argued that both notions had acquired
acceptance in urban planning as tools for assessing urban systems’ resilience and adaptation.
Therefore, it is necessary to understand both concepts properly for their effective use.
Sustainability has been widely applied to urban development from its origins in
economics and ecological philosophy. Urban sustainability focuses on the persistence of
a desirable outcome of urban environments over time [
16
]. It is frequently defined by
aspects like intergenerational justice, intragenerational equity, natural resource protection,
economic viability and diversity, societal self-sufficiency, social well-being, and fulfillment
of fundamental human needs [
17
]. Sustainable development should be fair, livable, and
economically feasible. The fact that sustainability possesses a weak conceptual frame-
work [
18
], with unbalanced growth in the numerous facets of sustainability, most notably
environmental issues, is considered a shortcoming. Many authors claim that sustainability
changes depending on the researchers’ research focus [
19
]. Turcu [
20
] argues that there is
no globally acknowledged notion of sustainability. Sustainable development refers to long-
term progress that meets human desires and improves their quality of life. Simultaneously,
natural resources ought to be used in a frequency and degree that is compatible with the
ecosystem’s regenerative potential.
Sustainability is a broadly defined phrase [
17
,
19
]. The bottom line is ideally included
in the wider notion; however, in practice, the concepts become more focused to encom-
pass mostly environmental sustainability. Concerning “interpretation and application,”
sustainability is the most “difficult and controversial” problem, and when the phrase
“sustainable” is combined with “development,” the focus shifts to economical progress
rather than total sustainability [
21
]. When nations prioritize economic expansion as the
primary sustainable development goal, the earth’s regenerative and carrying capacity is
inevitably depleted. Because of the social effect on the idea of sustainability, its assessment
becomes less objective, restricted to a specific scope, and subject to potential conflict of
interest and management by stakeholders. Moldan et al. [
22
] argued that the essential
pillar of sustainable development is social sustainability, but its definition is unclear. They
wonder if it comprises rising or declining inequality between persons, communities, or
Sustainability 2022,14, 2481 3 of 27
nations, better health, or failure of state institutions. The triple bottom line, defined by
Mori and Christodoulou [
23
] as a precise concept of biophysical, economic, and social
components and intergenerational equity, are major concepts of sustainability. Sustainable
development is a broader orientation for assessing and restructuring policies to improve
urban management, not a precise description.
Resilience represents a system’s ability to ‘bounce back’ or return to a previous stable
condition after stressors caused by any hazard [
24
]. Resilience is also characterized as
the urban community’s ability to recover from the risks of hazards. Resilience is a city’s
or community’s capacity to adjust, adapt, and, most importantly, changes in response
to various internal and external hazards [
25
]. The urban community should have the
capability of resilience thinking to help resolve environmental risks in the light of global
environmental change. Many plans, programs, and initiatives have been undertaken in
many cities to integrate sustainability into urban planning activities [
26
]. The resilience
plan is advanced in urban management in many developed and developing nations.
The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) specifically mention that cities should be
‘inclusive, clean, resilient, and sustainable (SDG 11)’. Urban management is a critical
element of global efforts to address disaster risk and adverse effects of climate change.
New urban policies should focus on the concept of resilience [
27
]. Considering its
importance, resilience has evolved into a discursive space to reflect the city and specific
visions for its future.
Understanding the idea of urban resilience necessitates familiarity with the evolution
of resilience theory [
28
]. Even though the term has been used in psychology, medicine, and
engineering for a long time, it is widely credited to ecologist C.S. Holling in the literature
regarding global environmental change. The capacity of an ecosystem to retain basic
functional features to address disturbance is described by Holling [
29
]. The conception of
socio-ecological system (SES) theory, led by a group of interdisciplinary ecologists, was the
basis of the ecological framework of resilience and perception of ecosystems as dynamic,
complex, and adaptive [
28
]. By conceptualizing nature–society as an interconnected,
coevolving structure, SES theory essentially applied Holling’s ecological principles to the
‘social’. Resilience is also described as a combination of a system’s ability to withstand
perturbation without losing important functions or altering states, the system’s potential to
self-organize, and the ability for adaptation [30].
For empirical and theory-driven urban management studies, urban sustainability
and resilience are emerging topics. In this context, scholars should investigate the use
of traditional and novel regulatory tools, concepts, dimensions, contexts, and systems to
govern urban sustainability and resilience. Surprisingly, however, regulatory experts have
paid little attention to cities and the built environment in general [31].
The use of resilience and sustainability are growing rapidly in policy discourse due to
their popularity. Weichselgartner and Kelman [
32
] argue that “While the academic debate
on describing resilience continues, governments around the world have developed plans
and programs that aim to guide cities, communities, and authorities towards achieving it.”
There is a wide range of possible interpretations of the phrases “urban sustainability” and
“urban resilience” in terms of the possible pursuit of various environmental, economic,
social, demo-graphic, and institutional goals [
33
]. It is also possible to accomplish these
goals in other ways. In this way, the definitions of urban sustainability and resilience
specify the kinds of activities that people may take and the degree to which they can
either promote change or maintain the status quo [34]. Therefore, this study contributes
to the debate by analyzing how both concepts are operationalized over time and context.
This study breaks the perplexing status quo by clarifying their meanings, dimensions,
and relationships.
It is now frequently observed that scholars tend to use ‘resilience’ and ‘sustainability’
terms in many irrelevant fields. This unrelated use creates a long-term misunderstanding
of its genuine meaning and leads to misunderstanding. We think that the main reason for
these misuses is a lack of proper understanding of these popularly used terms (resilience
Sustainability 2022,14, 2481 4 of 27
and sustainability). Existing literature shows that the urban management field is also not
free from this challenge. An in-depth understanding of two research questions is necessary
for using these concepts, like (a) does any relationship exist between urban resilience and
sustainability, and (b) how can urban resilience promote urban sustainability? Therefore,
this study intends to clarify the meaning of ‘urban resilience and sustainability and the
relationship between these concepts. The findings will help understand the dynamics of
urban resilience and sustainability and its measurement and management strategy from
developed indicators.
There are six sections in this study. Following the introduction in Section 1,
Section 2
presents a detailed methodology including research design, research protocol, search strategy,
inclusion and exclusion criteria. Section 3deals with the obtained results. Section 4presents
the discussion focusing on concepts, dimensions, and urban sustainability and resilience
perspectives. Section 5discusses the conclusion, limitation, and future research direction.
2. Materials and Methods
The study has used preferred reporting items for the systematic review and meta-
analysis (PRISMA) approach by developing a research protocol. PRISMA is a recognized
evidence-based approach for systematic review and meta-analysis [
35
]. It comprises four
major steps: identification, screening, eligibility, and inclusion. It also consists of 27 items
checklist. The main benefits of using PRISMA are its structure and formatting, replicability,
evaluation of strengths and weaknesses, and demonstration quality of document selection.
All essential steps like research design, reasons for database selection, publication criteria,
time duration, search strategy, search fields, inclusion and exclusion criteria have been
presented chronologically.
2.1. Research Design
This study applied a mixed-method comprising systematic literature review to select
the most relevant documents and a narrative review approach for explaining the key
findings of the selected documents. This comprehensive analysis and synthesis entail the
examination of a large and diverse body of literature on the subject and the integration
and fusion of numerous academic, scientific, and technological domains. This review
and synthesis are systematic because it was organized, defined, and conducted following
PRISMA [35].
2.2. Interdisciplinary Approach for Data Extraction
Sustainable urban management is fundamentally interdisciplinary due to its techno-
logical and social sciences integration nature [
36
]. This applies to any interdisciplinary
review because it incorporates insights and approaches from multiple disciplines into a
single concept [
37
]. In this case, the chosen fields are urban management, planning, geog-
raphy, sustainability, and environmental and computer science. Multidisciplinary efforts
continue to have a limited effect on theory development for adapting to the changing
conditions [
38
]. Research on urban resilience and sustainability necessitates multi-
disciplinary, interdisciplinary, and transdisciplinary perspectives and techniques [
39
].
All, however, require conceptual accuracy to ensure the validity and usability of the
study findings.
2.3. Development of a Research Protocol
A research protocol was developed to guide the study scientifically (Table 1). A sys-
tematic review of the existing literature was conducted over the last 21 years. This study
emphasizes the comparatively recent studies for arguments regarding the potential applica-
tion of urban resilience (UR) concepts and practices for ensuring urban sustainability (US).
Sustainability 2022,14, 2481 5 of 27
Table 1. Details of the research protocol.
Items Description
Selected databases Web of Science and Scopus
Publication criteria Only peer-reviewed journals
Language Articles published in English
Time duration From 1 January 2001 to 30 November 2021
Search terms
Urban resilience, city, sustainability, sustainable development
Search fields Title, abstract, and keywords
Inclusion criteria The study must focus on urban resilience and sustainability
Exclusion criteria
Unavailability of full text, duplication, and publication in a
non-English language. Additionally, papers that do not focus
on urban resilience and sustainability are omitted.
2.4. Search Strategy
Generally, literature reviews help develop a new field of research and education. They
usually offer a chance to analyze, synthesize, and focus on previous studies to find new
knowledge that can help develop a new paradigm of education and research. An extensive
systematic review was conducted under the guidance of PRISMA [
40
]. Keeping these
philosophies in mind, this study searched several widely used databases like the Web of
Science and Scopus using a few keywords like urban resilience, urban management, and
sustainability. The Web of Science and Scopus databases are well-accepted databases due to
the quality selection of the articles and journals. Though there are many databases, all are
not equally accepted, like Web of Science and Scopus databases. Not all related articles of
other databases are included in these databases because of their qualitative selections. But
all quality articles are indexed either in the Web of Science and Scopus databases. Therefore,
this study selected these databases as a source. This study was conducted in November
2021. The following strategies strings were followed (Table 2).
Table 2. Search string and research databases.
Databases Search String Time of Retrieval
Web of science TS = (city* or urban resilien*) AND (urban sustain*) 1 December 2021
Scopus
((TITLE-ABS-KEY ((“urban resilience”)) AND
TITLE-ABS-KEY ((“sustainability”)) AND
TITLE-ABS-KEY ((“Concept”)))) AND ((urban AND
management)) AND (LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE, “ar”))
AND (LIMIT-TO (LANGUAGE, “English”))
1 December 2021
2.5. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
The predefined inclusion criteria were applied to select the most relevant documents,
like (a) is the article highlighted on urban resilience and urban sustainability? and (b) is
it focused on any relationship between urban resilience and sustainability? This study
excludes articles published in a language other than English, no full text, or not exactly
focusing on the desired issues.
