development international journal of urban...
TRANSCRIPT
This article was downloaded by: [202.167.250.67]On: 17 September 2012, At: 20:08Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office:Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
International Journal of Urban SustainableDevelopmentPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscriptioninformation:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tjue20
A systems approach to meeting thechallenges of urban climate changeJo da Silva a , Sam Kernaghan b & Andrés Luque ca International Development, Arup, London, UKb International Development, Arup, Bangkok, Thailandc Centre for Doctoral Training in Energy and Geography Department,Durham University, Durham, UK
Version of record first published: 17 Sep 2012.
To cite this article: Jo da Silva, Sam Kernaghan & Andrés Luque (2012): A systems approach to meetingthe challenges of urban climate change, International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development,DOI:10.1080/19463138.2012.718279
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19463138.2012.718279
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
For full terms and conditions of use, see: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionsesp. Part II. Intellectual property and access and license types, § 11. (c) Open Access Content
The use of Taylor & Francis Open articles and Taylor & Francis Open Select articles forcommercial purposes is strictly prohibited.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that thecontents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae,and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall notbe liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of thismaterial.
International Journal of Urban Sustainable DevelopmentiFirst, 2012, 1–21
A systems approach to meeting the challenges of urban climate change
Jo da Silvaa , Sam Kernaghanb* and Andrés Luquec
aInternational Development, Arup, London, UK; bInternational Development, Arup, Bangkok, Thailand; cCentre forDoctoral Training in Energy and Geography Department, Durham University, Durham, UK
(Received 26 March 2012; final version received 1 August 2012)
This article identifies the future challenges that cities face in their ability to create well-being, particularlyfor urban poor communities, as a result of the compound effect generated by climate change – distin-guishing between direct impacts, indirect effects and pre-existing vulnerability. This suggests that actionto reduce exposure and improve the adaptive capacity of urban populations must therefore simultaneouslyaddress disaster risk reduction, urban poverty reduction and urban resilience (i.e. the ability of the city tomaintain the functions that support the well-being of its citizens). Based on evidence and experience from10 cities which form part of the Asian Cities Climate Change Resilience Network (www.acccrn.org), thisarticle proposes that a simplified conceptual model and resilience characteristics be used to analyse urbansystems, in parallel with spatial analysis, to target action at multiple levels to reduce exposure and improvethe adaptive capacity of urban populations simultaneously.
Keywords: urban resilience; poverty; climate change; systems approach; urbanisation; governance
1. Introduction
The world’s urban environments already host overhalf the global population – some 3.5 billion peo-ple – and it is anticipated that this number willincrease up to 70% (or 6.4 billion people) by 2050.Urban areas in Asia are expected to see more than60% of this increase, half of which will occur incities with fewer than 500,000 inhabitants (UnitedNations 2000). In the face of such rapid urbanisa-tion municipalities often lack the fiscal and insti-tutional resources to ensure the socio-economicwell-being of urban residents, while much existinginfrastructure is rendered obsolete due to inade-quate maintenance or limited capacity. Currently,one in three urban dwellers – one in every six peo-ple worldwide – lives in a slum, dealing with over-crowded conditions, inadequate access to water andsanitation, poor-quality shelter and lack of tenure(UN Millennium Project 2005). Overlaid on this
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
is the future impact of climate change, which willexacerbate these existing vulnerabilities.
The role of cities in contributing to climatechange mitigation is well established in academic,policy and practitioners’ circles, driving signifi-cant action by municipal governments and citystakeholders to reduce emissions and introduceenergy-efficient systems. Fewer efforts have beenmade to identify and implement adaptation mea-sures that will increase the resilience of cities’ tothe local impacts of climate change (Satterthwaiteet al. 2007; Bicknell et al. 2009; Bulkeley 2010;Bulkeley et al. 2011). Key challenges in thisrespect arise from the inherent uncertainties in cli-mate change projections, and lack of evidence asto how resilience is achieved given the complex-ity of interactions within a city. Current debaterecognises the limitations of uni-sectoral strategiesand the need for integrated planning processes and
ISSN 1946-3138 print/ISSN 1946-3146 online© 2012 Aruphttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19463138.2012.718279http://www.tandfonline.com
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
202.
167.
250.
67]
at 2
0:08
17
Sept
embe
r 20
12
2 J. da Silva et al.
policy-working across multiple scales and sectors(McEvoy et al. 2006; Hardoy and Pandiella 2009).Likewise, a balance between the quest for certaintyof evidence and the need to make decisions andtake action is required that enables decisions tobe informed by climate change projections whileallowing uncertainty to form a key aspect of thedecision-making (Dawson et al. 2009; Carmin andDodman forthcoming).
This article argues that traditional risk assess-ments founded on spatial analysis and climateprojections fail to recognise uncertainty of climatechange data or the complexity of cities. Instead, it ismore useful to approach the problem from an urbansystems perspective, founded on an understandingof how the city functions, its boundaries of controland influence and how it can continue to functionin the face of a wide range of shocks and stresses.Resilience is understood as a desirable attributeof the urban system (Godschalk 2003). Resilienceat a city scale cannot be measured directly, otherthan in terms of changing performance of systemsin response to shocks and stresses. The socio-technical networks (such as infrastructure, insti-tutions, ecosystems and knowledge) that make upcity systems will, in a resilient city, demonstrate anumber of key characteristics that can be used tomeasure progress.
This article draws on current discourse aswell as Arup’s1 experience in numerous cities
globally, but in particular the authors’ experi-ence working with stakeholders from 10 Asiancities as part of the Rockefeller Foundation’sAsia Cities Climate Change Initiative ResilienceNetwork (ACCCRN).2 The 10 ACCCRN cities,from which the bulk of examples are drawn, are DaNang, Quy Nhon and Can Tho (Vietnam); Surat,Indore and Gorakhpur (India); Bandar Lampungand Semarang (Indonesia) and Hat Yai and ChiangRai (Thailand).
2. How climate change affects cities
While cities play a key role as generators of eco-nomic wealth, their role enabling the well-beingfor their populations is of equal or greater impor-tance. In the context of climate change, both ofthese roles are threatened by a variety of directand indirect impacts. The direct impacts of cli-mate change take the dual form of shocks, suddenimpacts such as storms, typhoons and heat waves,and stresses, impacts that build gradually over timesuch as sea level rise, general temperature increaseand changes in rainfall patterns. Such events will inturn generate a cascade of indirect effects, erodingthe city’s capacity to adapt as a result of signif-icant disruptions in the socio-technical networksessential for city functioning (Figure 1).
Notably, these impacts are felt most by vulner-able communities affected by widespread poverty,due to either their increased exposure to hazards
LivelihoodCoastal
defences
Transport
systems
ShelterFood and
agriculture
Natural
drainage systems
Water
networks
TelecommsGround
water table
Community
systems for
information
exchange
Storms /
cyclones
Increased rainfall
strong winds
storm surge
Rising sea
levels
Coastal
flooding
Vector borne
diseases
Saline
intrusion
River
floodingDrought
Glacial lake
outburst flood (glof)
Figure 1. Climate change impacts could affect several key urban functions via direct and indirect effects.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
202.
167.
250.
67]
at 2
0:08
17
Sept
embe
r 20
12
International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development 3
or limitations in their ability to respond due to alow assets base (Satterthwaite et al. 2007; Bicknellet al. 2009). The compound effect of climatechange, combining direct impacts, indirect impactsand pre-existing vulnerabilities is illustrated inFigure 2.
The notion of climate change adaptationrefers to initiatives and measures to reducethe vulnerability of natural and human systemsagainst actual or expected climate change effects(Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change2007). Figure 2 has been used consistently through-out the ACCCRN programme to explain that actionto improve the adaptive capacity of vulnerableurban populations which focuses on disaster riskreduction (DRR) and urban poverty reduction isnecessary, but insufficient. Specific action is alsoneeded which enhances the ability of the city to
continue to maintain the essential functions thatsupport the well-being of its citizens and sustainits economy. Such action needs to consider cli-mate change impacts in the context of how thecity works (the ‘urban system’) and who is leastable to respond to shocks and stresses (‘vulnerablegroups’).
2.1. Pre-existing vulnerability
Several authors have highlighted the links betweenurban poverty, vulnerability and climate change,and the high level of risk of urban dwellers in low-and middle-income countries (Satterthwaite et al.2007; Dodman and Sattherthwaite 2008; Bicknellet al. 2009; Moser and Satterthwaite 2010). A pri-mary risk factor in such contexts is the high level ofexposure to direct impacts. This is mostly related
2.
What are the direct
and indirect impacts
of climate change?
3.
Who is least able to
respond to shocks
and stresses?
1.
How does the
city work?
