Monthly Archives: November 2020

T3.1: Green Infrastructures, flooding and people

The general idea of this session is to focus on the tension between green micro infrastructure and the gray macro one. This focus shed light on different case studies in order to understand how these different sides perform, and which one can be used to form our own resilient cities.

The common language between these presentations was not just to focus on the green infrastructure per se. It was more about the way of identifying the different levels that shape the policies of implementing this green infrastructure and how to find linkages between them. We can learn from the case studies that a pure top down, gray and macro scale infrastructure, in many cases, creates limitations on resilience and increases variabilities. Learning from history was an important point in this session as well, cities of the past grew resilient not just by having good infrastructures but by adapting themselves through hundreds of years, and we should get the best of this experience by learning from them in order to make our own cities more resilient as Yuan mentioned.

Urban Green Infrastructure: a study of type, opportunity and constraints for greater urban resilience
Simon Kilbane, Daniele La Rosa

The presentation focuses on the role of green infrastructure in the resilience of our cities. Rome and Sydney were used as case studies as they both have diverse geographical origins and planning history, and the presenter used imperial data in order to identify the effectiveness of the green infrastructure and ecosystem services existing in these cities. He proposed that the analysis of the spaces in these cities helps to understand the role of ecosystem services for a better urban resilience, especially during climate change.  The planning policies and strategies were also put into consideration, by comparing the capabilities of these green spaces between both cities and also by focusing on the three main resilience dimensions. The social resilience, climate resilience and eco resilience, the presenter mentioned that Sydney had richer top down green services. However, multiple grassroots movements are spreading in Rome to create eco resilient infrastructure. A big challenge that the presenter mentions was the lack of linkages between the different layers that shape the policies of implementing the green infrastructure. “We need to find dialog to connect between these linkages” he emphasizes, and that is to achieve better functioning ecosystem services.

It Takes A Micro-Village: A new understanding of the relationship between Socio-spatial Infrastructure and Equitable Resilience
Jess Pauly

Pauly talks about the reflection of people’s’ social values and priorities on the land that they live in and to understand the needs of people as ecosystems not as hierarchy. She mentions how capitalism in the United States created a top down spatial green infrastructure as part of changing the politic and economy. This created limitations on resilience and paralyzed bottom-up land use movements, which increased variability. She mansions that even though multiple movements of micro villages and transitional farms are implemented by some locals, they are not accessible by the public. As a result, the main theme in the presentation is to comprehend how the spatial environment affects our access to needs. Furthermore, in the presentation, Pauly mentions that we should understand the different layers in this spatial system by understanding the socio spatial linguistics like the Micro-Villages, Macro-Villages, and Multi-Villages. The question is how to have an infrastructure that provides this equitable access of ecosystem of human rights having a big challenge to face which is the inequitable infrastructure in the United States. the presentation ends with the emphasis on the definition of Micro village as a micro system not as part of a house.

Making Sponge City by Deciphering Indigenous Ecological Wisdom: case study of Chengdu, China
Lin Yuan

This presentation focuses on how to absorb the flood water and reuse it in china. Yuan is trying to understand this way by making a historical study on the flood system in the city of Chengdu. This study showed a special way of dealing with floods which is by separating the waterway into multiple smaller ones in order to have better control over flood water. This way of dealing with water shaped the house units in the city for centuries to come. It caused more dispersed units that were built along these smaller water lines. Another way that Yuan mentioned was the location of the houses in the city. Houses were built on elevated places that these small water lines cannot reach, and this gives more protection from water. He presents a question of how they can use these ways in the flood systems in today’s Chinese cities as china is facing more and more flood problems these days. He mentions that the government started to embrace the concept of Sponge City to deal with floodwater problems. This concept became more and more famous in china, and to improve this idea surveys have been made to analyze the main flood water problems in 30 Chinese cities.

A Tale of Two Rivers and Resilience in Tel-Aviv’s Metropolitan Region
Oren Shlomo, Nathan Marom

An analytical study on the two rivers of Tel-Aviv metropolitan area (the Yarkon and Ayalon) is held to understand how urban resilience planning is playing role in this city. Oren explains the flow and the route of the two rivers. He says “Resilience is to anticipate the flood’s timing” so further studies should be done to understand this along with adequate infrastructure. The mentions that unlike the Yarkon River which flows from the north-east through a relatively high-income area, the Ayalon flows from the south-east through a much lower-income area and the heart of the city where transportation is most dense. As a result, the resilience of the Ayalon river is considered as a gray infrastructure-based approach that includes complex strategies to deal with transportation and flood at the same time.  Oren investigates the inequality between the two rivers’ strategies as the Yarkon is diverted into a different flow but the Ayalon did not get the most adequate solution where needed. He analyzes the unequal resilience plans for both rivers by looking at historical data about the plans held for these rivers and to compare between the green approach done for Yarkon with the gray one for Ayalon.