3. Results
3.1. Document Selection
The PRISMA approach has four key steps such as identification, screening, eligibil-
ity, and included. The study followed these key steps. The most relevant documents
were identified using PRISMA guidelines [
40
] (Appendix A). At the identification stage,
1569 documents were obtained from 2 core databases and 7 documents from the reference
sources. A careful screening technique was followed at the second level, which helped
Sustainability 2022,14, 2481 6 of 27
remove 1252 unnecessary documents. Many records were excluded due to the unavailabil-
ity of the full text or for being out of the field. In the eligibility step, 73 documents were
removed because of the unavailability of intended information. Finally, the most relevant
49 papers were identified for a thorough review [
4
,
7
,
10
–
12
,
15
,
33
,
34
,
41
–
81
]. The documents
were selected from journal articles for relevancy (Figure 1).
Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 27
3. Results
3.1. Document Selection
The PRISMA approach has four key steps such as identification, screening, eligibility,
and included. The study followed these key steps. The most relevant documents were
identified using PRISMA guidelines [40] (Appendix A). At the identification stage, 1569
documents were obtained from 2 core databases and 7 documents from the reference
sources. A careful screening technique was followed at the second level, which helped
remove 1252 unnecessary documents. Many records were excluded due to the unavaila-
bility of the full text or for being out of the field. In the eligibility step, 73 documents were
removed because of the unavailability of intended information. Finally, the most relevant
49 papers were identified for a thorough review [4,7,10–12,15,33,34,41–81]. The docu-
ments were selected from journal articles for relevancy (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Document selection by PRISMA approach.
3.2. Word Clouds of Urban Resilience and Sustainability
The VOS viewer was used to create the word clouds [82]. When two papers share
one or more references, bibliographic coupling occurs: the greater the overlap in refer-
ences between two things, the more likely they are to belong to the same cluster. The VOS
viewer creates a co-occurrence matrix, which shows a two-dimensional map of all the
grouped elements based on their similarity measures. The stronger the links between the
things reported in the matrix, the closer they are. This produces a cluster analysis, with
groups understood as logical topics. An interpretive technique was used to organize clus-
ters. Using these interpretations, a keyword analysis based on author keywords was used
to investigate the most important issues covered in the scientific literature at the time. The
purpose of generating a word cloud is to develop a concise picture of urban resilience and
sustainability concepts and linkages among different related concepts. The phrases used
most frequently in urban resilience and sustainability are depicted in Figure 2. The ex-
tracted articles’ data demonstrate a minimum of five times co-occurrence of a term.
Figure 1. Document selection by PRISMA approach.
3.2. Word Clouds of Urban Resilience and Sustainability
The VOS viewer was used to create the word clouds [
82
]. When two papers share one
or more references, bibliographic coupling occurs: the greater the overlap in references
between two things, the more likely they are to belong to the same cluster. The VOS viewer
creates a co-occurrence matrix, which shows a two-dimensional map of all the grouped
elements based on their similarity measures. The stronger the links between the things
reported in the matrix, the closer they are. This produces a cluster analysis, with groups
understood as logical topics. An interpretive technique was used to organize clusters.
Using these interpretations, a keyword analysis based on author keywords was used to
investigate the most important issues covered in the scientific literature at the time. The
purpose of generating a word cloud is to develop a concise picture of urban resilience
and sustainability concepts and linkages among different related concepts. The phrases
used most frequently in urban resilience and sustainability are depicted in Figure 2. The
extracted articles’ data demonstrate a minimum of five times co-occurrence of a term.
3.3. Analytical Results
Resilience and sustainability are multi-faceted notions that are applied to a variety
of cases. The value-laden and contentious nature of the idea, which can be construed
in various ways, is a major barrier that might derail the use of these concepts to guide
planning activities. Resilience and sustainability are increasingly being recognized as a
bridge concept that can promote inter- and transdisciplinary methods to dealing with the
difficulties inherent in decision making under risk and uncertainty. As a result, it is vital to
address the multiple components of resilience to improve human populations’ capacity
for adaptation. It is essential to understand dimensions to completely comprehend the
Sustainability 2022,14, 2481 7 of 27
interconnectedness and synergy of the many aspects of a problem [
4
]. Additionally, dimen-
sions aim to align with the conventional understanding of resilience and sustainability [
74
].
Therefore, the study has identified the concepts, dimensions, and relationships between
urban resilience and sustainability.
Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 27
Figure 2. Word clouds of urban resilience and sustainability.
3.3. Analytical Results
Resilience and sustainability are multi-faceted notions that are applied to a variety of
cases. The value-laden and contentious nature of the idea, which can be construed in var-
ious ways, is a major barrier that might derail the use of these concepts to guide planning
activities. Resilience and sustainability are increasingly being recognized as a bridge con-
cept that can promote inter- and transdisciplinary methods to dealing with the difficulties
inherent in decision making under risk and uncertainty. As a result, it is vital to address
the multiple components of resilience to improve human populations’ capacity for adap-
tation. It is essential to understand dimensions to completely comprehend the intercon-
nectedness and synergy of the many aspects of a problem [4]. Additionally, dimensions
aim to align with the conventional understanding of resilience and sustainability [74].
Therefore, the study has identified the concepts, dimensions, and relationships between
urban resilience and sustainability.
3.3.1. Summary of the Concepts
Summary of Urban Resilience Concept
The study has extracted the opinion of scholars on urban resilience concepts. The
sources and key opinions have been summarized and presented in Table 3.
Figure 2. Word clouds of urban resilience and sustainability.
3.3.1. Summary of the Concepts
Summary of Urban Resilience Concept
The study has extracted the opinion of scholars on urban resilience concepts. The
sources and key opinions have been summarized and presented in Table 3.
Table 3. Concepts of urban resilience.
Sources Time Summary of Concepts
Godschalk [83] 2003 Resilience is a linkage of physical systems and human
societies that is self-sustaining.
Pickett et al. [84] 2004 Resilience is a system’s capacity to adapt to
changing situations.
Campanella [85] 2006 Resilience is a city’s capacity to recover from disaster.
Sustainability 2022,14, 2481 8 of 27
Table 3. Cont.
Sources Time Summary of Concepts
IPCC [86] 2007
Resilience refers to a social or ecological system’s potential
to absorb perturbations while keeping its essential
structure and modes of operation and its capacity for
self-organization and adaptation to stress and change.
Alberti et al. [87] 2008
The degree to which cities accept change before
reorganizing around a new set of structures and processes
is resilience.
Lamond and
Proverbs [88]2009 “encompasses the idea that towns and cities should be
able to recover quickly from major and minor disasters”.
Wardekker et al. [89] 2010
“a system that can tolerate disturbances (events and
trends) through characteristics or measures that limit their
impacts, by reducing or counteracting the damage and
disruption, and allow the system to respond, recover, and
adapt quickly to such disturbances”.
Ernstson et al. [90] 2010
“To sustain a certain dynamic regime, urban governance
also needs to build transformative capacity to face
uncertainty and change”.
Leichenko [91] 2011 “the ability to withstand a wide array of shocks
and stresses”.
Romero-Lankao and
Gnatz [92]2011
“a capacity of urban populations and systems to endure a
wide array of hazards and stresses”.
Tyler and Moench
[93]2012
“encourages practitioners to consider innovation and
change to aid recovery from stresses and shocks that may
or may not be predictable”.
Liao [94] 2012
“the capacity of the city to tolerate flooding and to
reorganize should physical damage and socio-economic
disruption occur, so as to prevent deaths and injuries and
maintain current socio-economic identity”.
Henstra [95] 2012
“A climate-resilient city can withstand climate change
stresses, to respond effectively to climate-related hazards,
and to recover quickly from residual negative impacts”.
Wamsler et al. [96] 2013
“A disaster-resilient city can be understood as a city that
has managed to: (a) reduce or avoid current and future
hazards; (b) reduce current and future susceptibility to
hazards; (c) establish functioning mechanisms and
structures for disaster response; (d) establish functioning
mechanisms and structures for disaster recovery”.
Coaffee [97] 2013 “the capacity to withstand and rebound from
disruptive challenges”.
Desouza and Flanery
[98]2013 “ability to absorb, adapt and respond to changes in
urban systems”.
Lu and Stead [99] 2013 “the ability of a city to absorb disturbance while
maintaining its functions and structures”.
Thornbush et al.
[100]2013 “a general quality of the city’s social, economic, and
natural systems to be sufficiently future-proof”.
Wagner and Breil
[101]2013
“the general capacity and ability of a community to
withstand stress, survive, adapt and bounce back from a
crisis or disaster and rapidly move on”.
Sustainability 2022,14, 2481 9 of 27
Table 3. Cont.
Sources Time Summary of Concepts
Wilson [102] 2013
Community resilience is both an outcome, especially
when it comes to communities’ better adaptive capacity,
and a process or pathway linked to dynamic changes
through time associated with community learning and
communities’ determination to take charge of their own
development paths.
ADB [103] 2014
The ability of a city to function so that its citizens and
workers, particularly the poor and vulnerable, may
survive and develop regardless of the stressors or shocks
they confront is referred to as urban resilience.
Bahadur and
Thornton [104]2015
For urban resilience, decentralized decision-making,
systematic learning, interacting concurrently with
numerous shocks and pressures, proper urban planning,
and recognition of the political underpinnings of risk and
vulnerability are all required.
HN-Habitat [105] 2017 ‘Resilience is viewed as a process, a state, and a quality.’
Zhang and Li [4] 2018
Urban resilience refers to an urban actor’s ability to cope
with or respond to hazard stress. Resistance refers to an
individual’s or a group’s ability to withstand the effects of
a threat in terms of their economic, psychological, and
physical well-being, as well as their maintenance systems.
Meerow and Newell
[34]2019
Urban resilience as a border entity and the capacity of
individuals, families, organizations, industries, and
structures within a city’s ability to thrive, adapt, and
evolve regardless of the types of chronic stresses and
acute shocks they face.
McGill [25] 2020
The ability of an urban area to withstand disruption and
restore its conditions after a disturbance is known as
urban resilience.
Bruzzone et al. [50] 2021
An urban resilient community is capable of managing
unforeseen events and coping with pressures and shocks
while preserving and developing its social, economic, and
infrastructures systems.
Wubneh [15] 2021
The ability of an urban system to adapt and fully operate
in order to maintain its shape, structure, and identity in
the face of adversity is referred to as urban resilience.
Summary of Urban Sustainability Concept
The opinion of scholars on urban sustainability concepts has been extracted. The
sources and critical views have been summarized and presented in Table 4.