URBAN
SYSTEMS
Indirect Impact
VULNERABLE
GROUPS
CLIMATE
CHANGE
Direct impact
Direct impact
DISASTER
RISK REDUCTION
URBAN CLIMATE
CHANGE RISKURBAN POVERTY
REDUCTION
Figure 2. Climate impacts: a compound effect combining direct impacts, indirect impacts and pre-existingvulnerabilities.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
202.
167.
250.
67]
at 2
0:08
17
Sept
embe
r 20
12
4 J. da Silva et al.
to the location of settlements on high-risk areassuch as flood plains, coastlines and inclined slopessusceptible to landslides, as well as poor-qualityconstruction. This is a prevalent issue for manyinformal settlements, for example, in Semarang,Indonesia, where communities have settled on low-lying coastal areas or along the banks of rivers. Thisrisk may also result from well-intentioned infras-tructure, as in Da Nang, Vietnam, where wideningof the coastal road has removed vegetation anddunes. The consequences of this exposure havebeen a significant increase in the impacts of storms,flooding and strong winds resulting in damage tothe homes and property of adjacent communities(Brown and Kernaghan 2011).
The ability of such communities to cope oradapt is reduced by limited access to basic infras-tructure and services (potable water, sanitation anddrainage), lack of secure tenure, poor educationand health care, and limited employment oppor-tunities (Sanderson 2000; International StandardsOrganisation 2002; Corsellis and Vitale 2008).Non-responsive political systems and bureaucraticstructures mean communities may have a lim-ited voice or power to create change, and theabsence of safety nets (e.g. insurance and sav-ings) and lack of information limits their abilityto adopt alternative strategies. While grass-rootaction at a community level are valuable, manyof these challenges can only be overcome byactions and interventions at a city scale (Dodmanand Mitlin 2011). These interventions are likelyto be most effective when founded on strate-gies developed through multi-stakeholder engage-ment between government, non-government andcivil society organisations, business and academia(Parker et al. 2012).
2.2. Urban systems failure
The direct impact of climate change on how thecity works (the ‘urban system’) is significant asit has the potential to indirectly affect very largenumbers of people, as well as impose additionalburdens on communities who are least able to cope.At an urban scale, climate change will indirectlyaffect transport networks, power, potable water
supply, food distribution networks, waste man-agement facilities and telecommunication systems.This may be as a result of direct impacts fromflooding, increased temperature affecting equip-ment, saline intrusion of an aquifer due to sea levelrise or loss of life due to extreme events.
For example, in Semarang, Indonesia, flood-ing currently occurs in low-lying coastal areas thathave been reclaimed. Groundwater extraction bycoastal communities is contributing to significantland subsidence and the impacts of floods are likelyto get much worse over the next decades. Sealevel rise of 21 cm, predicted by 2050 as a resultof climate change, is double the 11-cm-predictedsubsidence over the same period and will affectcoastal infrastructure including the port and trainstation. The indirect effects of the port or trainstation flooding include people being unable totravel to work, shortages of goods and failure ofgoods to reach market with far-reaching conse-quences (Technical Team for Climate Adaptationof Semarang City and City Working Group 2010).
This example from one of the ACCCRN citiesillustrates that spatial analysis, although a use-ful tool for assessing the direct impact of climatechange on individual urban communities or sec-tors, can be improved with a parallel approachfocussed on systems. A traditional spatial analysiswould have overlooked the interdependence of theinfrastructure, institutions and individuals and theindirect impacts that coastal flooding might create.In reality, a city behaves as a complex system whichis in constant flux as a result of many dynamic fac-tors, reorganising and adapting to feedbacks acrossmultiple scales temporally and spatially.
2.3. Overlaying climate change on existingchallenges
Cities already face a range of dynamic factorsincluding rapid urbanisation, urban renewal, immi-gration and economic cycles. Climate changerepresents an additional overlay on these exist-ing challenges. The uncertainties surroundingclimate change predictions, combined with therapidly evolving urban context associated withthese dynamic factors, are challenging traditional
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
202.
167.
250.
67]
at 2
0:08
17
Sept
embe
r 20
12
International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development 5
approaches to planning and engineering foundedon a ‘predict and prevent’ paradigm (Brown andKernaghan 2011). This is particularly important incities in emerging economies facing rapid urban-isation, which are often characterised by poorplanning, weak institutional structures, inadequateservices (health care and emergency services) andlarge deficits in basic infrastructure (sewerage anddrainage, water and energy) (Satterthwaite et al.2007). Limited capacity, political will or resourcesto tackle climate change means that preventativeaction is only likely to be deemed relevant or viableif short-term improvements to quality of life arealso evident.
In order to enable cities to better analyse theirstrengths and weaknesses and identify points forintervention to build resilience, we propose a sim-plified urban systems approach which comple-ments the traditional spatial analysis. Rather thanstarting with climate science and attempting to pre-dict future climate scenarios and plan accordingly,it is more useful to analyse a city in terms ofthe key systems of provision that underpin well-being and enable economic activity, so as to beable to understand how susceptible they are to thetypes of shocks and stresses that might arise asa result of climate change. This susceptibility islikely to be most significant where there are seri-ous shortfalls in resources, or inadequate coverageand capacity that already compromise well-being,placing communities under stress even before cli-mate impacts are considered. Interventions canthen be identified, which address critical gaps orweaknesses in the system, thereby enhancing per-formance and catalysing alternative behaviours thatbuild resilience. In the following sections, this sim-plified conceptual model of the urban system istested, and explained as an approach which can bereadily used by urban planners, decision-makersand their advisors as the basis for analysis andaction.
3. Understanding cities as systems
The definition of ‘urban’ varies widely, developedfrom academic as well as practical perspectives.For the United Nations, an urban agglomeration is
a ‘built-up or densely populated area containing thecity proper, suburbs and continuously settled com-muter areas’ (United Nations 2006). Key featuresassociated with urban areas include increased lev-els of contact and interaction (Hillier 2007), a con-centration of power and culture (Mumford 1961)and opportunities for wealth creation, resourcedistribution and efficient use of scarce naturalresources (Davis 2002). Spatially, urban areashave been conceptualised socio-economically interms of population density and/or administrativearrangements or in terms of land use (Hall 2009a).Such single-dimension definitions focus on specificaspects of urban living, but fail to capture the man-ifold nature of urban processes characterised byflows of goods, services and people, and the inter-dependency of infrastructure and socio-economicnetworks.
Systems thinking provides a platform for amore holistic approach in which urban areas,particularly cities, are considered as complex‘living’ systems undergoing numerous dynamicexchanges at any given time, constantly evolv-ing and responding to both internal interactionsand the influence of external factors (Batty et al.2006; Barnett and Bai 2007). Cities are adap-tive, socio-technical systems comprising variouselements which, when combined, have qualitiesthat may not be present individually. Changes aresystemic (i.e. changes in one element of the sys-tem may induce changes in another element), anddynamic (the result of feedback loops3) (RoyalAcademy of Engineering 2007). Therefore, a sys-tem’s behaviour can only be understood by look-ing at the entire system and not its elements inisolation.
Extensive work has been previously done inapproaching cities from a systems perspective. Thefield of urban ecology focuses on gaining a bet-ter understanding of the impacts and interactionsbetween humans and natural systems (Grove andBurch 1997; Pickett and Burch 1997; Piracha andMarcotullio 2003). Other approaches have aimedto understand and model resource flows in citiesas urban metabolisms, emphasising resource effi-ciency and optimisation (Newman 1999; Scheurer2001; Girardet 2004; Marvin and Medd 2006;
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
202.
167.
250.
67]
at 2
0:08
17
Sept
embe
r 20
12
6 J. da Silva et al.
Swyngedouw 2006; Fisk 2007; Keirstead 2007;Schulz 2009). More recently, applying a systemsperspective to cities has also been used to under-stand the likely scenarios resulting from climatechange impacts (Ruth and Coelho 2007; Dawsonet al. 2009; Hall 2009b), and the implicationsof catastrophic failures in networked infrastruc-tures (Bennett 2005; Marvin and Medd 2006;Graham and Thrift 2007; O’Rourke 2007; Graham2010; Harris and Keil 2010; Sims 2010). Theexamination of failures in networked infrastruc-ture has revealed the complex interdependencies ofsocio-technical networks in cities, highlighting thefragility of essential infrastructures and the impor-tance of repair and maintenance to ensure urbanresilience in restoring equilibrium (Summerton1994; Graham and Thrift 2007). However, althoughthe benefits of a systems approach are appar-ent, the challenge is in conceptualising the urbansystem in a way that does not require com-plex modelling and can be readily understoodby city planners and key decision-makers. In arecent detailed review of urban resilience litera-ture, Bahadur et al. (2010) concluded firstly thatthere is a lack of case studies which operationaliseresilience concepts, and secondly that ‘no part ofthe reviewed literature provides a substantial expla-nation of how this entity and its boundaries aredefined’. The following sections aim to respond
in past to these two identified gaps in existingliterature.