The Design Politics of Flood Infrastructure in the Age of Resilient Urbanism
Zachary Lamb

This research aims to comprehend the variety of tools used for addressing climate change problems by answering the question of who benefits and who designs? The cities New Orleans and Dhaka are chosen as case studies because they have a flood-prone history. These two cities were compared by reviewing archives and making interviews to understand the differences between the two cities in dealing with floods. Lamp says that the two cities have almost the same flooding system which is to simply get rid of the water using gray infrastructure, and he describes this as unwise and unjust arguing that the best way to deal with this is to design with nature and putting in mind three design contributions, process, product, and communication. He mentions that dealing with floods as urgencies is the mainstream that many cities follow whereas dealing with it as (well mitigation) is a more practical way. He also mentions that the concept of everybody wins should change as it diverts people from the main priorities into unsuccessful projects.

T2.1: Urban Resilience Perspectives and Trade-offs

The general idea of this session is to focus on the tension between green micro infrastructure and the gray macro one. This focus shed light on different case studies in order to understand how these different sides preform, and which one can be used to form our own resilient cities. 

Policy design and capacity building for urban resilience
Marie-Christine Therrien

In her session, Marie-Christine discussed the complexity of translating resilience in the existing government network. She started by looking at policy design and government capacity, How to create the capacity to implement it in efficient looking into Scales, sectors, and domains. Working with the government is important as she said to avoid the traps in policy design, and create capacity for change. She described what we deal with in government framework as a patchwork effect and for this reason; environmental issues are often built on Instrumentality and have to co-exist with policies that built on complexity and deal with silo effect mentality. On the other Hand, resilience policies and strategies are impeded in broader systems of organizations and tackling multiple issues, transversal multi-organizational polycentric and we try to fit into government where there is no collective strategy. What I found interesting is the effect of Boundary people, Boundary actors” Boundary spanners” who has the responsibility of making the translation between government network and organizations by bringing in the outside world and talking about their world to the outside to alleviate the effect of silos which built on specialization.

Organizations become open to information sharing but they do not know what to do with it so they stay close to decision-making and in this case, the boundary-spanning actor becomes helpful. She continued by saying that coordination happens when organizing units comply with roles, procedures, and policies that are developed in higher levels so it becomes difficult putting up with a polycentric concept such as resilience so integration should be vertical as well as horizontal. Self-organizing capacity need to be brought together by finding a common interest and they must gain legitimacy and trust, boundary spanners are specialist in crossing these structures and merging self-interest with a joint interest in understanding the issues that come together between the boundaries. She concluded by emphasizing on the need to have different skills in order to reach successful network management. She added that Information is more important than authority. When we think for network management for resilience It should not be self-organized, it’s also not designed for collaboration so governments need to learn how to do regular scanning of the network, who’s doing what?

Building bridges between theory and practice: A normative analysis of resilience
Foteini Kalantzi, Kleoniki Pouikli, Dimitra Dihala, Efthimis Katsoras

Foteini Kalantzi began by presenting the dialogue on resilience, first the Interdependence with sustainability where she mentions the arguments around it, where some say sustainability constituent of an integral part of a larger concept of sustainability and other thinks it is a contributing factor to sustainability, while some think it is an improved part of sustainability.

Does she continue asking what kind of resilience? What model to follow? In contemporary cities with big challenges fostering these positive tempted terms as well as the need to a proactive and sometimes corrective definition of resilience with the example of helping vulnerable groups not only to respond to external stress but also empower them to manage future shocks and transitional to normality. Moreover, who will be benefiting from processes and practicing of resilience? Where she points towards the social context where she adds we need to pay attention to justice in relation to decision-making. Another important question she mentioned is, what if going to the original state is undesirable? However, as she mentioned, there is an opportunity to create a new paradigm by the effort to answer these questions, which are interconnected. Some believes that resilience theory does not adequately address critical power, voice, and equity .also the effect of neoliberal agenda. On the other hand, the criticism is reproducing unevenness jeopardize future social development and functionality, therefore, strategies for resilience cities should include less privileged group as well as the most affected in times of crisis. She also says that self-resilience might substitute accountable government.