3.3.2. Dimensions of Urban Resilience and Sustainability
Dimensions of Urban Resilience
This study identified several indicators under each dimension. The key indicators
under adaptive capacity are education, knowledge, skill, health, food, water, land, ac-
commodation, training, inclusive access to credit and markets, social networks, ICT and
technology, and legal and policy systems. Similarly, the key indicators under absorptive
capacity are early warning system, community support, urban green space, protective
infrastructure, access to transport, planning and framework development, united com-
mand development, determine ahead for each task, govern credit and resource distribution,
human resource usage, utilization of equipment, and strengthen coverage of disaster
management (Table 5).
Sustainability 2022,14, 2481 10 of 27
The key indicators under the transformative capacity are communication technology, a
collaboration of multi-stakeholder, emergency services of government, community-oriented
urban planning, monitoring expenses, human resources, and equipment quality monitoring,
quality assurance, ensuring coordination, safety promotion, shared facilities of natural
resources, community cooperatives/ club, inclusive governance for sharing benefits, equal
access to community resources, and citizen engagement in the policy process.
Table 4. Concepts of urban sustainability.
Sources Summary of Concepts
Eastaway and Støa [106]
The perception of sustainability as applied to a city in the
metropolitan area’s capacity and its region to continue to work at
standards of quality of people’s life desired by the population
without reducing current and future generations’ options or having
adverse impacts both inside and outside the urban boundary.
Schwegler [107]
The word “sustainable city” has many definitions, and it includes or
is connected with several other, often contradictory, conceptual
designations. They attempt to balance economic progress, life quality,
and environmental sustainability.
Verma and Raghubanshi
[108]
Urban sustainability is a cross-cutting topic that affects the climate,
culture, and economy.
Wu [109]
Urban sustainability is a vital adaptive mechanism that promotes and
preserves a worthy cycle between ecological resources and people’s
well-being by coordinating ecological, economic, and social activities
for changes within and outside the urban landscape.
Russo and Cirella [110]
Ecosystem services are vital for urban sustainability, and they have a
direct influence city quality of life.
Table 5. Major indicators of urban resilience.
Major
Dimensions Major Indicators Researchers and Time
Adaptive
capacity
Food
Water
Land
Education, Knowledge, Skill
Health
Accommodation
Training
Inclusive access to credit and market
Social networks
Access to ICT and technology
Moench [111]
Chelleri et al. [53]
Cobbinah [112]
Meerow and Stults [28]
Leitner et al. [113]
Davoudi et al. [114]
Malone [115]
Panampitiya [116]
McGill [16]
Davoudi et al. [114]
Absorptive
capacity
Access to transport
Planning and framework development
United command development
Determine ahead for each task
Early warning system
Community support
Urban green space
Protective infrastructure
Govern credit and resource distribution
Human resource usage,
Strengthen coverage of disaster management
Utilization of equipment,
Access to legal and policy system
Ernstson et al. [90]
Ribeiro and Gonçalves [117]
Molavi [118]
Ribeiro and Gonçalves [117]
Brown et al. [119]
Molavi [118]
Meerow and Newell [34]
Reischl et al. [120]
Nagenborg [121]
Moench [111]
Chelleri et al. [53]
Cobbinah [112]
Sarker et al. [8]
Sustainability 2022,14, 2481 11 of 27
Table 5. Cont.
Major
Dimensions Major Indicators Researchers and Time
Transformative
capacity
Coordination of works of multi-stakeholder
Communication technology
Collaboration of multi-stakeholder
Emergency services of government
Community-oriented urban planning
Monitoring expenses
Human resources and equipment Quality
Quality assurance
Safety promotion
Shared facilities of natural resources
Inclusive governance for sharing benefits
Equal access to community resources
Citizen engagement in policy process
Community cooperatives/club
Ribeiro and Gonçalves [117]
Frantzeskaki et al. [122]
Kim & Lim [123]
Godschalk [83]
Chelleri and Baravikova [52]
Heinzlef and Serre [124]
Fang et al. [125]
Ciumasu [126]
Sharifi et al. [74]
Carter et al. [127]
Bahadur and Tanner [128]
Ribeiro and Gonçalves [117]
Dimensions of Urban Sustainability
The major dimensions of urban sustainability are environmental, economic, and social.
Each dimension focuses on several indicators that can represent the status of the specific
dimension (Table 6). Indicators are essential at all stages of achieving results-oriented
assessment. It helps to know the current status to provide a basis for measuring environ-
mental, economic, and social change. By informing policymakers and the general public
about the present condition of the environment, its strengths and weaknesses, and defin-
ing priority areas, indicators help achieve sustainability goals [
129
]. The indicators help
validate a framework while also offering insight into the examined phenomenon. Simple
indicators take individual phenomena like the number of poor people or the percentage of
land covered by trees and combine them into a composite index based on the constituent
indicators’ weighting [
130
]. It helps evaluate, review, and implement sustainable practices
and formulate public awareness policies [
109
]. Metrics can help policymakers make in-
formed decisions, and results must be reported without ambiguity [
131
]. Sustainability
indicators can serve as a benchmark for comparing current and baseline conditions [
132
].
They reflect policy measures, particularly for whom such measures can be implemented.
As a result, indicators with political support are more likely to succeed and be accepted.
Table 6. Major indicators of urban sustainability.
Major
Dimensions Major Indicators Researchers and Time
Environmental
dimension
Freshwater availability
Fresh air availability
Renewable energy
Green space
Waste management
Community forestry
Recycling of waste
Green product
Green transport
Ecological footprint
Mixed land use
Maurya et al. [133]
Magee et al. [134]
Bibri [135]
Kong et al. [136]
Zhang et al. [137]
Allen et al. [138]
Haapio [139]
Reisi et al. [140]
Wu [109]
Bibri [36]
Zhang and Li [4]
Sustainability 2022,14, 2481 12 of 27
Table 6. Cont.
Major
Dimensions Major Indicators Researchers and Time
Economic
dimension
Strategy for green development
Zoning
Tax policy
Green business
Urban growth
Labor and welfare
Green banking
Production and resourcing
Job opportunity
Russo and Cirella [110]
Allen et al. [138]
Verma and Raghubanshi [108]
Bibri [36]
Liang et al. [141]
Pan et al. [142]
Kong et al. [136]
Haapio [139]
Anejionu et al. [143]
Social
dimension
Social equity
Community garden
Accommodation
Social inclusion
Safety net program
Citizen participation
Homeless caring program
Food and nutrition system
Social insurance
Bibri [36]; Ilieva and McPhearson [144]
Schwegler [107]
Kong et al. [136]
Zhang and He [145]
Ahvenniemi et al. [132]
Allen et al. [138]
Andronie et al. [146]
Huang and Wang [147]; Pan et al. [142]
3.3.3. Relationship between Urban Resilience and Sustainability
The relationship between resilience and sustainability is sometimes misunderstood
conceptually [
12
] (Table 7). In some contexts, the terms sustainability and resilience can
be applied interchangeably. Resilience is also considered a major element of wider sus-
tainability goals. It also has been praised as a new and better paradigm. According to
leading resilience scholars, system resilience is critical for attaining sustainability in “a
world of transitions” [
148
]. Thus, as a vivid concept, resilience has no conflict with sustain-
ability. Despite their disparate theoretical foundation, there are essential distinctions when
understood as a paradigm for environmental transformation and management.
Resilience places a premium on system-based modeling and analyzes SESs as the
fundamental unit of evaluation. This can obscure systemic disparities, overlook the di-
versity of social players engaged, and provide little focus on social dynamics. There is a
considerable emphasis on balancing economic, environmental, and social justice goals in
the sustainability literature. Such themes receive little attention in resilience studies [
149
].
In some cases, such as sustainability and resilience, these concepts are interchangeable. In
other instances, these are inversely associated, with resilience viewed as the polar opposite
of vulnerability or perhaps one of its determinants [150].
Table 7. Summary of the scholar’s opinion about nexus between UR and US.
Summary of the Opinion Time Sources
Obtaining resilient sustainability will need considerable
technological advancements. Addressing the sustainability and
resilience concerns, perhaps, will demand a transdisciplinary and
integrative approach to sustainability.
2011 Ahern [44]
Numerous cities have begun to apply the concepts of urban
resilience and sustainability to specific places. However, urban
resilience and sustainability are not location-specific but rather refer
to whole systems—open systems comprised of a diverse variety of
resources, assets, and knowledge fluxes. The connections may be
rather intricate, and the feedback systems can be indirect.
2014 Elmqvist [151]
Urban sustainability is a slightly more developed idea, and its
conceptualizations generally include at least three distinct types of
urban dynamics.
2016 Trundle et al.
[152]
Sustainability 2022,14, 2481 13 of 27
Table 7. Cont.
Summary of the Opinion Time Sources
Resilience and sustainability have emerged as critical concepts for
comprehending contemporary urban dynamics and addressing
the issues associated with developing habitable urban futures.
2016 Romero-Lankao
et al. [153]
With current demographics, urbanization, and changing climate
concerns, incorporating sustainability and resilience concepts into
urban planning becomes critical for decision-makers globally.
2016 Grafakos et al.
[154]
Urban sustainability and resilience is an enticing topic of
regulatory and governance research, both empirical and
theoretical. There are a number of factors that contribute to the
complexity of urban sustainability and resilience management,
including a wide range of actors and concerns, settings, and the
rapid development in urban networks.
2017 van der Heijden
[31]
The concepts of urban resilience and sustainability vary not just
in terms of the theoretical foundations but also in terms of their
empirical investigations. Real urban development may be
obtained only when it is resilient and sustainable.
2018 Zhang and Li [4]
Resilience is emerging as a paradigm of managing
urban sustainability. 2021 Bruzzone et al.
[50]
While resilience is appealing academically, it is often ignored in
contemporary urban planning and architecture. A system can
respond to change or disruption without altering its fundamental
state. It is contingent upon one’s capacity to adjust to
unprecedented and unexpected changes.
2021 Huq et al. [155]
4. Discussion
4.1. Urban Resilience
4.1.1. Concepts of Urban Resilience
The resilience definition has been used in various scientific ways, transforming it from
a descriptive word to a normative method or “way of thinking”. The normative approach
mainly deals with the value judgment of the concept for its rational use. This way of
thinking about how a complex system can persist when facing complexity, disruption, and
change has become standard. Resilience may be positive or negative, but in academic and
policy circles, “resilience thinking,” and the notion of “resilient cities” have developed as
normative, desirable objectives. These various interpretations of the word have resulted in
many meanings and misunderstandings about what resilience is and how it applies to other
important concepts. Holling [
156
] differentiated between static “engineering” resilience,
which relates to the ability of a system to rebound back to its former state, and dynamic
“ecological” resilience, which indicates preserving key roles when disturbed, by describing
ecosystems as taking several stable states as an example.
4.1.2. Key Dimensions of Urban Resilience
Generally, there are three major components of urban resilience: adaptive, absorptive,
and transformative. The holistic view of urban resilience has been presented in Figure 3.