3.1. Conceptualising the urban system
The ultimate objective of the urban system is tosupport the well-being of the urban populationwhile generating wider socio-economic benefits(Table 1). Well-being encompasses basic humanneeds (food, water and shelter), access to goods andlivelihood opportunity, security, health, social rela-tions and freedom to act (Maslow 1971; Alcamoet al. 2003; Huitt 2004).
Key urban functions to secure well-being areunderpinned by the natural resources and servicesprovided by both local and remote ecosystems.Ecosystems services are ‘the benefits people obtainfrom ecosystems’ (Alcamo et al. 2003) whichcan be categorised as provisioning (e.g. foodand water), regulating (e.g. flood control andair quality), supporting (e.g. soil formation andnutrient cycling) and cultural (e.g. recreational).Preservation and management of urban ecosystemsare fundamental to urban resilience as they providea local source of food, water and materials, as wellas contributing cost-effectively to flood control,waste absorption and amenity (Roberts 2010).
In rural and semi-rural settings, there is arelatively direct relationship between ecosystems,
Table 1. The purpose of the urban system: well-being (Maslow 1971; Alcamo et al. 2003; Huitt 2004).
Well-being
Basic needs for survivalbiological and physiological needs
Adequate livelihoods, sufficient nutritious food, access to water,sanitation and shelter, access to goods
Securitysafety needs
Personal safety, security from natural hazards and man-made hazards(terrorism, pandemics), secure resource access, order, law and stability
HealthHealthy body and mind
Feeling well, access to clean air and water, access to health care
Good social relations and esteembelongingness, love needs
Social cohesion, mutual respect, ability to help others, family, personalrelationships, achievement, status, responsibility and reputation
Freedom of choice and actionself-actualisation needs
Opportunity to be able to achieve what an individual values doing andbeing, personal growth and fulfilment
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
202.
167.
250.
67]
at 2
0:08
17
Sept
embe
r 20
12
International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development 7
the services they provide, and human well-being(Alcamo et al. 2003; Desakota Study Team 2008).In urban conditions, this relationship is expandedand requires mediation by various interconnectedsocio-technical networks, creating a shift in depen-dency from local to more remote ecosystems(Figure 3).
In this simplified model (Figure 3), we haveidentified three types of network: infrastructure,knowledge and institutions, in addition to the out-come of cities (well-being) and the resources uponwhich this is enabled (ecosystems). These threenetworks are considered as ‘socio-technical net-works’ since they are composed of physical ele-ments (e.g. technology and buildings) as well associal elements (e.g. regulatory structures and for-mal and informal practices) (Rip and Kemp 1998,cited in Geels 2004; Smith et al. 2005; Smith 2007;Monstadt 2009). For instance, water infrastruc-ture may comprise boreholes and pipes as well asregulations and practices surrounding groundwaterabstraction and both formal and informal waterdistribution.
• Infrastructure networks are considered to bethe key physical and technological assets ofcities. They define the experience of modernurban life, enable exchanges and dynamicrelationships between different actors, andrepresent capital and knowledge embeddedin the city (Graham and Marvin 2001).Networked infrastructure, which includesenergy, water, sewerage, transport, waste andtelecommunication systems, ‘provides the
technological links that make the very notionof a modern city possible’ (Graham andMarvin 2001). Such networks enable accessto essential resources (e.g. water, food andenergy), provide education and health carefacilities, buildings and services for govern-ment and business and access to markets andinformation.
• Knowledge networks refer to the struc-tures and systems that regulate and enableaccess to information. Among them, edu-cational organisations (schools, technolog-ical institutes and universities) play a keyrole. Access to information also happens onan everyday basis in more informal waysvia various technological media (e.g. localradio stations and the Internet), as well associal networks acting from local to globalscales (e.g. from neighbourhood interactionsat community gathering spots to transna-tional professional networks). Informationflows and technology development, along-side knowledge and learning, are crit-ical to enabling the urban system tolearn, evolve and adapt to changing cir-cumstances or respond rapidly to extremeevents.
• Institutional networks refer to the custodiansof rules and practices supporting humaninteraction (e.g. justice, land tenure andmarkets). For example, governance sys-tems allow for collective decision-making(by government, community or businessassociations, etc.); economic systems
INS
TIT
UT
ION
S
INF
RA
ST
RU
CT
UR
E
KN
OW
LE
DG
E
Rural condition Urban condition
WE
LL-B
EIN
G
EC
OS
YS
TE
MS
INS
TIT
UT
ION
S
INF
RA
ST
RU
CT
UR
E
KN
OW
LE
DG
E
WE
LL-B
EIN
G
EC
OS
YS
TE
MS
Figure 3. Relative ease of accessing resources and ecosystem services in rural and urban environments.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
202.
167.
250.
67]
at 2
0:08
17
Sept
embe
r 20
12
8 J. da Silva et al.
support and control financial exchangeand production (via markets and fundingmechanisms). No less important are thesocial systems and networks which underpinthe hierarchy of relationships and basis ofexchange, either reinforcing or preventingmarginalisation and corruption. Finally,cultural codes and practices are responsiblefor providing frameworks for interpretationbased on faith, myth, ethics and values,which influence social behaviour.
3.2. Urban system boundary
This model (Figure 3) describes the key elementswithin the urban system. For analytical purposes,it is also necessary to define the boundary of thesystem. Cities are characterised by a highly densepopulation; the needs of which exceed the car-rying capacity of the local ecosystem. They relyon sources of food, energy, water and raw materi-als, human resources (e.g. labour and knowledge)and financial resources (e.g. trade and remittances),from outside the administrative boundary. Thereare similar flows of goods and services out of thecity, and multifarious formal and informal linkagesthrough regional, national and global networks(Barnett and Bai 2007). As such, cities are recog-nised functionally as open systems with ill-definedporous boundaries. A city’s administrative bound-ary still provides a useful unit of analysis, however,as it identifies the reach of public policies, andenables assets within the control of the city authori-ties, businesses and inhabitants to be identified.4 Inthe context of a city, the administrative municipalboundary tends to include both urban and subur-ban (or peri-urban) elements controlled by a singleauthority with a clearly defined governance struc-ture. Large cities are typically divided into smalleradministrative units described as boroughs (e.g.London and New York), districts (e.g. Shanghaiand Lima), delegaciones (e.g. Mexico City), wards(e.g. Mumbai and Bangalore) (Burdett and Sudjic2007).
The notion of an ‘enabling environment’is used to account for the interactions and
interdependencies beyond the administrativeboundary. This term has been used previously inthe context of resilient communities to define thewider institutional, policy and socio-economicfactors that support resilience (Twigg 2007).In relation to a city, the enabling environmentincludes all the spatial and non-spatial dynamicsessential for urban functioning which are locatedoutside of the city boundaries. These could includesurrounding and distant ecosystems, neighbouringsettlements, industries and markets based in distantlocations, as well as non-spatial socio-politicaldimensions such as regional and national policy,and national and global knowledge networks.5
The distinction is that action and interventionwithin the administrative boundary is likely tobe within the control of urban populations anddecision-makers, while outside this boundary cityactors are only able to influence activity in thewider enabling environment (see Figure 4).
4. Building resilience in urban systems
‘Adaptive capacity’ is considered to be the inher-ent capacity (financial, technological, knowledgeor institutional) of a system or population to copewith climate impacts or climate change (Reid andHuq 2007; Smith et al. 2010). Interventions iden-tified in the 10 cities engaged in the ACCCRNprogramme are beginning to illustrate the ben-efit of investment in a wide range of factorscontributing to adaptive capacity including tech-nological options, access to information, robustinstitutions, access to risk transfer and sharingmechanisms, ability of decision-makers to managerisks and information and public perception (Yoheand Tol 2002). The focus is typically on institu-tional and knowledge networks which offer rela-tively quick and cost-effective means to improveadaptive capacity compared to investment in majorinfrastructure.
4.1. Resilience
While the notion of adaptive capacity has emergedas part of the lexicon of climate change,
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
202.
167.
250.
67]
at 2
0:08
17
Sept
embe
r 20
12
International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development 9
INS
TIT
UT
ION
S
INF
RA
ST
RU
CT
UR
E
KN
OW
LE
DG
E
INS
TIT
UT
ION
S
INF
RA
ST
RU
CT
UR
E
KN
OW
LE
DG
E
INS
TIT
UT
ION
S
INF
RA
ST
RU
CT
UR
E
KN
OW
LE
DG
E
EC
OS
YS
TE
MS
(l
oca
l)ORGANISATIONAL BOUNDARY
* Administrative boundary under one government
* Usually urban and suburban
* Often divided in smaller discreet administrative
boundaries (boroughs, districts, others)
CONTROL
ORGANISATIONAL BOUNDARY
* Wider institutional policy and socio-economic factors
* Includes spatial and non-spatial dynamics at regional,
national and global levels
* Examples are surrounding and distant ecosystems,
neighboring settlements, industrial and economic
activities in the fringes of the city, industries and
markets in distant location, and the nationalpolicy
context.
