Defining urban resilience: A review

Sara Meerow, Joshua P. Newell, Melissa Stults

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

292 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Fostering resilience in the face of environmental, socioeconomic, and political uncertainty and risk has captured the attention of academics and decision makers across disciplines, sectors, and scales. Resilience has become an important goal for cities, particularly in the face of climate change. Urban areas house the majority of the world's population, and, in addition to functioning as nodes of resource consumption and as sites for innovation, have become laboratories for resilience, both in theory and in practice. This paper reviews the scholarly literature on urban resilience and concludes that the term has not been well defined. Existing definitions are inconsistent and underdeveloped with respect to incorporation of crucial concepts found in both resilience theory and urban theory. Based on this literature review, and aided by bibliometric analysis, the paper identifies six conceptual tensions fundamental to urban resilience: (1) definition of 'urban'; (2) understanding of system equilibrium; (3) positive vs. neutral (or negative) conceptualizations of resilience; (4) mechanisms for system change; (5) adaptation versus general adaptability; and (6) timescale of action. To advance this burgeoning field, more conceptual clarity is needed. This paper, therefore, proposes a new definition of urban resilience. This definition takes explicit positions on these tensions, but remains inclusive and flexible enough to enable uptake by, and collaboration among, varying disciplines. The paper concludes with a discussion of how the definition might serve as a boundary object, with the acknowledgement that applying resilience in different contexts requires answering: Resilience for whom and to what? When? Where? And why?.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)38-49
Number of pages12
JournalLandscape and Urban Planning
Volume147
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 1 2016
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

literature review
innovation
urban area
timescale
climate change
resource
socioeconomics
incorporation
laboratory
decision
consumption
city
world
analysis

Keywords

  • Adaptation
  • Adaptive capacity
  • Climate change
  • Resilient cities
  • Socio-ecological systems
  • Urban resilience

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Ecology
  • Nature and Landscape Conservation
  • Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law

Cite this

Defining urban resilience : A review. / Meerow, Sara; Newell, Joshua P.; Stults, Melissa.

In: Landscape and Urban Planning, Vol. 147, 01.03.2016, p. 38-49.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Meerow, Sara ; Newell, Joshua P. ; Stults, Melissa. / Defining urban resilience : A review. In: Landscape and Urban Planning. 2016 ; Vol. 147. pp. 38-49.
@article{3bdf22a3971442d1a285685153caa562,
title = "Defining urban resilience: A review",
abstract = "Fostering resilience in the face of environmental, socioeconomic, and political uncertainty and risk has captured the attention of academics and decision makers across disciplines, sectors, and scales. Resilience has become an important goal for cities, particularly in the face of climate change. Urban areas house the majority of the world's population, and, in addition to functioning as nodes of resource consumption and as sites for innovation, have become laboratories for resilience, both in theory and in practice. This paper reviews the scholarly literature on urban resilience and concludes that the term has not been well defined. Existing definitions are inconsistent and underdeveloped with respect to incorporation of crucial concepts found in both resilience theory and urban theory. Based on this literature review, and aided by bibliometric analysis, the paper identifies six conceptual tensions fundamental to urban resilience: (1) definition of 'urban'; (2) understanding of system equilibrium; (3) positive vs. neutral (or negative) conceptualizations of resilience; (4) mechanisms for system change; (5) adaptation versus general adaptability; and (6) timescale of action. To advance this burgeoning field, more conceptual clarity is needed. This paper, therefore, proposes a new definition of urban resilience. This definition takes explicit positions on these tensions, but remains inclusive and flexible enough to enable uptake by, and collaboration among, varying disciplines. The paper concludes with a discussion of how the definition might serve as a boundary object, with the acknowledgement that applying resilience in different contexts requires answering: Resilience for whom and to what? When? Where? And why?.",
keywords = "Adaptation, Adaptive capacity, Climate change, Resilient cities, Socio-ecological systems, Urban resilience",
author = "Sara Meerow and Newell, {Joshua P.} and Melissa Stults",
year = "2016",
month = "3",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.11.011",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "147",
pages = "38--49",
journal = "Landscape and Urban Planning",
issn = "0169-2046",
publisher = "Elsevier",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Defining urban resilience

T2 - A review

AU - Meerow, Sara

AU - Newell, Joshua P.

AU - Stults, Melissa

PY - 2016/3/1

Y1 - 2016/3/1

N2 - Fostering resilience in the face of environmental, socioeconomic, and political uncertainty and risk has captured the attention of academics and decision makers across disciplines, sectors, and scales. Resilience has become an important goal for cities, particularly in the face of climate change. Urban areas house the majority of the world's population, and, in addition to functioning as nodes of resource consumption and as sites for innovation, have become laboratories for resilience, both in theory and in practice. This paper reviews the scholarly literature on urban resilience and concludes that the term has not been well defined. Existing definitions are inconsistent and underdeveloped with respect to incorporation of crucial concepts found in both resilience theory and urban theory. Based on this literature review, and aided by bibliometric analysis, the paper identifies six conceptual tensions fundamental to urban resilience: (1) definition of 'urban'; (2) understanding of system equilibrium; (3) positive vs. neutral (or negative) conceptualizations of resilience; (4) mechanisms for system change; (5) adaptation versus general adaptability; and (6) timescale of action. To advance this burgeoning field, more conceptual clarity is needed. This paper, therefore, proposes a new definition of urban resilience. This definition takes explicit positions on these tensions, but remains inclusive and flexible enough to enable uptake by, and collaboration among, varying disciplines. The paper concludes with a discussion of how the definition might serve as a boundary object, with the acknowledgement that applying resilience in different contexts requires answering: Resilience for whom and to what? When? Where? And why?.

AB - Fostering resilience in the face of environmental, socioeconomic, and political uncertainty and risk has captured the attention of academics and decision makers across disciplines, sectors, and scales. Resilience has become an important goal for cities, particularly in the face of climate change. Urban areas house the majority of the world's population, and, in addition to functioning as nodes of resource consumption and as sites for innovation, have become laboratories for resilience, both in theory and in practice. This paper reviews the scholarly literature on urban resilience and concludes that the term has not been well defined. Existing definitions are inconsistent and underdeveloped with respect to incorporation of crucial concepts found in both resilience theory and urban theory. Based on this literature review, and aided by bibliometric analysis, the paper identifies six conceptual tensions fundamental to urban resilience: (1) definition of 'urban'; (2) understanding of system equilibrium; (3) positive vs. neutral (or negative) conceptualizations of resilience; (4) mechanisms for system change; (5) adaptation versus general adaptability; and (6) timescale of action. To advance this burgeoning field, more conceptual clarity is needed. This paper, therefore, proposes a new definition of urban resilience. This definition takes explicit positions on these tensions, but remains inclusive and flexible enough to enable uptake by, and collaboration among, varying disciplines. The paper concludes with a discussion of how the definition might serve as a boundary object, with the acknowledgement that applying resilience in different contexts requires answering: Resilience for whom and to what? When? Where? And why?.

KW - Adaptation

KW - Adaptive capacity

KW - Climate change

KW - Resilient cities

KW - Socio-ecological systems

KW - Urban resilience

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84952362027&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84952362027&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.11.011

DO - 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.11.011

M3 - Review article

AN - SCOPUS:84952362027

VL - 147

SP - 38

EP - 49

JO - Landscape and Urban Planning

JF - Landscape and Urban Planning

SN - 0169-2046

ER -