Adaptive Capacity
Adaptive capacity is the ability to make small, deliberate changes in advance of or in
response to a change in order to increase potential flexibility [
8
]. It is important because
change is constant and unpredictable, and deliberate transformation requires time and
commitment. Making necessary changes to better accommodate or respond to a changing
environment is what adaptation is all about. Accepting that change is highly uncertain
is an essential feature of adaptive capability. That is why adaptive capacity is all about
Sustainability 2022,14, 2481 14 of 27
adaptability and the ability to make minor improvements over time through a process of
constantly adapting, learning, and innovation and the degree to which a system can alter
while maintaining its purpose and structure. People’s absorption ability must be increased
by using local networks, access to knowledge, and good farming practices. Adaptive
ability is typically demonstrated or deployed in food systems to sustain livelihoods, food
production, or food access [
9
]. It is crucial to differentiate between adaptation ability
and mitigation in light of climate change. Adaptive capacity is used to adjust to changes
in growing or living environments and shocks caused by climate change. Mitigation
entails deliberately mitigating the impact of climate change rather than adapting to its
consequences, such as lowering pollution, reducing meat intake among meat-consuming
populations, or geoengineering the atmosphere to lower CO2concentrations.
Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 27
4.1.2. Key Dimensions of Urban Resilience
Generally, there are three major components of urban resilience: adaptive, absorp-
tive, and transformative. The holistic view of urban resilience has been presented in Figure
3.
Figure 3. Key elements and nature of urban resilience.
Adaptive Capacity
Adaptive capacity is the ability to make small, deliberate changes in advance of or in
response to a change in order to increase potential flexibility [8]. It is important because
change is constant and unpredictable, and deliberate transformation requires time and
commitment. Making necessary changes to better accommodate or respond to a changing
environment is what adaptation is all about. Accepting that change is highly uncertain is
an essential feature of adaptive capability. That is why adaptive capacity is all about
adaptability and the ability to make minor improvements over time through a process of
constantly adapting, learning, and innovation and the degree to which a system can alter
while maintaining its purpose and structure. People’s absorption ability must be in-
creased by using local networks, access to knowledge, and good farming practices. Adap-
tive ability is typically demonstrated or deployed in food systems to sustain livelihoods,
food production, or food access [9]. It is crucial to differentiate between adaptation ability
and mitigation in light of climate change. Adaptive capacity is used to adjust to changes
in growing or living environments and shocks caused by climate change. Mitigation en-
tails deliberately mitigating the impact of climate change rather than adapting to its con-
sequences, such as lowering pollution, reducing meat intake among meat-consuming
populations, or geoengineering the atmosphere to lower CO2 concentrations.
Figure 3. Key elements and nature of urban resilience.
The second important property is adaptive capability, which refers to the ability of
agri-food systems to respond to extreme conditions. Within agri-food systems, for example,
human systems can be able to migrate to alternative land use. People will be able to adapt
to change in these situations because they can adjust their land and other resources.
Absorptive Capacity
Absorptive capacity means the ability of a system to take deliberate preventive mea-
sures and cope with established shocks and stress [
8
]. It is required because shocks and
tension will continue to occur, such as extreme weather actions brought about by climate
change, prolonged war, and natural disasters. This refers to the ability to recover from a
shock. Anticipating, preparing, coping, and recovering from real, established shocks and
short-term stresses are all part of the process. Absorptive capacity focuses on avoiding or
Sustainability 2022,14, 2481 15 of 27
mitigating the harmful effects of shocks on individuals, families, societies, industries, and
governments [
15
]. Absorptive capacity also focuses on combining experiences and skills
and incremental changes to external drivers. Through learning, funding, and diversifying
development, it is necessary to make necessary adjustments to better handle or adapt to
adverse conditions.
Transformative Capacity
Transformative capacity is the ability to implement changes to stop or reduce the
causes of risk and vulnerability and ensure an equitable risk-sharing condition [
8
]. People
living in poverty or experiencing deprivation are not unfairly burdened. Transformation
can also address the root causes of risk and poverty, such as development failures or power
imbalances. Transformation addresses the structural or root causes of risk and vulnerability
rather than the immediate or proximate causes. It is also likely that a transition at one
level would create momentum at a higher level. Increased gender justice in the home,
for example, will create support for progress in the larger society. This is also known as
passing a level or being at a turning point. External disasters, such as an earthquake or
other catastrophes, are the most common causes of tipping points. Slow change can also
lead to a leaning point when a region becomes too drought-prone for current agricultural
practices [
15
]. These upheavals in the status quo allow reorganizing and potentially
transforming inequitable and ineffective practices and systems. When the initial state is no
longer bearable, a new structure is created by drastically changing its features and behavior.
Transformational responses are guided by self-organization, risk management, and efficient
institutions [97].
4.1.3. Characteristics of Urban Resilience
Urban resilience usually has seven key characteristics to protect against the vulnerabil-
ity of natural hazards: reflective, redundant, robust, inclusive, integrated, resourceful, and
flexible of an urban system (Figure 3).
Reflective: People and organizations learn from their mistakes through an adaptive
preparation mentality that recognizes unpredictability. Rather than finding enduring
solutions based on an appraisal of current shocks and stresses, they have processes in place
to continually change standards based on new data.
Robust: Robust city structures are designed and maintained to withstand the effects of
severe weather and prevent the city from collapsing due to the failure of a single component.
A stable device anticipates system failures and builds safeguards to ensure predictability
and protection [8].
Redundant: When one system element fails, other components or ways may meet
critical functional requirements. For example, having several access points to various
utility services of a city. Overdependence on a “fail-safe” device may reveal a fundamental
deficiency of resilience.
Flexible: In response to changing circumstances, a city with flexible structures can
adapt, develop, and implement alternative strategies. The decentralization of traditional
infrastructure with emerging technology is favored in these systems.
Resourceful: People and organizations should invest in their ability to predict future
urban developments, set goals, and organize and organize resources. A city’s resource
capitals can prepare it to adapt quickly to severe incidents, adjusting organizations and
procedures when necessary [15].
Inclusive: Communities, especially those marginalized, are consulted and engaged as
part of an inclusive approach. A city’s resilience cannot be built in isolation from the rest of
the world. Collective ownership and a shared vision from different groups in the city are
needed for resilience [8].
Integrated: City processes, decision-making, and investments can all work together to
achieve a common goal. Proof of processes that operate across various service scales can
Sustainability 2022,14, 2481 16 of 27
be found in resilient system integration. Integration necessitates a continuous feedback
mechanism for data collection and response [128].
4.2. Urban Sustainability
4.2.1. Concepts of Urban Sustainability
Many scholars still largely overlook the concepts of urban sustainability and sustain-
able development. Before assessing urban sustainability, some scholars argue that there
needs to be more consensus about what it entails. Sustainable development is impossible
in an unhealthy urban environment. Consequently, environmental sustainability must also
be extended to urban settings [
134
]. City planners, stakeholders, and players involved
in the entire urban planning process should apply priorities, policies, mechanisms, and
metrics for achieving urban sustainability. At the same time, proposals and targets for
sustainable growth should be accomplished through policy, decision-making, and poli-
tics. Given the conditions, a substantial distinction should be made between sustainable
growth and urban sustainability [
109
]. Urban sustainability cannot be achieved by avoid-
ing extreme social inequality, natural resources, sustainable growth, human health, and
prosperity [
134
]. Consequently, while sustainable growth is a global and slightly abstract
aim, urban sustainability denotes events on a more specific and local scale.
4.2.2. Urban Sustainability Dimensions
Environmental Sustainability
Environmental sustainability is a basic concept of sustainability. It means that fulfilling
needs might not come at the cost of the environment’s efficiency and that the ecological
system should be protected for future generations [
147
]. Incorporating environmental
sustainability practices into urban management practices can reduce urban areas’ vulner-
ability and enhance urban citizens’ resilience [
107
]. The constant rise in emissions and
depletion of resources has raised environmental conservation to a new level of urgency,
demanding peoples’, companies’, and governments’ undivided attention. As a result, citi-
zen and stakeholder pressures are rising to implement environmentally friendly practices.
Thus, sustainable practices can be positioned to deliver more value to people and enhance
resilience. Environmentally sustainable activities must be addressed when urban actors
implement digital transformation strategies to evolve urban development models and
create compelling impacts [
144
]. Environmental planning and sustainability policy are
essential aspects of controlling ecological resources, provisioning natural ecosystems, and
ecological services.
Social Sustainability
Since most sustainability studies emphasize environmental or economic aspects, so-
cial sustainability is often overlooked. All three components of sustainability must be
addressed to produce the most long-term results. Social sustainability is achieved when
internal and external procedures, initiatives, constructions, and alliances actively foster
present and future generations’ capacity to create healthy and sustainable communities [
36
].
Economically sustainable societies are equal, diverse, linked, and democratic, with a high
quality of life. It is a process for ensuring effective good places that promote well-being by
realizing what people need from their lives and work. Social sustainability encompasses
both physical and social domain indicators.
Economic Sustainability
The notion of resource planning is used to define and explain the present worth of
resources as well as their potential future value in the economy. To explain the value, criteria
like added value, assets and responsibilities, savings, patents, and intangible assets may
be used. The term “economic sustainability” refers to a subset of the term “sustainability.”
It refers to how we utilize, safeguard, and maintain resources in urban management to
produce long-term value through optimum use, regeneration, and recycling. [
143
]. To put it
Sustainability 2022,14, 2481 17 of 27
another way, we must protect scarce natural resources now for future generations to fulfill
their own needs.
4.3. Urban Resilience for Promoting Urban Sustainability
Sustainability is considered a societal goal, but resilience is regarded as a characteristic
of the urban system. The two concepts operate together as a formidable duo [
153
]. A city’s
ability to adapt and recover when confronted with adversity improves when it engages
in sustainable growth initiatives. The ability to maintain human and environmental well-
being while also guaranteeing that the well-being and capacity of locations throughout the
world to be adaptive and sustainable are not harmed is achieved through this process [
154
].
Urban planning must change and be flexible to support sustainable growth, increase
resilience, and advance remedies for current urban challenges. Many cities have already
begun to apply the concepts of urban resilience and sustainability to specific areas. However,
URS (urban resilience and sustainability) are not limited to a single site but rather apply
across entire systems, including a diverse spectrum of resources, wastes, assets, and
knowledge movements. The connections can be complicated, and the feedback systems
can be indirect. Unintended implications of a restrictive definition and local application of
sustainability can include ‘locking in’ suboptimal urban growth trajectories and degradation
of sustainability elsewhere. On the other hand, new models are emerging that add value
to nature’s services in urban contexts. When combined with growing global cooperation
among cities, they may support constructing the chains of sustainable resources.