INFLUENCE
WE
LL
-BE
ING
EC
OS
YS
TE
MS
(re
mo
te)
Figure 4. The city as an open system, interacting with its ‘enabling environment’.
resilience is a broader concept which reflects theability of a system to respond and reorganise orreturn to functional stability after a perturbation(Holling 1973; Pickett et al. 2004; Barnett and Bai2007). Definitions of resilience vary slightly, butthey all link the concept to the ability to recoverand achieve a stable state, after physical shocks andstresses (Commonwealth Scientific and IndustrialResearch Organisation et al. 2007; O’Rourke 2007;Construction Industry Research and InformationAssociation 2010). The Intergovernmental Panelon Climate Change defines resilience as ‘the abil-ity of a social or ecological system to absorbdisturbances while retaining the same basic struc-ture and ways of functioning, the capacity forself-organisation, and the capacity to adapt tostress and change’ (Intergovernmental Panel onClimate Change 2007). The emphasis here ison behavioural change and mobilising capaci-ties within communities and systems, rather thanaddressing vulnerability to specific hazards, or
individual/community needs in an emergency(Twigg 2007).
With the emergence of climate change and thelessons learned by the collapse of urban systems inNew Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina,resilience has increasingly been seen as a usefulconcept to approach risk, unpredictable change andthe efforts to return to a balanced functioning statein an urban context. Although it has its foundationsin the field of ecology, it is well suited to cities asits underlying premise is that humans and natureare strongly coupled and co-evolving, and shouldtherefore be conceived of as one system (Folke2006).
Some of the earlier work on understandingcities from a resilience perspective was aimed atbridging the fields of ecology, sociology, urbandesign and urban planning. Building on develop-ments in the field of urban ecology in the 1980sand 1990s, it examined social systems using eco-logical frameworks (Grove and Burch 1997; Pickett
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
202.
167.
250.
67]
at 2
0:08
17
Sept
embe
r 20
12
10 J. da Silva et al.
and Burch 1997). This work emphasises resilienceas a concept for dealing with change and learningin urban environments, rather than as system break-down and return to stability (Musacchio and Wu2004; Pickett et al. 2004). However, academics andpractitioners in the fields of climate change science,DRR and infrastructure security have returned tothe original emphasis of resilience as a behaviouralattribute of the urban system, reflecting its abilityto return to or maintain a stable state. Resiliencein the context of cities has been defined as ‘thedegree to which cities are able to tolerate alterationbefore reorganising around a new set of structuresand processes [which] can be measured by howwell a city can simultaneously balance ecosystemand human functions’ (Barnett and Bai 2007). It isargued that a resilient society, one that is able toadjust under uncertainty and surprise, is in a betterposition to take advantage of the positive opportu-nities that the future might bring (Barnett and Bai2007).
4.2. Measuring resilience
With this understanding of the need for resilienturban systems, there is an understandable desireto articulate resilience so that it can be mea-sured. Attempts to do so range from emphasisingthe human and social dimensions of resilience,understanding it as a function of the social fab-ric and community networks of a city (Campanella2006; Hopkins 2009), focussing on the quali-ties of urban infrastructure: redundancy (pres-ence of options); robustness (inherent strength);resourcefulness (capacity to mobilise resources)and rapidity (speed of recovery) (Bruneau et al.2003; Godschalk 2003; O’Rourke 2007). Othershave adopted a livelihoods approach focussing onthe quantity and quality of assets (knowledge,labour, physical and financial capital, social rela-tions and natural resources) and access to ser-vices, infrastructure, communications, credit mar-kets, and emergency relief (Twigg 2007; WorldBank 2008; International Federation of the RedCross and Red Crescent Societies Arup 2011).
If resilience is considered as an attribute ofthe urban system’s behaviour, it cannot be mea-sured directly other than in terms of changingperformance in response to shocks and stresses.Resilience, therefore, will only be achievedthrough the cumulative contribution of multipleinterventions and actions over time, and the abilityof individuals and institutions to internalise learn-ing and experience to inform future behaviour.Hence, resilience cannot be attributed to a spe-cific intervention. As an analytical and practicalconcept, resilience is only relevant in the contextof a systemic approach, where the nature of therelationship among constituent elements plays themain role in determining the overall functioning ofthe system.
As a proxy for measuring resilience and in thecontext of the simplified systems model describedearlier, we propose a preliminary list of character-istics that might be used to describe the varioussocio-technical networks and systems of provisionthat comprise a resilient city (see Figure 5). Thesecharacteristics define the desired network outcome(rather than output) arising from any interventiontargeted at building urban resilience and provide afirst step towards developing measurable networkindicators. They draw on an extensive literaturefrom the fields of urban infrastructure, interna-tional development and DRR, and have been devel-oped in conjunction with the Institute of Socialand Environmental Transition (ISET), as part of theACCCRN programme (Moench and Tyler 2011):
(1) Flexibility: The ability to change, evolveand adopt alternative strategies (either inthe short or longer term) in response tochanging conditions. Flexibility impliesrecognising when it is not possible to returnto the previous way things worked and find-ing new solutions and strategies (evolu-tion). This favours ‘soft’ rather than ‘hard’solutions.
(2) Redundancy: Superfluous or spare capac-ity to accommodate increasing demand orextreme pressures. Redundancy is aboutdiversity and the ability to adopt alternative
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
202.
167.
250.
67]
at 2
0:08
17
Sept
embe
r 20
12
International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development 11
FLEXIBILITY
DEPENDENCY
ON LOCAL
ECOSYSTEMS
REDUNDANCY
RESOURCEFULNESS
SAFE FAILURE
RESPONSIVENESS
CAPACITY TO LEARN
FLEXIBILITY
REDUNDANCY
RESOURCEFULNESS
SAFE FAILURE
RESPONSIVENESS
CAPACITY TO LEARN
DEPENDENCY
ON LOCAL
ECOSYSTEMS
Figure 5. Characteristics of resilient urban systems.
strategies through the provision of multiplepathways and a variety of options. Somecomponents of the urban system serve sim-ilar functions and can provide substituteservices when another component is dis-rupted.
(3) Resourcefulness: The capacity to visualiseand act, to identify problems, to estab-lish priorities and mobilise resources whenconditions exist that threaten to disruptan element of the system. This capacityis related to the ability to mobilise assets(financial, physical, social, environmental,technology and information) and humanresources to meet established priorities andachieve goals.
(4) Safe failure: Resilient network infrastruc-tures are designed for safe failure.6 Thisis related to their ability to absorb shocksand the cumulative effects of slow-onsetchallenges in ways that avoid catastrophicfailure if thresholds are exceeded. When apart of the system fails, it does so progres-sively rather than suddenly, with minimal
impact to other systems. Failure itself isaccepted.
(5) Responsiveness: The ability to re-organise,to re-establish function and sense of orderfollowing a failure. Rapidity is a key partof responsiveness in order to contain lossesand avoid further disruption. However,such rapidity of response should not impairthe capacity to learn, and therefore, a bal-ance between learning and rapidity shouldbe achieved.
(6) Capacity to learn: Direct experience andfailure plays a key role in triggering learn-ing processes. Individuals and institutionsshould have the ability to internalise pastexperience and failures, and use such expe-rience to avoid repeating past mistakes andexercise caution in future decisions.
(7) Dependency on local ecosystems: Resilienturban systems exercise a greater degree ofcontrol over the essential assets required tosupport well-being, securing access to andquality of such resources.7 This involvesrecognising the value of the services
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
202.
167.
250.
67]
at 2
0:08
17
Sept
embe
r 20
12
12 J. da Silva et al.
provided by local and surroundingecosystems (often described as the city’sgreen and blue infrastructure) and takingsteps to increase their health and stabil-ity. These services (often undervalued)perform processes such as flood control,temperature regulation, pollutant filtrationand local food production (Luque and Duff2006; Hodson and Marvin 2009).
These characteristics of resilience can be usedto group and conceptualise a set of systemicbehaviours that avoid catastrophic outcomes or sys-tem breakdown, and enable recovery and stabilityafter dramatic and unexpected events or gradualimpacts that force change over time. Each of thecharacteristics is applicable to the infrastructure,institutional and knowledge networks that com-prise the urban system, however characteristic (4) –safe failure – applies specifically to infrastructure,and (6) – dependency on local ecosystems – toecosystems.
