At the Institute for International Urban Development, resilience is core to our work. But what is “resilience,” really? Where did this term come from? Why is it so frequently discussed?

The ubiquity of resilience in development circles has led many to believe it’s a meaningless buzzword, a crutch used to denote some magical solution to the problems of climate change and urbanization. The proliferation of frameworks and theories on resilience over the last few decades, however necessary, create a sort of numbness around the term. It’s important, therefore, to reorient ourselves with the idea of resilience – not just what it means, but where it comes from and why it exists – before diving back into its practical usage.

A Brief Etymology

Resilience, as we know it today, originated outside the realm of traditional social science. In 1973, CS Holling formally introduced his conception of resilience into the field of ecology. Applied to natural ecosystems, Holling’s resilience “determines the persistence of relationships within a system” and their “ability to absorb changes of state variables, driving variables, and parameters, and still persist.” Holling’s conception of ecosystems that persisted by absorbing and adapting to changes was in direct opposition to contemporary mainstream ecology, which held ecosystem sustainability meant preventing change altogether. Holling also challenged the traditional notion of equilibria-based ecosystems. He argued there was no singular, stable equilibrium ecosystems fought to maintain. Instead, he proposed a dynamic model, one where constant transformation replaced the paradigm of equilibrium.

Soon, this idea of resilience became the foundation for ecosystem and natural resource management. Throughout the 1990s and into the early 2000s, ecologists, ecosystem managers, and public policy specialists contributed to a resilience-based theory of management. This perspective emphasized the following principles: surprise and uncertainty within an ecosystem is inevitable; human institutions play a dynamic role within ecosystems; and resource and ecosystem management requires governments to manage by change – in other words, the ability to adapt should be embedded into institutional structures.

Climate Resilience

Since the 90s, climate change has captured the attention of the international community. It’s a unique problem because of its scope and complication. Whereas many ecological concerns are local and specific, the causes and effects of climate change transcend national boundaries and involve multiple issues (air pollution, deforestation, coastal erosion, flooding, etc.).

This required a more integrative theory of dealing with environmental issues. Indeed, it implicated concerns that previously were not considered in an environmental context. For example, how do we reconcile the fact that a growing economy necessarily produces a larger carbon footprint? Solutions now needed to consider the interplay between social, economic, and environmental outcomes. The language of “sustainability” rose from this reality. In 1994, John Elkington famously proposed the triple bottom line of sustainable development, the full integration of social, economic, and environmental value.

Sustainability is obviously still in vogue, but it’s become less of a doctrine and more of a universally accepted value. You cannot talk about development without mentioning sustainability. Resilience, then, is about how cities progress towards sustainability. Before resilience, ideas of climate adaptation were implemented to achieve sustainability, and adaptation, though connected to resilience, is slightly different in scope. Adaptation refers to the processes undertaken when a threat is imminent or already realized. It is, in other words, reactive. Adaptation is an integral part of resilience, but resilience itself refers to a more inherent quality of dynamism communities need to sustain themselves.

Climate resilience, therefore, is not about singular policy decisions (capping carbon emissions, building coastal defenses, etc.), but about the structural ability of human and environmental institutions to absorb climate threats in an iterative and sustainable way. Climate resilience is integrative, implicating more than just climate policy; it involves the very structure of governments, businesses, and local communities, and their ability to respond positively to threat – or better yet, to view threat as opportunity.

Resilience in Development

The broad social-ecological implications of resilience produce its ever-expanding reach in planning and development today. Yes, resilience means talking about climate change and its impact. But it also inevitably carries considerations regarding the health and sustainability of political and economic institutions. If governments cannot effectively react to natural disasters or sea level rise, if banks and businesses cannot foresee and adapt to potential ecological threats, one coastal defense project is not going to make a large enough difference.

Resilience’s broad applicability is exemplified throughout development today. The OECD defines resilient cities as “cities that have the ability to absorb, recover and prepare for future shocks (economic, environmental, social & institutional).” They also note four areas that drive resilience: economy, governance, society, and environment. The 100 Resilient Cities project, launched by the Rockefeller Foundation, recognizes and awards cities throughout the world that most exemplify resilience today. 100RC notes a broad goal for city resilience, centered on “making a city better, in both good times and bad, for the benefit of all its citizens, particularly the poor and vulnerable.”