However, while resilience and sustainability are fundamentally concerned with pre-
serving societal health and well-being within the context of a broader framework of en-
vironmental change, there are significant differences in their emphasis and time scale,
particularly in the context of urbanization. The term “sustainability” refers to the desire
for long-term mutual benefit between culture and the environment [
157
]. Sustainabil-
ity has always been an unsolidified notion that acknowledges the limitations of present
knowledge and the danger involved in basing all decisions solely on the most robust
empirical data. Nonetheless, it is now widely recognized that the organization and op-
eration of a sustainable system require embedded strategies and nested tactics that can
react quickly and effectively within accelerated time-scales, allowing for the recovery from
dramatic system shocks while maintaining basic system integrity or, more preferably, while
maintaining capacities for adaptation to changing conditions that are both engaged and
undiminished [158].
5. Conclusions
Urbanization and natural hazards are two of the most pressing issues today. These
phenomena are inextricably related and evidence of interactions with other processes.
Climate change directly impacts the lives of millions of people worldwide, not only in
developing countries. As a result, the effects of climate change, including floods, droughts,
and hurricanes, are not evenly felt or distributed, and human social contact with climate-
related hazards necessitates further implicit consideration. This study is an initiative to
clarify the concepts UR and US for genuine use. This study argues that sustainability and
resilience are interconnected paradigms that highlight a system’s capacity to achieve sus-
tainable urban development. Resilience and sustainability are concerned with conserving
societal health and well-being within the context of environmental change. In the rapid
urbanization context, both concepts provide different meanings in their emphasis and
time scales.
Sustainability remains an effective normative idea that promotes mutually benefi-
cial relationships for society and the environment. It imposes on us the responsibility to
prevent behaviors that we anticipate or believe will weaken that relationship. It is not
about establishing an unattended balance but rather about tender care and awareness of
our actions. Resilience has evolved as an important component of sustainability in recent
years. It is concerned with recovery from individual environmental, societal, or economic
Sustainability 2022,14, 2481 18 of 27
shocks and adaptation to several occurrences or chronic challenges such as climate change.
While society’s persistence is the most fundamental necessity for resilience, the capacity
to adapt and transform aspires to a higher degree of response. This increased resilience is
the surest path to the long-term mutual advantages of sustainability. This study has also
identified key indicators under three major components for addressing urban vulnerability:
adaptive capacity (education, health, food, and water), absorptive capacity (community
support, urban green space, protective infrastructure, and access to transportation), and
transformative capacity (communication technology, multi-stakeholder collaboration, and
government emergency services). In some contexts, the terms sustainability and resilience
can be applied interchangeably. Resilience is also considered a major element of wider
sustainability goals. It also has been praised as a new and better paradigm. This study
argues that system resilience is critical for attaining sustainability in a rapidly urbanized
condition. Understanding the relationship between UR and the US is deemed critical for
policymakers, as seen by the development of the UN’s 11th Sustainable Development Goal
(SDG), which aims to make cities more inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable. The find-
ings will aid in the comprehensive understanding of the dynamics of urban vulnerability,
resilience, and sustainability and the measurement and management approach and help
achieve a sustainable and resilient city.
Future research into the role of urban resilience in attaining urban sustainability is
critical. This study has several limitations due to its nature. Firstly, this study is based on the
secondary sources available in the existing literature. Secondly, the search strings retrieved
only the most relevant literature, rather than retrieving all due to a wider application of
urban resilience and sustainability concepts. Thirdly, this study covered a period from 1
January 2001 to 30 November 2021, rather than from the initiation of the concepts. Finally,
this study emphasized only the most relevant theoretical explanation of the scholars
rather than covering all to contribute to the current debate. Future studies may address
this limitation by incorporating primary data for each urban resilience and sustainability
indicator. As this research demonstrated, one of the primary goals of urban resilience is to
improve system’s adaptive, absorptive, and transformative capacity. Yet, there is no clear
definition of what this entails or cost to society and the environment. Thus, future efforts
to define urban resilience should investigate the causal relationship between improved
citizens’ capacity and the use of contemporary technology. This may provide ample space
to use urban resilience practices for ensuring urban sustainability.
Author Contributions:
Conceptualization, X.Z. and Y.Y.; methodology, X.Z., Y.Y. and M.N.I.S.;
validation, X.Z., Y.Y., Y.L. and M.N.I.S.; data curation, X.Z., Y.Y., S.Y., Y.L. and M.N.I.S.; writing—
original draft preparation, X.Z. and Y.Y.; writing—review and editing, X.Z., Y.Y., S.Y., Y.L. and M.N.I.S.
All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Appendix A. PRISMA 2020 Checklist
Section
and Topic
Item
#Checklist Item
Location
Where Item
Is Reported
TITLE Page 1
Title 1 Identify the report as a systematic review.
ABSTRACT
Sustainability 2022,14, 2481 19 of 27
Section
and Topic
Item
#Checklist Item
Location
Where Item
Is Reported
Abstract 2 See the PRISMA 2020 for Abstracts checklist. Page 1
INTRODUCTION
Rationale 3 Describe the rationale for the review in the context of
existing knowledge. Page 3
Objectives 4 Provide an explicit statement of the objective(s) or
question(s) the review addresses. Page 3
METHODS
Eligibility
criteria 5Specify the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the review
and how studies were grouped for the syntheses. Page 4
Information
sources 6
Specify all databases, registers, websites, organisations,
reference lists and other sources searched or consulted to
identify studies. Specify the date when each source was
last searched or consulted.
Page 4
Search
strategy 7
Present the full search strategies for all databases, registers
and websites, including any filters and limits used. Page 5
Selection
process 8
Specify the methods used to decide whether a study met
the inclusion criteria of the review, including how many
reviewers screened each record and each report retrieved,
whether they worked independently, and if applicable,
details of automation tools used in the process.
Page 5
Data
collection
process
9
Specify the methods used to collect data from reports,
including how many reviewers collected data from each
report, whether they worked independently, any processes
for obtaining or confirming data from study investigators,
and if applicable, details of automation tools used in
the process.
Page 5
Data items
10a
List and define all outcomes for which data were sought.
Specify whether all results that were compatible with each
outcome domain in each study were sought (e.g., for all
measures, time points, analyses), and if not, the methods
used to decide which results to collect.
Page 5
10b
List and define all other variables for which data were
sought (e.g., participant and intervention characteristics,
funding sources). Describe any assumptions made about
any missing or unclear information.
Page 5
Study risk
of bias as-
sessment
11
Specify the methods used to assess risk of bias in the
included studies, including details of the tool(s) used, how
many reviewers assessed each study and whether they
worked independently, and if applicable, details of
automation tools used in the process.
Page 5
Effect
measures 12
Specify for each outcome the effect measure(s) (e.g., risk
ratio, mean difference) used in the synthesis or
presentation of results.
Page 5
Sustainability 2022,14, 2481 20 of 27
Section
and Topic
Item
#Checklist Item
Location
Where Item
Is Reported
Synthesis
methods
13a
Describe the processes used to decide which studies were
eligible for each synthesis (e.g., tabulating the study
intervention characteristics and comparing against the
planned groups for each synthesis (item #5)).
Page 5
13b
Describe any methods required to prepare the data for
presentation or synthesis, such as handling of missing
summary statistics, or data conversions.
Page 5
13c Describe any methods used to tabulate or visually display
results of individual studies and syntheses. Page 5
13d
Describe any methods used to synthesize results and
provide a rationale for the choice(s). If meta-analysis was
performed, describe the model(s), method(s) to identify the
presence and extent of statistical heterogeneity, and
software package(s) used.
N/A
13e
Describe any methods used to explore possible causes of
heterogeneity among study results (e.g., subgroup analysis,
meta-regression).
N/A
13f Describe any sensitivity analyses conducted to assess
robustness of the synthesized results. N/A
Reporting
bias assess-
ment
14
Describe any methods used to assess risk of bias due to
missing results in a synthesis (arising from reporting
biases).
Page 5
Certainty
assess-
ment
15 Describe any methods used to assess certainty (or
confidence) in the body of evidence for an outcome. Page 5
RESULTS
Study
selection
16a
Describe the results of the search and selection process,
from the number of records identified in the search to the
number of studies included in the review, ideally using a
flow diagram.
Page 6
16b
Cite studies that might appear to meet the inclusion
criteria, but which were excluded, and explain why they
were excluded.
Page 6
Study
character-
istics
17 Cite each included study and present its characteristics. Page 6
Risk of
bias in
studies
18
Present assessments of risk of bias for each included study.
Page 6
Results of
individual
studies
19
For all outcomes, present, for each study: (a) summary
statistics for each group (where appropriate) and (b) an
effect estimate and its precision (e.g., confidence/credible
interval), ideally using structured tables or plots.
Page 7
Sustainability 2022,14, 2481 21 of 27
Section
and Topic
Item
#Checklist Item
Location
Where Item
Is Reported
Results of
syntheses
20a For each synthesis, briefly summarise the characteristics
and risk of bias among contributing studies. Page 7
20b
Present results of all statistical syntheses conducted. If
meta-analysis was done, present for each the summary
estimate and its precision (e.g., confidence/credible
interval) and measures of statistical heterogeneity. If
comparing groups, describe the direction of the effect.
Page 7
20c Present results of all investigations of possible causes of
heterogeneity among study results. Page 8
20d Present results of all sensitivity analyses conducted to
assess the robustness of the synthesized results. N/A
Reporting
biases 21 Present assessments of risk of bias due to missing results
(arising from reporting biases) for each synthesis assessed.
Page 9
Certainty
of
evidence
22 Present assessments of certainty (or confidence) in the
body of evidence for each outcome assessed. Page 9
DISCUSSION
Discussion
23a Provide a general interpretation of the results in the
context of other evidence. Page 10–18
23b Discuss any limitations of the evidence included in
the review. Page 19
23c Discuss any limitations of the review processes used. Page 19
23d Discuss implications of the results for practice, policy, and
future research. Page 19
OTHER INFORMATION
Registration
and
protocol
24a
Provide registration information for the review, including
register name and registration number, or state that the
review was not registered. N/A
24b Indicate where the review protocol can be accessed, or
state that a protocol was not prepared. Page 5
24c Describe and explain any amendments to information
provided at registration or in the protocol. N/A
Support 25
Describe sources of financial or non-financial support for
the review, and the role of the funders or sponsors in the
review.
N/A
Competing
interests 26 Declare any competing interests of review authors. Page 19
Availability
of data,
code and
other
materials
27
Report which of the following are publicly available and
where they can be found: template data collection forms;
data extracted from included studies; data used for all
analyses; analytic code; any other materials used in the
review.