5. Applying the conceptual model andcharacteristics to emerging practice: the caseof the ACCCRN
The urban systems model (Figure 4) can be used bycity stakeholders to analyse a city (or part of a citydepending on administrative boundaries), using thethree systems of provision (infrastructure, insti-tutions and knowledge networks) that enable theneeds of the urban populace to be met. The focusof the analysis is to map the infrastructure, knowl-edge and institutional networks that mediate therelationship between the components of well-being(Table 1) and remote or local ecosystems, to pro-vide a simplified model of the urban system. Basedon this analysis, vulnerability of the urban sys-tem to the impacts of climate change can be betterunderstood, creating the opportunity for interven-tions to be identified to enhance the performanceof the system.
A number of case studies from ACCCRNcities have been analysed using this urban sys-tems approach. The research to inform this analysis
was undertaken in two key stages. Firstly, from2008 to 2010, primary and secondary informationwere collected and reviewed to provide contextualbackground for each of the 10 ACCCRN cities.Primary research included field visits to manyof the ACCCRN cities, semi-structured inter-views and meetings with city actors and coordi-nation with country and regional ACCCRN part-ners. This primary data were supplemented by adesk-based literature review of each of the CityResilience Strategies,8 a city-wide planning doc-ument that brought together vulnerability assess-ments, sector studies and climate change projec-tions into a holistic action plan for increasingresilience.
The second stage of research analysed a num-ber of city intervention projects that are beingfunded by the Rockefeller Foundation through theACCCRN programme. A desk-based review of theapproved project proposals was undertaken from2011 to 2012 to critically evaluate and test theurban systems approach.
The case studies detailed below describe aseries of city intervention projects from theACCCRN cities of Surat (India), Bandar Lampung(Indonesia), Quy Nhon (Vietnam), Chiang Rai(Thailand) and Indore (Indore). They have beenselected based on their geographical and sectoraldiversity, access to reliable data sources and timelyavailability of materials. The case studies act asa good illustration of the practical application ofthe urban systems approach and the resiliencecharacteristics.
The city of Surat, located in the western Indianstate of Gujarat, has a projected population of over4.5 million and is the ninth largest city in India(TARU Leading Edge 2010b). The focus of theurban systems analysis is security relating to urbanflood risk, both in terms of personal safety (par-ticularly that of low-income communities locatedin vulnerable areas) and business continuity. Suratis a low-lying coastal city that is affected by tidaland fluvial flooding, notably from the Tapi River.Significant infrastructure exists already to mitigatethis risk in the form of urban drainage systems,flood defences and a reservoir located outside the
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
202.
167.
250.
67]
at 2
0:08
17
Sept
embe
r 20
12
International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development 13
municipal boundary. Early warning systems andemergency preparedness plans also exist. However,the intensity of precipitation is currently increasingas a result of climate change, and flood risk will beamplified by sea level rise (TARU Leading Edge2010b).
Figure 6 illustrates the urban systems analy-sis. It highlights the importance of city institu-tions’ ability to respond effectively to flood emer-gencies and identifies the relationship betweenflood risk and operation of the reservoir whichis outside the control of the city. Currently, dammanagement is a reactive process, responding towater levels in the reservoir, rather than beinginformed by wider catchment analysis and rainfall
forecasting, or an understanding of the impli-cations of dam release on the city of Surat.City stakeholders have identified the importanceof knowledge networks (particularly informationexchange between key institutions, notably rainfallforecasters, dam managers and Surat municipality),and decision-making founded on more compre-hensive hydrological modelling. It was recognisedthat this modelling would only be effective if itwas supported by improved institutional flood riskmanagement (including improved management ofwater resources, early warning and emergencymanagement plans) involving multiple stakehold-ers within the city as well as the Gujarat StateDisaster Management Authority and the Narmada
FLO
OD
SA
FE
TY
AN
D S
EC
UR
ITY
CL
IMA
TE
AN
D H
YD
RO
LOG
Y
INSTITUTIONS KNOWLEDGEINFRASTRUCTURE
EARLY WARNING DISASTER
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
FLOOD MANAGEMENT ADVISORY COMMITEE
CITY STAKEHOLDERS TRUST
HYDROLOGICAL MODELLING
INFORMATION EXCHANGE BETWEEN
INSTITUTIONS
RESERVOIR
RESERVOIR MANAGEMENT MODELS
EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
PLANS
CITY FLOODPROTECTION
MEASURES
URBAN DRAINAGE SYSTEM
WELL-BEING ECOSYSTEMS
infrastructure
intervention points
in the system
Legend
institutions knowledge
Figure 6. Systems analysis of flood safety and security, Surat, India.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
202.
167.
250.
67]
at 2
0:08
17
Sept
embe
r 20
12
14 J. da Silva et al.
Water Resources Water Supply and KalpasarDepartment. In terms of resilience characteristics,the Surat example highlights efforts to improve themanagement and decision-makings around waterstorage and release at the Ukai Dam are focused onstrengthening the relevant institutional and knowl-edge systems. These approaches demonstrate: flex-ibility – the improved management of the Ukaidam means that it will be able to function nor-mally within a wider range of rainfall patterns;and safe failure – controlled release of waterfrom the Ukai dam is a mechanism to managethe potential failure of the dam if its capacity isexceeded.
A similar analysis of flood safety and securityin Bandar Lampung, Indonesia, identified that theeffectiveness of the existing urban drainage systemwas severely compromised by unregulated dump-ing of waste in drainage channels, canals and rivers(infrastructure networks). This practice was caus-ing freshwater contamination and disease (Institutefor Social and Environmental Transition et al.2010). As an intervention to the system, the cityproposed the development of a city-wide integratedsolid waste management plan in order to decreasethe risk of flooding, as well as the generation andspread of vector and waterborne disease. In termsof resilience characteristics, research into currentsolid waste management conditions within the city,policy analysis and identification of national bestpractice shared through multi-stakeholder engage-ment increases resourcefulness – the capacity ofinternal agents to identify problems, prioritiseactions and mobilise resources. Further, multi-sectoral working increases responsiveness – thecapacity to organise the effective managementurban systems such as solid waste management andwater and sanitation infrastructure.
In Quy Nhon, Vietnam, flooding has alwaysbeen a common occurrence as the city is prone totyphoons and storm surge (Huynh and DiGregorio2010). Increased flooding has been attributed tochanging rainfall patterns, but locally flooding isexacerbated by the uncontrolled urban expansioninto the flood plain and sensitive coastal zones.Moreover, the impacts of flooding are now more
intense, principally due to the funnelling of floodwaters which in the past used to be undirected.These waters are now concentrated as a result ofurban infrastructure which has raised the groundlevel to provide flood protection, and constructingman-made barriers (Brown and Kernaghan 2011).Flood waters build up around these barriers andcreate large-scale destruction when they eventuallyoverflow. The city has recognised the need for insti-tutional interventions and is looking into enhancingits understanding of the interaction between pop-ulation growth, flooding and land use – creatingthe basis for improved urban planning practices.In terms of resilience characteristics, documenta-tion of the 2009 floods, the creation of a sharedflood and urban development model, and workingas part of a multi-sectoral working group sup-ports the capacity to learn – improved learningbetween stakeholders as working relationships areestablished.
Well-being in Chiang Rai, Thailand, is threat-ened by food and livelihood insecurity. The cityis known for its relatively cool climate whichallows significant urban agriculture on its periph-ery, particularly cultivation of fruit trees. Changingdistribution of rainfall is now leading to droughtsand water scarcity which is negatively affect-ing the agricultural sector. Temperature increasesattributable to climate change have also alteredgrowing seasons for some crops and broughtincreased exposure to disease carrying vectorsso that dengue fever borne by mosquitoes hasincreased significantly. Reduced productivity hasbeen linked to these health issues as well as highertemperatures which shorten the hours that farm-ers can work (Chiang Rai ACCCRN City Teamand Thailand Environment Institute 2011). Raisingthe level of knowledge among urban poor onimproved farming practices is recognised as crit-ical to improving food and income security, andmeasures to introduce improved farming prac-tices (inter-cropping and crop diversification) thatutilise water more efficiently are being explored(see Figure 7). In terms of resilience characteris-tics, the Chiang Rai project includes rehabilitat-ing the river, which will act as a reserve water
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
202.
167.
250.