Finally, Normative analysis of resistance directed with the question of whose environment and livelihood the city protects and why? On the legal part, Kleoniki Pouikli described the exciting traditional structure of legal framework as binding, rigid and linear. On the other hand, resilience system characteristics are absorptive capacity, adaptive and transformative Incorporate, for this reason, the requirement of resilience in predetermined legal construction is a concept she mentions “additive law governance”. In order to transfer these feature into practice, there should be a balance between adaptability requirement for resilience and stability requirement for the law. In the end, she mentioned three examples from Europe, which are environmental assessment procedure, Secular economy package, the water law, but time was not enough to go into details. However, they are new and the face of implementation.

Criteria for urban resilience assessment: Building indicators for the CDMX resilience strategy
Carlos Alonso Muñoz

Alonso talk was based on his master thesis in his master thesis; he provided a background about Mexico City, the potentials and challenges the city face. Mexico City is part of 100 resilient cities since 2013 and they built in 2016 a strategy for resilience and by 2017 they created an entity called resilience agency which responsible for implementing the strategy. People from different sectors like academia, NGOs, the private sector and official authorities developed the resilience strategy. So why they need to measure urban resilience:

  • Raise awareness
  • Allocate resources in transparent manners 
  • Build resilience and manage challenges 
  • Watch the performances to see the effectiveness of resilience.

By analyzing the social urban design assessment of national council and social development policy assessment he got the following result, first the structure, which is five pillars, seventeen goals forty four actions and more than one hundred twenty activities. From fostering regional coordination too water security and improve mobility. The problems they faced were lack of defining target and indicators add to that, no consolidated budget to implement the strategy. Build resilience frameworks, in his research he created three faces, review resilience assessment frameworks, analyses the challenge of coordination and allocation of resources and incorporate the urban resilience measurement which is mentioned before. The selection of the criteria was after a workshop with specialist in Mexico City, from twenty-five criteria they finalized nine (adaptability, coordination, capacity, diversity, efficiency, inclusion, flexibility, redundancy, and resourcefulness). The next step was to develop an urban resilience framework and built indicators of performance impact adaptive and adaptive transformation.

After that he mentioned the model, he designed for the resilience strategy in Mexico City where he tried to adapt the different kind of indicators to each one of the structural elements of the strategy. Action and activities, the impact indicators, the adaptive transformation indicators, and resilience criteria. In the end, he mentioned a case study of housing project with water scarcity. They used in this activity the definition of the indicators, the data and the calculation methods. He conclude , Mexico City Is trying to adopt implementation of 100 resilient cities by using the assessment and by designing an urban framework. However, the resilience agency disappeared because the new government by replacing it with a risk reduction approach, on the other hand he believes academia even without the government entity should continue study this Indicators for their importance to create transparency and measure goals.

A participatory systems approach to identify and quantify climate adaptation trade-offs
Marta Olazabal

In this talk, Marta presented a case study to show usage of cognitive mapping with a participatory approach in Madrid with the goal of identifying and quantifying climate adaption trade-offs. In the beginning, she says that resilience is about innovation of the ways of doing and moving some action from one context to the other. In order to identify resilience, we need to build up a wide range of scenarios, what will happen on the sustainability in the whole city? Problems that might affect results is our bias and knowledge, she highlights that by saying from the moment we define a problem we introduce a bias. Another thing is our limited capacity to predict the future and to identify direct consequence.

She used for her study the Fuzzy Cognitive Mapping (FCM), a quantitative mapping tool account for a different perspective from different stakeholders and present them in a signal map. It is a participatory methodology, based on culture network and cause-effect relations, which allows scenario building. They started by asking stakeholder to make a list of elements that plays a role in the system later they add arrows to identify relations and then make positive and negative sign to this concepts later they assign Wight  “numbers” .Question they asked

Where the impact of heat waves in the city of Madrid?  What are the potential adaptation options? They had face-to-face interviews with twenty-two participant where half of them were researchers and the other half were decision makers. In the end they collected these divers’ maps and make it a single map, the final map has 300 connections. They create different scenarios for heat waves by increase the level of activation of one concept For example; green infrastructure in order to see what is the effect on the rest of the element in the system. They run scenarios taking only into account decisions makers map and another map taking only into account researcher’s map. In the end ,Some result were not surprising while others were surprising for example the effect of green infrastructures on heat waves was good for the climate and other factors  but it was not sustainable economically because of the high maintenance cost  and it causes allergies for some residents.

To conclude, participatory system approach is useful to take into account systemic interactions and it is based on an experience of stakeholder to learn from the past and to convey what is now and to identify what is the consequence of resilience management.