Page 5
From [
159
]. For more information, visit: http://www.prisma-statement.org/ accessed on 1 November 2021.
Sustainability 2022,14, 2481 22 of 27
References
1.
Sarker, M.N.I.; Khatun, M.N.; Alam, G.M.; Islam, M.S. Big Data Driven Smart City: Way to Smart City Governance. In
Proceedings of the 2020 International Conference on Computing and Information Technology (ICCIT-1441), Tabuk, Saudi Arabia,
9–10 September 2020; pp. 1–8.
2. Kumar, A.; Diksha; Pandey, A.C.; Khan, M.L. Urban Risk and Resilience to Climate Change and Natural Hazards. In Techniques
for Disaster Risk Management and Mitigation; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2020; pp. 33–46.
3.
Müller, A.; Reiter, J.; Weiland, U. Assessment of urban vulnerability towards floods using an indicator-based approach-a case
study for Santiago de Chile. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 2011,11, 2107–2123. [CrossRef]
4.
Zhang, X.; Li, H. Urban resilience and urban sustainability: What we know and what do not know? Cities
2018
,72, 141–148.
[CrossRef]
5.
Cariolet, J.M.; Vuillet, M.; Diab, Y. Mapping urban resilience to disasters—A review. Sustain. Cities Soc.
2019
,51, 101746.
[CrossRef]
6. Sharifi, A. Urban form resilience: A meso-scale analysis. Cities 2019,93, 238–252. [CrossRef]
7.
LopezDeAsiain, M.; Díaz-García, V. The Importance of the Participatory Dimension in Urban Resilience Improvement Processes.
Sustainability 2020,12, 7305. [CrossRef]
8.
Sarker, M.N.I.; Wu, M.; Alam, G.M.M.G.M.; Shouse, R.C. Administrative Resilience in the Face of Natural Disasters: Empirical
Evidence from Bangladesh. Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 2020,29, 1825–1837. [CrossRef]
9.
Sarker, M.N.I.; Wen, J.; Yang, B.; Yusufzada, S.; Huda, N.; Mahbub, F. Assessment of environmental governance in disaster
vulnerability context of rural bangladesh. Growth Chang. 2021,52, 1155–1171. [CrossRef]
10.
Pirlone, F.; Spadaro, I.; Candia, S. More Resilient Cities to Face Higher Risks. The Case of Genoa. Sustainability
2020
,12, 4825.
[CrossRef]
11.
Fitzgibbons, J.; Mitchell, C. Just urban futures? Exploring equity in “100 Resilient Cities”. World Dev.
2019
,122, 648–659.
[CrossRef]
12. Redman, C.L. Should sustainability and resilience be combined or remain distinct pursuits? Ecol. Soc. 2014,19, 37. [CrossRef]
13.
Miller, T.R. Constructing sustainability science: Emerging perspectives and research trajectories. Sustain. Sci.
2013
,8, 279–293.
[CrossRef]
14. Brand, F.S.; Jax, K. Resilience as a Descriptive Concept and a Boundary Object. Ecol. Soc. 2007,12, art23. [CrossRef]
15.
Wubneh, M. Urban resilience and sustainability of the city of Gondar (Ethiopia) in the face of adverse historical changes. Plan.
Perspect. 2021,36, 363–391. [CrossRef]
16.
Adinyira, E.; Oteng-Seifah, S.; Adjei-Kumi, T. A Review of Urban Sustainability Assessment Methodologies Emmanuel. In
Proceedings of the International Conference on Whole Life Urban Sustainability and Its Asses, Glasgow, UK, 27–29 June 2007;
pp. 1–8.
17. Toli, A.M.; Murtagh, N. The Concept of Sustainability in Smart City Definitions. Front. Built Environ. 2020,6, 77. [CrossRef]
18.
Pissourios, I.A. An interdisciplinary study on indicators: A comparative review of quality-of-life, macroeconomic, environmental,
welfare and sustainability indicators. Ecol. Indic. 2013,34, 420–427. [CrossRef]
19.
Tanguay, G.A.; Rajaonson, J.; Lefebvre, J.F.; Lanoie, P. Measuring the sustainability of cities: An analysis of the use of local
indicators. Ecol. Indic. 2010,10, 407–418. [CrossRef]
20.
Turcu, C. Re-thinking sustainability indicators: Local perspectives of urban sustainability. J. Environ. Plan. Manag.
2013
,56,
695–719. [CrossRef]
21. Lee, Y.J.; Huang, C.M. Sustainability index for Taipei. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2007,27, 505–521. [CrossRef]
22.
Moldan, B.; Janoušková, S.; Hák, T. How to understand and measure environmental sustainability: Indicators and targets. Ecol.
Indic. 2012,17, 4–13. [CrossRef]
23.
Mori, K.; Christodoulou, A. Review of sustainability indices and indicators: Towards a new City Sustainability Index (CSI).
Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2012,32, 94–106. [CrossRef]
24.
Sarker, M.N.I.; Peng, Y.; Yiran, C.; Shouse, R.C. Disaster resilience through big data: Way to environmental sustainability. Int. J.
Disaster Risk Reduct. 2020,51, 101769. [CrossRef]
25. McGill, R. Urban resilience—An urban management perspective. J. Urban Manag. 2020,9, 372–381. [CrossRef]
26.
Monstadt, J.; Schmidt, M. Urban resilience in the making? The governance of critical infrastructures in German cities. Urban Stud.
2019,56, 2353–2371. [CrossRef]
27.
da Silva, C.A.; dos Santos, E.A.; Maier, S.M.; da Rosa, F.S. Urban resilience and sustainable development policies. Rev. Gestão
2019,27, 61–78. [CrossRef]
28.
Meerow, S.; Stults, M. Comparing conceptualizations of urban climate resilience in theory and practice. Sustainability
2016
,8, 701.
[CrossRef]
29. Holling, C.S. Resilience and Stability of Ecological Systems. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 1973,4, 1–23. [CrossRef]
30. Meerow, S.; Newell, J.P.; Stults, M. Defining urban resilience: A review. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2016,147, 38–49. [CrossRef]
31.
van der Heijden, J. Urban sustainability and resilience. In Regulatory Theory; ANU Press: Canberra, Australia, 2017; pp. 725–740.
Sustainability 2022,14, 2481 23 of 27
32.
Weichselgartner, J.; Kelman, I. Geographies of resilience: Challenges and opportunities of a descriptive concept. Prog. Hum. Geogr.
2015,39, 249–267. [CrossRef]
33.
Fabbricatti, K.; Boissenin, L.; Citoni, M. Heritage Community Resilience: Towards new approaches for urban resilience and
sustainability. City Territ. Archit. 2020,7, 17. [CrossRef]
34. Meerow, S.; Newell, J.P. Urban resilience for whom, what, when, where, and why? Urban Geogr. 2019,40, 309–329. [CrossRef]
35.
Bibri, S.E. Data-driven smart sustainable cities of the future: An evidence synthesis approach to a comprehensive state-of-the-art
literature review. Sustain. Future 2021,3, 100047. [CrossRef]
36.
Bibri, S.E. Advances in the Leading Paradigms of Urbanism and Their Amalgamation: Compact Cities, Eco–Cities, and Data–Driven Smart
Cities; Springer Nature: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2020; ISBN 9783030417451.
37.
Feroz, A.K.; Zo, H.; Chiravuri, A. Digital Transformation and Environmental Sustainability: A Review and Research Agenda.
Sustainability 2021,13, 1530. [CrossRef]
38.
Billger, M.; Thuvander, L.; Wästberg, B.S. In search of visualization challenges: The development and implementation of
visualization tools for supporting dialogue in urban planning processes. Environ. Plan. B Urban Anal. City Sci.
2017
,44, 1012–1035.
[CrossRef]
39.
Bibri, S.E. Compact urbanism and the synergic potential of its integration with data-driven smart urbanism : An extensive
interdisciplinary literature review. Land Use Policy 2020,97, 104703. [CrossRef]
40.
Moher, D.; Liberati, A.; Tetzlaff, J.; Altman, D.G. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The
PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med. 2009,6, e1000097. [CrossRef]
41.
Ate¸s, M.; Erinsel Önder, D. A local smart city approach in the context of smart environment and urban resilience. Int. J. Disaster
Resil. Built Environ. 2021, 19–20. [CrossRef]
42.
Acuti, D.; Bellucci, M.; Manetti, G. Company disclosures concerning the resilience of cities from the Sustainable Development
Goals (SDGs) perspective. Cities 2020,99, 102608. [CrossRef]
43. Cloete, C.E. Assessing urban resilience. WIT Trans. Inf. Commun. Technol. 2012,44, 341–351. [CrossRef]
44.
Ahern, J. From fail-safe to safe-to-fail: Sustainability and resilience in the new urban world. Landsc. Urban Plan.
2011
,100, 341–343.
[CrossRef]
45.
Angheloiu, C.; Tennant, M. Urban futures: Systemic or system changing interventions? A literature review using Meadows’
leverage points as analytical framework. Cities 2020,104, 102808. [CrossRef]
46.
Benito del Pozo, P.; López-González, A. Urban Resilience and the Alternative Economy: A Methodological Approach Applied To
Northern Spain*. Geogr. Rev. 2020,110, 322–340. [CrossRef]
47.
Bixler, R.P.; Lieberknecht, K.; Atshan, S.; Zutz, C.P.; Richter, S.M.; Belaire, J.A. Reframing urban governance for resilience
implementation: The role of network closure and other insights from a network approach. Cities 2020,103, 102726. [CrossRef]
48.
Borie, M.; Pelling, M.; Ziervogel, G.; Hyams, K. Mapping narratives of urban resilience in the global south. Glob. Environ. Chang.
2019,54, 203–213. [CrossRef]
49.
Bristow, D.N.; Mohareb, E.A. From the urban metabolism to the urban immune system. J. Ind. Ecol.
2020
,24, 300–312. [CrossRef]
50.
Bruzzone, M.; Dameri, R.P.; Demartini, P. Resilience reporting for sustainable development in cities. Sustainability
2021
,13, 7824.
[CrossRef]
51.
Chelleri, L. From the «Resilient city» to urban resilience. a review essay on understanding and integrating the resilience
perspective for urban systems. Doc. D’analisi Geogr. 2012,58, 287–306. [CrossRef]
52. Chelleri, L.; Baravikova, A. Understandings of urban resilience meanings and principles across Europe. Cities 2021,108, 102985.
[CrossRef]
53.
Chelleri, L.; Waters, J.J.; Olazabal, M.; Minucci, G. Resilience trade-offs: Addressing multiple scales and temporal aspects of urban
resilience. Environ. Urban. 2015,27, 181–198. [CrossRef]
54.