67]
at 2
0:08
17
Sept
embe
r 20
12
International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development 15
FO
OD
AN
D IN
CO
ME
SE
CU
RIT
Y
NA
TU
RA
L E
NV
IRO
NM
EN
T
INSTITUTIONS KNOWLEDGEINFRASTRUCTURE
RESEARCH INSTITUTES
NGOs
WATERMANAGEMENT
AUTHORITY
IRRIGATION
GOVERNMENT AGRICULTURE
OFFICES
IMPROVINGFARMING
PRACTICESTHAT
CONSERVE WATER
IMPROVED SEED VARIETIES
CROPDIVERSIFICATION
WATERSHEDMANAGEMENT
TRANSPORT
MARKETING
WELL-BEING ECOSYSTEMS
infrastructure
intervention points
in the system
Legend
institutions knowledge
Figure 7. Systems analysis of food and income security, Chiang Rai, Thailand.
source building redundancy into the water supplysystem.
Households in Indore, India, face very severewater shortages due to limited local water supplywhich will become even more limited as a resultof climate change, compounded by poor manage-ment and significant reliance on infrastructure. Thelocal groundwater is increasingly polluted, and thecity is reliant on water pumped from over 70 kmaway which is expensive and unreliable. The pipedwater distribution does not serve informal settle-ments which rely on wells and boreholes, limitedrainwater harvesting and delivery by tankers. Waterinsecurity and the cost of water for these commu-nities is significantly higher than in more affluent
areas (TARU Leading Edge et al. 2010a). Theanalysis in Figure 8 demonstrates the opportu-nity for community-level interventions centred onimproving knowledge of water resources, how touse water efficiently and improving water qual-ity. These measures include water managementat the household level, and introducing appro-priate technologies to capture and treat water.In terms of resilience characteristics, the conjunc-tive water management project aims to demonstrateviable models for cost-effective, reliable, decen-tralised urban water management through com-munity involvement. Increasing reliance on localecosystems is core to this approach as remotewater sources are unreliable. Through more flexible
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
202.
167.
250.
67]
at 2
0:08
17
Sept
embe
r 20
12
16 J. da Silva et al.
AC
CE
SS
TO
SA
FE
WA
TE
R S
UP
PLY
WA
TE
R
INSTITUTIONS KNOWLEDGEINFRASTRUCTURE
MUNICIPALWATER
GOVERNANCESTRUCTURE
RAINWATERHARVESTING
INDEPENDENTBOREHOLES
TRUCKED WATERSUPPLY
TREATMENT / STORAGE / RECYCLING
WATERINFRASTRUCTURE
WELL-BEING ECOSYSTEMS
COMMUNITYEDUCATION ON WATER
MANAGEMENT
TOOLS & METHODSTO UNDERSTAND
WATER RESOURCESITUATION
COMMUNITYLEVEL
TECHNOLOGYDEVELOPMENT
infrastructure
intervention points
in the system
Legend
institutions knowledge
Figure 8. Systems analysis of water supply in Indore, India.
sources of water supply, institutions and infrastruc-ture options – access to these local ecosystems isbeing improved.
There are currently over 25 projects that the10 ACCCRN cities are implementing, demonstrat-ing action at a range of levels, and providing earlyevidence that cities need to focus on their sys-tems of provision, and increasing the resiliencecharacteristics of those systems, in order to buildresilience of cities to the impacts of climate changeand others shocks and stresses. Further researchto build an evidence base of what does (and doesnot) contribute to urban resilience, and the con-texts in which specific interventions are applicable,is urgently needed. The interventions in 10 Asiancities in four countries as part of the ACCCRNprogramme of the Rockefeller Foundation are anotable effort towards meeting this need.
5. Conclusion
The well-being of more than half the world’s popu-lation relies on a complex web of knowledge, insti-tutions and infrastructure networks which mediatetheir dependency on natural resources. The abil-ity of these networks to evolve and adapt tochanging circumstances and extreme events as aresult of climate change will determine the futureof many cities; the alternative being progressivedecay or catastrophic collapse of urban areas,housing 100,000s of people with wider economicimplications.
This article identifies the future challengescities face in their ability to provide well-beingas a result of the compound effect generated byclimate change, distinguishing between (1) directimpacts (e.g. due to temperature rise or flooding);
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
202.
167.
250.
67]
at 2
0:08
17
Sept
embe
r 20
12
International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development 17
(2) indirect effects arising from disruption or lossof essential assets and networks that enable the cityto function and (3) pre-existing vulnerability dueto lack of services, infrastructure deficits, politi-cal voice and limited livelihood opportunity whichcompromises adaptive capacity. This suggests thataction to reduce exposure and improve the adap-tive capacity of urban populations must thereforesimultaneously address DRR, urban poverty reduc-tion and urban resilience (i.e. the ability of the cityto maintain the functions that support the well-being of its citizens). In each of these three areas,action is required at multiple levels: within commu-nities working through civil society organisations(e.g. NGOs and CBOs) and local government, aswell as at a city-wide level integrated into for-mal planning processes and investment decisionsand through national policy. Action which benefitslarge numbers of people and positively impacts themost vulnerable communities should be prioritised.
Whereas there is a strong evidence base oflarge- and small-scale interventions which posi-tively contribute to DRR and poverty reduction,urban resilience is an emerging field. Cities arecomplex socio-technical systems, and as such it isdifficult to predict their behaviour. Spatial analy-sis alone is insufficient as it does not recognise theflows of goods, services and people that enable acity to function. Equally, climate change impactsare based on uncertain projections, which chal-lenge the ‘predict and prevent’ paradigm that hasformed the basis of geo-hazard planning and engi-neering to date.
The examples from cities participating in theACCCRN programme illustrate how a simplifiedconceptual model of the urban system can be usedto analyse a city in terms of its key systems ofprovision (e.g. food, water and energy) and theirrelationships within and outside the city, to beable to understand how susceptible they are to thetypes of shocks and stresses that might arise asa result of climate change. This is likely to bemost significant where there are serious shortfallsin resources, or inadequate coverage and capacitythat already compromise well-being, placing com-munities under stress even before climate impacts
are considered. Interventions can then be identi-fied which address critical gaps or weaknesses inthe system, and catalyse alternative behaviours thatbuild resilience.
Action to build an evidence base of what does(and does not) contribute to resilience is urgentlyneeded, not least to inform how resilience can bemeasured. As an attribute of the urban system’sbehaviour, resilience cannot be measured directlyother than in terms of changing performancein response to shocks and stresses. Moreover,resilience will only be achieved through the cumu-lative contribution of multiple interventions andactions over time, and the ability of individualsand institutions to internalise learning and experi-ence to inform future behaviour. The characteris-tics of the socio-technical networks that comprisea resilient city presented in this article can beused to define the desired network outcome (ratherthan output) arising from any intervention targetedat building urban resilience and are a first steptowards developing measurable network indicators.
AcknowledgementsThe authors are indebted to the wealth of experiencesbeing generated by the ACCCRN partners and cities.This article grew out of the challenges that each cityfaces in attempting to build resilience to climate changeand the search for conceptual clarity and practicalresponses.
Notes1. Arup is an independent firm of built environment
professionals (designers, planners and engineers)whose mission statement is to ‘shape a betterworld’.
2. For further information, see http://www.acccrn.org3. For a detailed description of system dynamics,
refer to Forrester and Wright (1969), Clayton andRadcliffe (1996) and Coyle (1996).
4. For further examples, see ‘Climate Action in Mega-cities: C40 Cities Baseline and Opportunities Ver-sion 1.0 June 2011’ (http://arup.com/Publications/Climate_Action_in_Megacities.aspx). Based on asurvey of member cities, it analyses the powers,actions and opportunities of the world’s 40 premiercities to adapt to climate change.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
202.
167.
250.
67]
at 2
0:08
17
Sept
embe
r 20
12
18 J. da Silva et al.
5. The enabling environment described here, and itsanalogous use with the real functional boundary ofa city, is not the same as the ‘Functional UrbanArea’. The ‘Functional Urban Area’ is in princi-ple a spatial designation that recognises that severalkey dynamics of cities (e.g. employment and/orhousing), occur outside the official administrativeboundaries and in the fringe areas, forming an‘increasingly interwoven and interactive functionalregion’ (Antikainen 2005).
6. The notion of safe failure is grounded in seismicdesign approaches. An alternative conceptualisationis provided by the notion of ductility. Safe failureshould not be confused with ‘fail safe’, which refersto a system or mechanism that is guaranteed not tofail.
7. For example, in a bid to increase access to keyresources, large cities in both developed and devel-oping nations are implementing a new resourceparadigm known as Secure Urbanism and ResilientInfrastructure (SURI) (Hodson and Marvin 2009).This approach is seen as a strategic response toissues of resource constraint, climate change andenergy security and is designed to secure the keyresources required for ecological and material repro-duction, particularly those required to maintain andenhance economic growth.
8. The City Resilience Strategies for the ACCCRNcities are available to download from http://www.acccrn.org/resources
Notes on contributorsJo da Silva: She is Director of Arup InternationalDevelopment, a not-for-profit group within Arup whichworks in partnership with humanitarian and developmentorganisations to create sustainable and resilient commu-nities. In 2009, she was elected a Fellow of the RoyalAcademy of Engineering and last year became an Officerof the British Empire (OBE) for services to engineeringand humanitarian relief.