Key in this quote is the focus on vulnerable populations. Increased rural-to-urban migration into developing cities forces people to live in unsafe conditions, which are exacerbated by ecological threats. These urban dwellers, who often live in disaster prone areas, face the most danger from flooding and other climate threats. Any resilience perspective is woefully misguided if it doesn’t center this segment of the citizenry in its application.

Cartagena and Condega

From 2012 to 2014, I2UD conducted a comprehensive study on two Latin American cities: Cartagena, Colombia and Condega, Nicaragua. Though the two cities are largely different (Cartagena a port city and a popular tourist destination, Condega a much smaller inland agro-urban town), each faces significant threats due to a changing climate. Before delving into the specific issues of each city, we established a framework to ground our resilience perspective.

Our framework stemmed from conclusions made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), but with a greater focus on the most vulnerable urban populations – namely, those living in informal settlements. The framework considers three areas of risk: location-based hazards, socioeconomic vulnerability, and lagging systems and institutions. Again, this highlights the nature of resilience; it’s a goal that requires a holistic approach. In order for a city to become more resilient, it has to implement a confluence of solutions that addresses all three of the aforementioned risk areas.

In Cartagena, we found related issues. Due to a burgeoning population, areas previously used for run-off retention and flood control are now used for housing. This, combined with an inadequate drainage system and increasing rainfall, has multiplied the risk for flooding. Considering 80% of Cartagena’s development has occurred via unplanned processes, along with the city’s massive inequality, flooding risks primarily affect vulnerable citizens living in neighborhoods that lack basic services like sanitation and electricity.

For both cities, we proposed solutions that took into consideration each type of risk factor. In Condega, we proposed better water management techniques, controlled spatial economic development, and efficient land relocation. In Cartagena, we proposed green buildings that act as flood buffers, family relocation to safer urban environments, and redevelopment by capturing increasing land values.

Conclusion

It’s sometimes difficult to remove resilience from abstraction, but when we do, we see the purpose of the term: to make us reconsider what “change” ought to mean. Cities are never stable or steady entities. Resilience forces us to accept change not simply as inevitable, but necessary, the only way a city can adequately look out for the shifting needs of its people. Academic frameworks and theories surrounding the term, as profligate as they might seem, help incorporate this mindset into institutional decision-making.

As the conflict in the northern reaches of the country progresses, the opportunities for collaborative discussion and orientation development in the south have been quick to develop. Using an interactive and online platform, stakeholders within each of the states comprised of government officials, international organization representatives, local business interests, and community members have been able to communicate with each other to share ideas and information. Combining inputs from members across at all levels of society with data from technical and progressive sources continues to forge forward thinking, and exciting new ideas.

Today, Research Affiliate Maja Horvat presented the findings from an I2UD research project on the Croatian response to the European Refugee Crisis today at the conference “Camp, Train Station, Border: Microstudies of Refugees in Contemporary Croatian Context” in Zagreb, Croatia. This conference is organized by the Center for the Study of Ethnicity, Citizenship and Migration (CEDIM), the Center for Peace Studies (CMS), the Welcome Initiative & the Institute of Ethnology and Folklore Research. Ms. Horvat presented on the research project was carried out by I2UD from January to May 2016 with generous support from International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) focusing on local authorities’ and communities’ involvement in the crisis. If you’re in Zagreb, you can still catch a discussion of comparative politics of integration tomorrow from 11:00 – 13:00. The conference program and abstracts of each speaker are available at the link to the left.

The I2UD team, composed of Maja Horvat, Maren Larsen, and Elma Demir explored the actual and potential role of municipalities and urban areas in the response to the refugee crisis in Croatia in light of increasing interest among humanitarian practitioners to collaborate with local authorities to enhance effective assistance. A full working paper will be published this summer and explore concepts such as de-localizing the crisis through centralized response and de-territorializing response through the establishment of transit centers. While local authorities were relatively marginal actors in the Croatian response, the authors outline the greater role that they can play as Croatia begins to resettle asylum seekers and refugees transferred to the country.

Ban Jelačić Square, Zagreb

I2UD is in Zagreb, Croatia this week, conducting interviews with different local and humanitarian actors as part of a research grant from the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) to assess the role of local authorities and communities in managing the transit refugee situation, which began in Croatia on September 16th, 2015.

In the second half of the week, the I2UD team will be visiting several municipalities in Eastern Croatian near the border with Serbia, as well as the site of the Winter Reception and Transit Centre (which is being dismantled this week) in the City of Slavonski Brod. Coverage of what is being referred to in many circles as “Europe’s refugee crisis” has tended to focus on conditions in countries of entry (namely Greece) or in destination countries (such as Germany). I2UD’s research seeks to elaborate the specific needs of refugees in transit and how Croatian authorities, international and local humanitarian organizations, and the early affected communities assessed and met those needs through effective coordination and cooperation.