Collier, M.J.; Nedovi´c-Budi´c, Z.; Aerts, J.; Connop, S.; Foley, D.; Foley, K.; Newport, D.; McQuaid, S.; Slaev, A.; Verburg, P.
Transitioning to resilience and sustainability in urban communities. Cities 2013,32, S21–S28. [CrossRef]
55.
Cui, J.; Lin, D. Utilisation of underground pedestrian systems for urban sustainability. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol.
2016
,55,
194–204. [CrossRef]
56.
Cutini, V.; Pezzica, C. Street network resilience put to test: The dramatic crash of Genoa and Bologna bridges. Sustainability
2020
,
12, 4706. [CrossRef]
57.
Davidson, K.; Nguyen, T.M.P.; Beilin, R.; Briggs, J. The emerging addition of resilience as a component of sustainability in urban
policy. Cities 2019,92, 1–9. [CrossRef]
58.
Delgado-Ramos, G.C.; Guibrunet, L. Assessing the ecological dimension of urban resilience and sustainability. Int. J. Urban
Sustain. Dev. 2017,9, 151–169. [CrossRef]
59.
Han, S.; Sim, J.; Kwon, Y. Recognition Changes of the Concept of Urban Resilience: Moderating Effects of COVID-19 Pandemic.
Land 2021,10, 1099. [CrossRef]
60.
Ho, H.C.; Lin, S.W.; Lee, H.Y.; Huang, C.C. Evaluation of a multi-objective genetic algorithm for low impact development in an
Overcrowded City. Water 2019,11, 2010. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2022,14, 2481 24 of 27
61.
Karabakan, B.; Mert, Y. Measuring the Green Infrastructure Resilience in Turkey. Chin. J. Urban Environ. Stud.
2021
,9, 2021–2022.
[CrossRef]
62.
Lehmann, S. Growing biodiverse urban futures: Renaturalization and rewilding as strategies to strengthen urban resilience.
Sustainability 2021,13, 2932. [CrossRef]
63.
Liu, H.Y.; Jay, M.; Chen, X. The role of nature-based solutions for improving environmental quality, health and well-being.
Sustainability 2021,13, 10950. [CrossRef]
64.
Liu, S.C.; Peng, F.L.; Qiao, Y.K.; Zhang, J.B. Evaluating disaster prevention benefits of underground space from the perspective of
urban resilience. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2021,58, 102206. [CrossRef]
65.
Marin, J. Global resilience models and territories of the South. A critical review. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct.
2021
,66, 102541.
[CrossRef]
66.
McGrail, S.; Idil Gaziulusoy, A.; Twomey, P. Framing processes in the envisioning of low-carbon, resilient cities: Results from two
visioning exercises. Sustainability 2015,7, 8649–8683. [CrossRef]
67.
Meyer, N.; Auriacombe, C. Good urban governance and city resilience: An afrocentric approach to sustainable development.
Sustainability 2019,11, 5514. [CrossRef]
68.
Muñoz-Erickson, T.A.; Meerow, S.; Hobbins, R.; Cook, E.; Iwaniec, D.M.; Berbés-Blázquez, M.; Grimm, N.B.; Barnett, A.;
Cordero, J.
; Gim, C.; et al. Beyond bouncing back? Comparing and contesting urban resilience frames in US and Latin American
contexts. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2021,214, 104173. [CrossRef]
69.
Peyroux, E. Discourse of Urban Resilience and “Inclusive Development” in the Johannesburg Growth and Development Strategy
2040. Eur. J. Dev. Res. 2015,27, 560–573. [CrossRef]
70.
Schlör, H.; Venghaus, S.; Hake, J.F. The FEW-Nexus city index—Measuring urban resilience. Appl. Energy
2018
,210, 382–392.
[CrossRef]
71.
Shamout, S.; Boarin, P.; Wilkinson, S. The shift from sustainability to resilience as a driver for policy change: A policy analysis for
more resilient and sustainable cities in Jordan. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2021,25, 285–298. [CrossRef]
72. Sharifi, A. Resilient urban forms: A macro-scale analysis. Cities 2019,85, 1–14. [CrossRef]
73.
Sharifi, A.; Allam, Z. On the taxonomy of smart city indicators and their alignment with sustainability and resilience. Environ.
Plan. B Urban Anal. City Sci. 2021, 239980832110587. [CrossRef]
74.
Sharifi, A.; Chelleri, L.; Fox-Lent, C.; Grafakos, S.; Pathak, M.; Olazabal, M.; Moloney, S.; Yumagulova, L.; Yamagata, Y.
Conceptualizing dimensions and characteristics of urban resilience: Insights from a co-design process. Sustainability
2017
,9, 1032.
[CrossRef]
75.
Smith, G.; Nandwani, D.; Kankarla, V. Facilitating resilient rural-to-urban sustainable agriculture and rural communities. Int. J.
Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 2017,24, 485–501. [CrossRef]
76.
Spaans, M.; Waterhout, B. Building up resilience in cities worldwide—Rotterdam as participant in the 100 Resilient Cities
Programme. Cities 2017,61, 109–116. [CrossRef]
77. Stumpp, E.M. New in town? On resilience and “Resilient Cities”. Cities 2013,32, 164–166. [CrossRef]
78.
Suárez, M.; Gómez-Baggethun, E.; Benayas, J.; Tilbury, D. Towards an urban resilience index: A case study in 50 Spanish cities.
Sustainability 2016,8, 774. [CrossRef]
79.
Toubin, M.; Laganier, R.; Diab, Y.; Serre, D. Improving the Conditions for Urban Resilience through Collaborative Learning of
Parisian Urban Services. J. Urban Plan. Dev. 2015,141, 05014021. [CrossRef]
80.
Tzioutziou, A.; Xenidis, Y. A study on the integration of resilience and smart city concepts in urban systems. Infrastructures
2021
,
6, 24. [CrossRef]
81. Wardekker, A. Contrasting the framing of urban climate resilience. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2021,75, 103258. [CrossRef]
82.
van Eck, N.J.; Waltman, L. Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics
2010
,84,
523–538. [CrossRef]
83. Godschalk, D.R. Urban Hazard Mitigation: Creating Resilient Cities. Nat. Hazards Rev. 2003,4, 136–143. [CrossRef]
84.
Pickett, S.T.A.; Cadenasso, M.L.; Grove, J.M. Resilient cities: Meaning, models, and metaphor for integrating the ecological,
socio-economic, and planning realms. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2004,69, 369–384. [CrossRef]
85. Campanella, T.J. Urban resilience and the recovery of new orleans. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 2006,72, 141–146. [CrossRef]
86. IPCC. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability; Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2007.
87.
Alberti, M.; Marzluff, J.M.; Shulenberger, E.; Bradley, G.; Ryan, C.; Zumbrunnen, C. Integrating humans into ecology: Op-
portunities and challenges for studying urban ecosystems. Urban Ecol. Int. Perspect. Interact. Hum. Nat.
2008
,53, 143–158.
[CrossRef]
88.
Lamond, J.E.; Proverbs, D.G. Resilience to flooding: Lessons from international comparison. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Urban Des. Plan.
2009,162, 63–70. [CrossRef]
89.
Wardekker, J.A.; de Jong, A.; Knoop, J.M.; van der Sluijs, J.P. Operationalising a resilience approach to adapting an urban delta to
uncertain climate changes. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2010,77, 987–998. [CrossRef]
90.
Ernstson, H.; Van Der Leeuw, S.E.; Redman, C.L.; Meffert, D.J.; Davis, G.; Alfsen, C.; Elmqvist, T. Urban transitions: On urban
resilience and human-dominated ecosystems. Ambio 2010,39, 531–545. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Sustainability 2022,14, 2481 25 of 27
91. Leichenko, R. Climate change and urban resilience. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2011,3, 164–168. [CrossRef]
92.
Romero Lankao, P.; Qin, H. Conceptualizing urban vulnerability to global climate and environmental change. Curr. Opin. Environ.
Sustain. 2011,3, 142–149. [CrossRef]
93. Tyler, S.; Moench, M. A framework for urban climate resilience. Clim. Dev. 2012,4, 311–326. [CrossRef]
94. Liao, K.H. A theory on urban resilience to floods-A basis for alternative planning practices. Ecol. Soc. 2012,17, 48. [CrossRef]
95.
Henstra, D. Toward the climate-resilient city: Extreme weather and urban climate adaptation policies in two Canadian provinces.
J. Comp. Policy Anal. Res. Pract. 2012,14, 175–194. [CrossRef]
96.
Wamsler, C.; Brink, E.; Rivera, C. Planning for climate change in urban areas: From theory to practice. J. Clean. Prod.
2013
,50,
68–81. [CrossRef]
97.
Coaffee, J. Towards Next-Generation Urban Resilience in Planning Practice: From Securitization to Integrated Place Making. Plan.
Pract. Res. 2013,28, 323–339. [CrossRef]
98.
Desouza, K.C.; Flanery, T.H. Designing, planning, and managing resilient cities: A conceptual framework. Cities
2013
,35, 89–99.
[CrossRef]
99.
Lu, P.; Stead, D. Understanding the notion of resilience in spatial planning: A case study of Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Cities
2013,35, 200–212. [CrossRef]
100.
Thornbush, M.; Golubchikov, O.; Bouzarovski, S. Sustainable cities targeted by combined mitigation-adaptation efforts for
future-proofing. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2013,9, 1–9. [CrossRef]
101. Wagner, I.; Breil, P. The role of ecohydrology in creating more resilient cities. Ecohydrol. Hydrobiol. 2013,13, 113–134. [CrossRef]
102. Wilson, G.A. Community resilience, policy corridors and the policy challenge. Land Use Policy 2013,31, 298–310. [CrossRef]
103. ADB. Urban Climate Change Resilience: A Synopsis; Asian Development Bank Manila: Metro Manila, Philippines, 2014.
104.
Bahadur, A.V.; Thornton, H. Analysing urban resilience: A reality check for a fledgling canon. Int. J. Urban Sustain. Dev.
2015
,7,
196–212. [CrossRef]
105.
HN-Habitat. Trends in Urban Resilience 2017; United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat): Nairobi, Kenya, 2017;
ISBN 9789211327434.
106. Eastaway, M.P.; Støa, E. Dimensions of housing and urban sustainability. J. Hous. Built Environ. 2004,19, 1–5. [CrossRef]
107.
Schwegler, C. Understanding urban sustainability through newspaper discourse: A look at Germany. J. Environ. Stud. Sci.
2015
,5,
11–20. [CrossRef]
108.
Verma, P.; Raghubanshi, A.S. Urban sustainability indicators: Challenges and opportunities. Ecol. Indic.
2018
,93, 282–291.
[CrossRef]
109.