Sam Kernaghan: He is Associate with ArupInternational Development, has qualifications inpolitical economy and environmental managementand comes from a professional background in urbanand regional planning. Sam is currently based inBangkok, where he leads Arup’s role in the RockefellerFoundation’s Asian Cities Climate Change ResilienceNetwork (ACCCRN).
Andrés Luque (MEM, Yale University; MSc, LondonSchool of Economics): He is a researcher based atDurham University, looking at the interface betweenurban infrastructure and energy geographies. He is a
member of Durham’s Centre for Doctoral Trainingin Energy (Durham Energy Institute) and the UrbanTransitions and Climate Change (UTACC) team.
ReferencesAlcamo J, Hassan R, Scholes R, Ash N, Carpenter S,
Pingali P, Bennett E, Zurek M, Chopra K, LeemansR. 2003. Ecosystems and human well-being: aframework for assessment (Millennium EcosystemAssessment). Washington (DC): Island Press.
Antikainen J. 2005. The concept of Functional UrbanArea, findings of the ESPON project 1.1.1. Inf zurRaumentwickl. 7:447–456.
Bahadur A, Ibrahim M, Tanner T. 2010. The resiliencerenaissance? Unpacking of resilience for tacklingclimate change and disasters. London (UK): Instituteof Development Studies.
Barnett G, Bai X. 2007. Urban resilience researchprospectus. Resilience alliance. Stockholm(Sweden): Stockholm University.
Batty M, Barros J, Alves Jr S. 2006. Cities: continu-ity, transformation and emergence. In: Garnsey E,McGlade J, editors. Complexity and co-evolution:continuity and change in socio-economic systems.Cheltenham (UK): Edward Elgar.
Bennett J. 2005. The agency of assemblages andthe North American blackout. Public Cult. 17(3):445–465.
Bicknell J, Dodman D, Satterthwaite D, editors. 2009.Adapting cities to climate change: understandingand addressing the development challenges. London(UK): Earthscan.
Brown A, Kernaghan S. 2011. Beyond climate-proofing: taking an integrated approach tobuilding climate resilience in Asian Cities. UGECViewpoints [Internet]. [cited 2011 Nov]; 6. Availablefrom: http://www.ugec.org/docs/ViewpointsVI%20Nov2011.pdf
Bruneau M, Chang SE, Eguchi RT, Lee GC, O‘RourkeTD, Reinhorn AM, Shinozuka M, Tierney K,Wallace WA, von Winterfeldt D. 2003. A frameworkto quantitatively assess and enhance the seismicresilience of communities. Earthquake Spectra[Internet]. [cited 2012 Feb]; 19(4). Available fromhttp://eqs.eeri.org/
Bulkeley H. 2010. Cities and the governing of cli-mate change. Annual Review of Environmentand Resources [Internet]. [updated November2010; cited 2011 Feb]; 35, 229–253. Available fromhttp://www.annualreviews.org/doi//10.1146/annurev-environ-072809-101747?journalCode=energy
Bulkeley H, Schroeder H, Janda K, Zhao J, ArmstrongA, Chu S, Ghosh S. 2011. The role of institu-tions, governance and planning for mitigation and
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
202.
167.
250.
67]
at 2
0:08
17
Sept
embe
r 20
12
International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development 19
adaptation by cities. In: Hoornweg D, Frire, M, LeeM, Bhada P, Yuen B, editors. Cities and climatechange: responding to an urgent agenda. Washington(DC): The World Bank. p. 68–88.
Burdett R, Sudjic D. 2007. The endless city: the UrbanAge project. London (UK): Phaidon.
Campanella T. 2006. Urban resilience and the recoveryof New Orleans. J Am Plann Assoc. 72(2):141–146.
Carmin J, Dodman D. Forthcoming. Scientific certaintyand uncertainty in urban climate adaptation plan-ning. In: Moser S, Boycott M, editors. Successfuladaptation: linking science and practice in managingclimate change impacts. London (UK): Routledge.
Chiang Rai ACCCRN City Team, Thailand EnvironmentInstitute. 2011. Thailand: Chiang Rai ClimateChange Resilience Strategy [Internet]. [cited 2012Jun 1]. Available from: http://www.acccrn.org/sites/default/files/documents/7%20Chiang%20Rai%20Resilience%20Strategy.pdf
Clayton A, Radcliffe N. 1996. Sustainability: a systemsapproach. London (UK): Earthscan.
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial ResearchOrganisation, Arizona State University, StockholmUniversity. 2007. Urban Resilience: ResearchProspectus. A Resilience Alliance initiative fortransitioning urban systems towards sustainablefutures [Internet]. [cited 2011 Sept 16]. Availablefrom: http://www.resalliance.org/1610.php
Construction Industry Research and InformationAssociation. 2010. C688 Interim Report – Floodresilience and resistance for critical infrastructure.London (UK): Arup.
Corsellis T, Vitale A. 2008. Transitional settlement andreconstruction after natural disasters: field edition.Geneva, OCHA, Shelter Centre, DFID. 6.
Coyle R. 1996. System dynamics modelling: a practicalapproach. New York (NY): Chapman & Hall/CRC.
Davis M. 2002. Dead cities. New York (NY): New Press.Dawson R, Hall J, Barr S, Batty M, Bristow A,
Carney S, Evans EP, Kohler J, Tight M, Walsh C,et al. 2009. A blueprint for the integrated assess-ment of climate change in cities. Tyndall Centrefor Climate Research, Working Paper 129 [Internet].[cited 2011 May 3]. Available from: http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/biblio/view/316
Desakota Study Team. 2008. Re-imagining the rural–urban continuum. Katmandu (Nepal): ISET.
Dodman D, Mitlin D. 2011. Challenges for community-based adaptation: discovering the potential for trans-formation. J Int Dev. doi: 10.1002/jid.1772.
Dodman D, Satterthwaite D. 2008. Institutional capacity,climate change adaptation and the Urban poor. IDSBull. 39(4).
Fisk D. 2007. Urban energy systems – the infrastructurestory [Internet]. I. C. L.-U. E. Systems. London,
Unpublished [cited 2010 Apr 30]. Available from:http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/urbanenergysystems/resourcesanddata
Folke C. 2006. Resilience: the emergence of a perspec-tive for social-ecological systems analyses. GlobalEnviron Chang. 16:253–267.
Forrester J, Wright J. 1969. Urban dynamics. Cambridge(MA): MIT Press.
Geels FW. 2004. From sectoral systems of innovationto socio-technical systems: insights about dynamicsand change from sociology and institutional theory.Res Policy. 33(6/7):897–920.
Girardet H. 2004. Cities people planet: liveable citiesfor a sustainable world. Chichester (UK): Wiley-Academy.
Godschalk DR. 2003. Urban hazard mitigation: creatingresilient cities. Natl Hazards Rev. 4(3):136–143.
Graham S. 2010. When infrastructures fail. Disruptedcities. London (UK): Routledge.
Graham S, Marvin S. 2001. Splintering urbanism: net-worked infrastructures, technological mobilities andthe urban condition. Abingdon (UK): Routledge.
Graham S, Thrift N. 2007. Out of order: understand-ing repair and maintenance. Theor Cult Soc. 24(3):1–25.
Grove JM, Burch WR. 1997. A social ecology approachand applications of urban ecosystem and landscapeanalyses: a case study of Baltimore, Maryland.Urban Ecosyst. 1:259–275.
Hall J. 2009a. Integrated assessment to support regionaland local decision making. Planning for climatechange: strategies for mitigation and adaptation forspatial planners. London (UK): Earthscan.
Hall P. 2009b. Looking backward, looking forward:the city region of the mid-21st century. Reg Stud.43(6):803–817.
Hardoy J, Pandiella G. 2009. Urban poverty and vulner-ability to climate change. Latin Am Environ Urban.21(1):203–224.
Harris S, Keil R. 2010. Securitizing networked flow:infections diseases and airports. In: Graham S, edi-tor. Disrupted cities. London (UK): Routledge.
Hillier B. 2007. Space is the machine: a configurationaltheory of architecture. London (UK): Space Syntax.
Hodson M, Marvin S. 2009. Urban ecological secu-rity: a new urban paradigm? Int J Urban Regional.33(1):193–216.
Holling C. 1973. Resilience and stability of ecologicalsystems. Annu Rev Ecold Syst. 4(1):1–23.
Hopkins R. 2009. Resilience thinking. London (UK):Resurgence.
Huitt W. 2004. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs [Internet].Educational Psychology Interactive. [cited 2010Apr 30]. Available from: http://ways-ahead.net/meditation/037-2-Maslow.pdf
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
202.