The report describing findings from this field research will be published by IIED this coming summer. The project team includes Research Associate Maren Larsen and regional Research Affiliates Maja Horvat and Elma Demir in cooperation with the local NGO Center for Peace Studies.

The dam section of Cañaveralejo River which regularly floods, is used as a recreational space by the residents from the adjacent informal settlements

Santiago de Cali, “Cali”, is the third largest city in Colombia and is located in the Cauca Valley in the south of the country. Cali is crossed by several rivers, including the Cañaveralejo River, which descends from the Farallones Mountains and empties into the Cauca River. The river flows through a range of neighborhoods, from informal settlements at the base of the mountains to middle income residential areas and higher income gated communities, sport facilities and stadiums. During periods of heavy rainfall, the Cañaveralejo River overflows its banks, flooding adjacent housing and disrupting local businesses. The city has attempted to reduce flooding by canalizing several sections of the river. A dam was also previously constructed with a flood gate to control the flow of water, but overtime the flood gate has been taken apart by residents.

Community members map vulnerable areas along the Cañaveralejo River

Senior Fellow Jim Kostaras and Research Associate Barbara Summers traveled to Cali last week to undertake a site assessment, and participate in a community workshop and forum introducing green infrastructure and land value capture mechanisms. The workshop brought together community leaders for an initial discussion and mapping of vulnerable areas along the Cañaveralejo River including areas that regularly flood, illegal solid waste dump sites and areas contaminated by household wastewater, as well as areas of encroachment by informal housing along the river banks. After an introduction to some examples of green infrastructure and their benefits, the workshop participants also mapped potential inventions along the study area. The week concluded with a forum including a panel made up of local experts and the I2UD team to introduce the local context and examples of land value capture instruments to an audience of local officials, representatives from local NGO’s, community members, and students.

In the coming months several additional workshops will be held to identify and design interventions with the community in the Cañaveralejo River corridor to reduce the impacts of flooding as well as create recreational and green spaces for the community. The project team will also assess the multiple benefits of green infrastructure projects including risk reduction and evaluate land value capture as a potential finance source stemming from these benefits.

For an in depth graphic of the project please click here:LILP poster press quality

Under the leadership of Vice President Mona Serageldin, I2UD has been working with UN-ESCWA* and UN-Habitat ROAS** to prepare the Habitat III Regional Report for Arab States. This report reviews and takes stock of the implementation of the Habitat Agenda since Habitat II in 1996 and identifies new issues affecting sustainable urban development in 22 countries in the region.

Last week, Mona Serageldin and Maren Larsen travelled to Cairo to present a draft version of the report and received valuable inputs from invited experts. The Habitat III Regional Report for Arab States seeks to inform the preparation of the outcome document to be endorsed by member states at the conference in October 2016 in Quito, Ecuador.

I2UD has also contributed to the preparation of the Habitat III National Urban Policy Unit’s review of NUPs in Arab States and facilitated a Habitat III Youth Consultation at Boston University in November 2015.

*Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia

** Regional Office for Arab States

The Institute’s ability to carry forth it’s mission of promoting sustainable and inclusive urban development depends in large part on the generous donations of our Board of Directors, friends, and supporters. These gifts enable the Institute to support urban planning practices in cities and communities seeking to reduce poverty and ensure access to basic services for all. The Institute delivers this support through direct technical assistance in urban and regional planning, as well as capacity building and training modules to enable municipal staff and citizens to plan for their own development. Our work in the last ten years has had an impact in cities in Latin America, sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East, Eastern Europe, and the island of Ireland.

Shopping through Amazon Smile this holiday season and selecting the Institute as your preferred charity helps us to continue to produce high quality inputs to global publications, most recently contributing to such publications as the IOM’s 2015 World Migration Report and the World Bank’s Inclusive Cities Approach Paper. Gifts also supplement grant-funded independent research, such as an investigation of climate change adaptation strategies for informal settlements in Latin America recently published by the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy in Spanish.

We thank you in advance for thinking of I2UD this holiday season and supporting sustainable urban and regional planning practices and research.

Photos by Mona Serageldin in Lublin Poland, 2004 (left) and Arusha, Tanzania, 2013 (right).