Wu, J. Urban ecology and sustainability: The state-of-the-science and future directions. Landsc. Urban Plan.
2014
,125, 209–221.
[CrossRef]
110.
Russo, A.; Cirella, G.T. Urban Sustainability: Integrating Ecology in City Design and Planning; Springer: Singapore, 2020;
ISBN 9789811530494.
111.
Moench, M. Experiences applying the climate resilience framework: Linking theory with practice. Dev. Pract.
2014
,24, 447–464.
[CrossRef]
112. Cobbinah, P.B. Urban resilience in climate change hotspot. Land Use Policy 2021,100, 104948. [CrossRef]
113. Leitner, H.; Sheppard, E.; Webber, S.; Colven, E. Globalizing urban resilience. Urban Geogr. 2018,39, 1276–1284. [CrossRef]
114.
Davoudi, S.; Brooks, E.; Mehmood, A. Evolutionary Resilience and Strategies for Climate Adaptation Evolutionary Resilience and
Strategies for Climate Adaptation. Plan. Pract. Res. 2013,28, 307–322. [CrossRef]
115.
Malone, E.L. Vulnerability and Resilience in the Face of Climate Change: Current Research and Needs for Population Information; Batelle:
Washington, DC, USA, 2009.
116. Panampitiya, G. A Review of the Concept of Urban Fragility and Urban Resilience; Vidyalankara Press: Kelaniya, Sri Lanka, 2021.
117.
Ribeiro, P.J.G.; Pena Jardim Gonçalves, L.A. Urban resilience: A conceptual framework. Sustain. Cities Soc.
2019
,50, 101625.
[CrossRef]
118. Molavi, M. Meauring Urban Resilence To Natural Hazards. TeMA J. Land Use Mobil. Environ. 2018,11, 195–212.
119.
Brown, A.; Dayal, A.; Rumbaitis Del Rio, C. From practice to theory: Emerging lessons from Asia for building urban climate
change resilience. Environ. Urban. 2012,24, 531–556. [CrossRef]
120.
Reischl, C.; Rauter, R.; Posch, A. Urban vulnerability and adaptation to heatwaves: A case study of Graz (Austria). Clim. Policy
2018,18, 63–75. [CrossRef]
121. Nagenborg, M. Urban resilience and distributive justice. Sustain. Resilient Infrastruct. 2019,4, 103–111. [CrossRef]
122.
Frantzeskaki, N.; McPhearson, T.; Collier, M.J.; Kendal, D.; Bulkeley, H.; Dumitru, A.; Walsh, C.; Noble, K.; Van Wyk, E.;
Ordóñez, C.; et al.
Nature-based solutions for urban climate change adaptation: Linking science, policy, and practice communities
for evidence-based decision-making. Bioscience 2019,69, 455–466. [CrossRef]
123. Kim, D.; Lim, U. Urban resilience in climate change adaptation: A conceptual framework. Sustainability 2016,8, 405. [CrossRef]
124.
Heinzlef, C.; Serre, D. Urban resilience: From a limited urban engineering vision to a more global comprehensive and long-term
implementation. Water Secur. 2020,11, 100075. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2022,14, 2481 26 of 27
125.
Fang, C.; Wang, Y.; Fang, J. A comprehensive assessment of urban vulnerability and its spatial differentiation in China. J. Geogr.
Sci. 2016,26, 153–170. [CrossRef]
126.
Ciumasu, I.M. A coordination lattice model for building urban resilience. In Proceedings of the International ISCRAM Conference,
Rochester, NY, USA, 20–23 May 2018; pp. 419–427.
127.
Carter, J.G.; Cavan, G.; Connelly, A.; Guy, S.; Handley, J.; Kazmierczak, A. Climate change and the city: Building capacity for
urban adaptation. Prog. Plan. 2015,95, 1–66. [CrossRef]
128.
Bahadur, A.; Tanner, T. Transformational resilience thinking: Putting people, power and politics at the heart of urban climate
resilience. Environ. Urban. 2014,26, 200–214. [CrossRef]
129.
Serrano-lópez, R.; Linares-unamunzaga, A.; Muñoz, C.; Emeterio, S. Urban sustainable mobility and planning policies. A Spanish
mid-sized city case. Cities 2019,95, 102356. [CrossRef]
130. Sta, H. Ben Quality and the efficiency of data in “Smart-Cities”. Future Gener. Comput. Syst. 2017,74, 409–416. [CrossRef]
131. Colding, J.; Barthel, S. An urban ecology critique on the “Smart City” model. J. Clean. Prod. 2017,164, 95–101. [CrossRef]
132.
Ahvenniemi, H.; Huovila, A.; Pinto-Seppä, I.; Airaksinen, M. What are the differences between sustainable and smart cities?
Cities 2017,60, 234–245. [CrossRef]
133.
Maurya, S.P.; Singh, P.K.; Ohri, A.; Singh, R. Identification of indicators for sustainable urban water development planning. Ecol.
Indic. 2020,108, 105691. [CrossRef]
134.
Magee, L.; Scerri, A.; James, P.; Thom, J.A.; Padgham, L.; Hickmott, S.; Deng, H.; Cahill, F.; Generating, C.; Profile, S.; et al. Urban
Sustainability in Theory and Practice Circles of Sustainability; Routledge: Abingdon-on-Thames, UK, 2013; ISBN 9781138025721.
135.
Bibri, S.E. The IoT for smart sustainable cities of the future: An analytical framework for sensor-based big data applications for
environmental sustainability. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2018,38, 230–253. [CrossRef]
136.
Kong, L.; Liu, Z.; Wu, J. A systematic review of big data-based urban sustainability research: State-of-the-science and future
directions. J. Clean. Prod. 2020,273, 123142. [CrossRef]
137.
Zhang, D.; Pan, S.L.; Yu, J.; Liu, W. Orchestrating big data analytics capability for sustainability: A study of air pollution
management in China. Inf. Manag. 2019, 103231. [CrossRef]
138.
Allen, B.; Tamindael, L.E.; Bickerton, S.H.; Cho, W. Does citizen coproduction lead to better urban services in smart cities projects?
An empirical study on e-participation in a mobile big data platform. Gov. Inf. Q. 2020,37, 101412. [CrossRef]
139. Haapio, A. Towards sustainable urban communities. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2012,32, 165–169. [CrossRef]
140.
Reisi, M.; Sabri, S.; Agunbiade, M.; Rajabifard, A.; Chen, Y.; Kalantari, M.; Keshtiarast, A.; Li, Y. Transport sustainability indicators
for an enhanced urban analytics data infrastructure. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2020,59, 102095. [CrossRef]
141.
Liang, J.; Xie, Y.; Sha, Z.; Zhou, A. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems Modeling urban growth sustainability in the
cloud by augmenting Google Earth Engine (GEE). Comput. Environ. Urban Syst. 2020,84, 101542. [CrossRef]
142. Pan, Y.; Tian, Y.; Liu, X.; Gu, D.; Hua, G. Urban Big Data and the Development of City Intelligence. Engineering 2016,2, 171–178.
[CrossRef]
143.
Anejionu, O.C.D.; Thakuriah, P.V.; McHugh, A.; Sun, Y.; McArthur, D.; Mason, P.; Walpole, R. Spatial urban data system: A
cloud-enabled big data infrastructure for social and economic urban analytics. Future Gener. Comput. Syst.
2019
,98, 456–473.
[CrossRef]
144. Ilieva, R.T.; McPhearson, T. Social-media data for urban sustainability. Nat. Sustain. 2018,1, 553–565. [CrossRef]
145.
Zhang, J.; He, S. Smart technologies and urban life: A behavioral and social perspective. Sustain. Cities Soc.
2020
,63, 102460.
[CrossRef]
146.
Andronie, M.; Lăzăroiu, G.; Iatagan, M.; Hurloiu, I.; Dijmărescu, I. Sustainable Cyber-Physical Production Systems in Big
Data-Driven Smart Urban Economy: A Systematic Literature Review. Sustainability 2021,13, 751. [CrossRef]
147. Huang, B.; Wang, J. Big spatial data for urban and environmental sustainability. Geo-Spat. Inf. Sci. 2020,23, 125–140. [CrossRef]
148. Folke, C.; Carpenter, S.; Elmqvist, T.; Gunderson, L.; Holling, C.S.; Walker, B. Resilience and sustainable development: Building
adaptive capacity in a world of transformations. Ambio 2002,31, 437–440. [CrossRef]
149.
Friend, R.; Moench, M. What is the purpose of urban climate resilience? Implications for addressing poverty and vulnerability.
Urban Clim. 2013,6, 98–113. [CrossRef]
150.
Gallopín, G.C. Linkages between vulnerability, resilience, and adaptive capacity. Glob. Environ. Chang.
2006
,16, 293–303.
[CrossRef]
151.
Elmqvist, T. Urban Resilience and Sustainability, Two Sides of the Same Coin? Stockholm Resilience Centre: Stockholm, Sweden, 2014.
152.
Trundle, A.; Horne, R.E.; Fien, J.; Judson, E.P. Urban resilience for sustainability. In Sustainability Citizenship in Cities: Theory and
Practice; Routledge: Abingdon-on-Thames, UK, 2016; pp. 1–242.
153.
Romero-Lankao, P.; Gnatz, D.M.; Wilhelmi, O.; Hayden, M. Urban sustainability and resilience: From theory to practice.
Sustainability 2016,8, 1224. [CrossRef]
154.
Grafakos, S.; Gianoli, A.; Tsatsou, A. Towards the development of an integrated sustainability and resilience benefits assessment
framework of urban green growth interventions. Sustainability 2016,8, 461. [CrossRef]
155.
Huq, M.E.; Sarker, M.N.I.; Prasad, R.; Kormoker, T.; Hossain, M.A.; Rahman, M.M.; Al Dughairi, A.A. Resilience for Disaster
Management: Opportunities and Challenges. In Climate Vulnerability and Resilience in the Global South; Springer International
Publishing: New York, NY, USA, 2021; pp. 425–442, ISBN 9783030772598.
Sustainability 2022,14, 2481 27 of 27
156.
Holling, C.S. Understanding the Complexity of Economic, Ecological, and Social Systems. Ecosystems
2001
,4, 390–405. [CrossRef]
157.
Krellenberg, K.; Bergsträßer, H.; Bykova, D.; Kress, N.; Tyndall, K. Urban sustainability strategies guided by the SDGs-A tale of
four cities. Sustainability 2019,11, 1116. [CrossRef]
158. Rus, K.; Kilar, V.; Koren, D. Resilience assessment of complex urban systems to natural disasters: A new literature review. Int. J.
Disaster Risk Reduct. 2018,31, 311–330. [CrossRef]
159.
Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.;
Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ
2021
,372, 71.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