167.
250.
67]
at 2
0:08
17
Sept
embe
r 20
12
20 J. da Silva et al.
Huynh CV, DiGregorio M. 2010. Living with floods:descriptions and explanations of the 2009 flood frompeople living in flooded areas [Video]. Bangkok(Thailand): Institute for Social and EnvironmentalTransition.
Institute for Social and Environmental Transition,MercyCorps, URDI and CCROM SEAP-IPB.2010. Vulnerability and adaptation assessment toclimate change in Bandar Lampung City [Internet].[cited 2012 Jun 1]. Available from: http://www.acccrn.org/sites/default/files/documents/ACCCRN_lampung_ENG_26APRIL2010.pdf
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007.Climate change 2007: synthesis report. Geneva(Switzerland): UN-IPCC.
International Federation of the Red Cross and RedCrescent Societies-Arup. 2011. InternationalFederation of the Red Cross and Red CrescentSocieties Community Based Disaster RiskReduction Study – Characteristics of a Safeand Resilient Community. London (UK): Arup.
International Standards Organisation. 2002. Guide 73.Risk management vocabulary guidelines for use instandards. Geneva (Switzerland): ISO.
Keirstead J. 2007. Towards urban energy system indica-tors. London (UK): Urban Energy Systems Group,Imperial Colege London/BP.
Luque A, Duff M. 2006. Urban green infrastructure: cap-turing ecosystem value. Urban Design. Spring (98):10–13.
Marvin S, Medd W. 2006. Metabolisms of obecity: flowsof fat through bodies, cities, and sewers. EnvironPlann A. 38(2):313–324.
Maslow A. 1971. The farther reaches of human nature.New York (NY): Viking Press.
McEvoy D, Lindley S, Handley J. 2006. Adaptation andmitigation in urban areas: synergies and conflicts. PI Civil Eng Munic. 159(ME4):185–191.
Moench, M, Tyler, S, editors. 2011. Catalyzing urbanclimate resilience: applying resilience concepts toplanning practice in the ACCCRN program (2009–2011). Bangkok (Thailand): ISET- Boulder. 306 p.
Monstadt J. 2009. Conceptualizing the politicalecology of urban infrastructures: insights fromtechnology and urban studies. Environ Plann A.41(8):1924–1942.
Moser C, Satterthwaite D. 2010. Toward pro-poor adap-tation to climate change in the urban centres of low-and middle-income countries. In: Mearns R, NortonA, editors. Social dimensions of climate change:equity and vulnerability in a warming. Washington(DC): World Bank Publications. p. 231–257.
Mumford L. 1961. The city in history: its origins, itstransformations, and its prospects. Edgewater (NJ):Mariner Books.
Musacchio L, Wu J, editors. 2004. Collaborativeresearch in landscape-scale ecosystem studies:emerging trends in urban and regional ecology.Urban Ecosyst. 7(3):175–314.
Newman P. 1999. Sustainability and cities: extend-ing the metabolism model. Landsc Urban Plan.44(4):219–226.
O‘Rourke T. 2007. Critical infrastructure, interdepen-dencies, and resilience. Bridg – J Nat Acad Eng.37(1):22.
Parker E, Kernaghan S, Hawley T. 2012. Mainstreamingurban climate change adaptation: engaging ‘earlyadopters’ [Internet]. UGEC Viewpoints VII: 7,2012. [cited 2012 Mar 3]. Available from: http://www.ugec.org/docs/Viewpoints7%20May2012.pdf
Pickett STA, Burch WR. 1997. A conceptual frameworkfor the study of human ecosystems in urban areas.Urban Ecosyst. 1(4):185–199.
Pickett STA, Cadenasso ML, Grove JM. 2004. Resilientcities: meaning, models, and metaphor for integrat-ing the ecological, socio-economic, and planningrealms. Landsc Urban Plan. 69(4):369–384.
Piracha A, Marcotullio P. 2003. Urban ecosystem anal-ysis, identifying tools and methods. Yokohama(Japan): United Nations University Institute ofAdvanced Studies (UNU/IAS).
Reid H, Huq S. 2007. Adaptation to climate change: howwe are set to cope with the impacts. IIED BriefingPaper.
Rip A, Kemp R. 1998. Technological change. In: RaynerS, Malone E, editors. Human choices and climatechange 2. Columbus (OH): Battelle. p. 327–399.
Roberts D. 2010. Prioritizing climate change adaptationand local level resilience in Durban, South Africa.Environ Urban. 22(2010):397–413.
Royal Aacdemy of Engineering. 2007. Creating systemsthat work: principles of engineering systems for the21st century, Vol. 31. London (UK): Royal Academyof Engineering.
Ruth M, Coelho D. 2007. Understanding and manag-ing the complexity of urban systems under climatechange. Climate Pol. 7(4):317–336.
Sanderson D. 2000. Cities, disasters and livelihoods.Environ Urban. 12(2):93.
Satterthwaite D, Huq S, Pelling M, Reid A, Romero-Lankao P. 2007. Adapting to climate change inurban areas: the possibilities and constraints inlow- and middle-income nations. London (UK):IIED, Human Settlements Discussion Paper Series –Climate Change and Cities.
Scheurer J. 2001. Urban ecology, innovations in hous-ing policy and the future of cities: towardssustainability in neighbourhood communities [PhDthesis]. Perth (Australia): Murdoch UniversityInstitute of Sustainable Transport.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
202.
167.
250.
67]
at 2
0:08
17
Sept
embe
r 20
12
International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development 21
Schulz N. 2009. Delving into the carbon footprints ofSingapore – comparing direct and indirect green-house gas emissions of a small and open economicsystem. Energy Pol. 38(9):4848–4855.
Sims B. 2010. Disoriented city: infrastructure, socialorder, and the police response to Hurricane Katrina.In: Graham S, editor. Disrupted cities. London (UK):Routledge.
Smith A. 2007. Translating sustainabilities betweengreen niches and socio-technical regimes. TechnolAnal Strateg. 19(4):427–450.
Smith A, Stirling A, Berkhout F. 2005. The governanceof sustainable socio-technical transitions. Res Policy.34(10):1491–1510.
Smith T, Lynam T, Preston B, Matthews J, CarterRW, Thomsen D, Carter J, Roiko A, Simpson R,Waterman P, et al. 2010. Towards enhancing adap-tive capacity for climate change response in SouthEast Queensland [Internet]. Australas J DisasterTrauma Stud. 1. [cited 2012 Jan 5]. Available from:http://trauma.massey.ac.nz/issues/2010-1/tsmith.htm
Summerton J. 1994. Changing large technical systems.Boulder (CO): Westview Press.
Swyngedouw E. 2006. Circulations and metabolisms:(hybrid) natures and (cyborg) cities. Sci Cult.15(2):105–121.
TARU Leading Edge Gurgaon & Gandhinagar. 2010a.City Resilience Strategy: Indore [Internet]. [cited2012 May 22]. Available from: http://www.acccrn.org/sites/default/files/documents/IndoreCityResilienceStrategy_ACCCRN_WorkingDraftVersion_01Apr2011.pdf
TARU Leading Edge Gurgaon & Gandhinagar. 2010b.Phase 2: Surat: City Resilience Strategy [Internet].[cited 2012 May 22]. Available from: http://www.acccrn.org/sites/default/files/documents/IN_SURAT%20ACCCRNFINAL%20RES.20Strategy%2015Aug2010%20.pdf
Technical Team for Climate Adaptation of SemarangCity, City Working Group. 2010. City ResilienceStrategy: Semarang’s adaptation plan in respondingto climate change [Internet]. [cited 2012 May 22].Available from: http://acccrn.org/sites/default/files/documents/6_Semarang_Resilience_Strategy.pdf
Twigg J. 2007. Characteristics of a disaster-resilientcommunity: a guidance note. DFID Disaster RiskReduction Interagency Coordination Group.
United Nations. 2000. UN population division’s worldurbanization prospects: the 1999 revision. Geneva(Switzerland): UNFPA.
United Nations. 2006. State of the world’s cities 2006/7.UN Habitat. London (UK): Earthscan.
United Nations Millennium Project. 2005. A Home inthe City. Task Force on Improving the Lives of SlumDwellers [Internet]. [cited 2011 Sept 4]. Availablefrom: http://www.unmillenniumproject.org/reports/tf_slum.htm
World Bank. 2008. Climate resilient cities: a primeron reducing vulnerability to disasters. Washington(DC): ISDR/World Bank.
Yohe G, Tol R. 2002. Indicators for social and economiccoping capacity – moving toward a working defi-nition of adaptive capacity. Global Environ Chang.12(1):25–40.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
202.
167.
250.
67]
at 2
0:08
17
Sept
embe
r 20
12