Tradeoffs between regulating and cultural services as a potential source of hazard risk in urban areas
Yaella Depietri, Daniel Orenstein

Yealla presented a case study of a wildfire in the Mediterranean area. She states that the risk of fire is increasing because of the increased exposure of building and people to these fire by city expansion. The literature review was around Social construction of risk. in addition, they studied potential conflict through the lens of ecosystem framework in particular culture and regulative services. She said that most of the literature looking at the provision of culture and regulative services and other trade-offs was not explored so what they wanted to do is analyzing how tradeoffs can increase risks in the city of Haifa. Moreover, the potential synergies that might reduce fire risks. Later she provided a background about the city where it is a city is on a top of a mountain surrounded with wadis “valleys” and surrounded with undeveloped green areas. 

The problems that this area has many potential recreational activities but the city is expanding close to the forest and there was a fir in 2016 affected the urban area. The fire expanded fast because of some kinds of trees the other hand some areas were not easy to excess by firefighters. They analyzed tradeoffs by a tool called scribble maps and they did interviews with fire experts to map the risk areas. Users of the green areas to map the areas, which were interesting for recreational activities, and they ask them Why they used this area and how Strategies will affect their experience? People stress how they enjoy the fact that they are close to nature. There are tradeoffs that people in Haifa are not willing to except some strategies like firebreaks and buffers. Solutions to tradeoff are replacing pine trees with other taller and less flammable trees. In addition, building buffers around the urban area with trails and picnic areas finally, putting sensors for smoke and heat detection. To conclude, tradeoffs between culture and regulation service can lead to conflict and thus be a source of hazard in urban areas and reducing resilience.

T1.1: From Regulations to Self-building

The session “From Regulations to Self-building” encompassed the idea of bridging academic concepts with practice through the use of policy as a framework for urban resilience. The five presentations focused on a range of regulations—municipal policies and humanitarian policies that respond to disasters.

In order to reframe urban resilience, each presentation confronted the tensions between an idealized version of resilience and the trade-offs encountered by its implementation through regulations. The main tensions discussed were top-down policies juxtaposed with the knowledge of local people, the market’s viability compared to the economic stability of the people, and the experts’ plans that are implemented by the people. Yet, the goals of these policies to reinforce true urban resilience fell short according to the different case studies. The tensions that exist between the top-down approach of regulations and the bottom-up approach of self-building were explored through the lens of resilience as a balance between the two approaches.

So what is the end goal of urban resilience in the context of regulations and self-building? The need for coordination between top-down and bottom-up strategies is imperative to create realistic plans and to utilize the strengths of both the experts and the community. Regulations that are not flexible or continually revisited in light of new information may impede resilience in the long-term. Policy makers and experts must be willing to examine the impacts of a policy through the input of those living with or implementing those policies. Investing in resilience during times of ‘peace’—which means evaluating the effects of policies at multiple scales—reduces the temptation to fall back to less resilient responses when tensions are high after a disaster. These presentations embodied that same outlook towards reframing resilience by concluding with more questions and proceeding with further research.

Resilient Affordable Housing Strategies: A methodological approach to analyzing the impacts of Barcelona’s inclusionary housing policy on affordability in gentrifying neighborhoods
Walker Toma

Walker Toma’s presentation about “Resilient Affordable Housing Strategies,” centered on the approach to urban resilience through the key stress of affordable housing and subsequent stresses of gentrification and displacement exclusion. Specifically, he is researching the effects of the Inclusionary Housing Policy that is intended to provide more affordable housing. This is a priority for the city council, but upcoming elections in May 2019 could impact the future of this policy’s implementation. Barcelona’s housing policies for 2018-2023 sets ambitious targets for €650 million towards affordable housing production. This estimate is based on the Inclusionary Housing policy to require 30 percent of all new development and significant renovations to be social/affordable housing units. Toma approaches research on this policy through the following questions: “Will the policy be effective in achieving stated policy goals?” and “Can the policy better reflect contextual realities?” 

He compared Barcelona’s neighborhoods to find those with high rent to income ratios and those with new development projects over the past three years. Using these neighborhoods, Toma will develop a pro forma model to see if the market can absorb the cost of policy-required social housing units. Literature and other case studies show that similar policies have little impact to a city’s overall housing prices. Toma asserts that policies need to be flexible, to have contextual sensitivity, and to provide a regional approach that effectively creates urban resilience through affordable housing.  

Deconstructing urban flood resilience building: toward a tentative observation framework
Irene Bianchi

In Irene Bianchi’s presentation about “Deconstructing Urban Flood Resilience Building,” she questions whether or not a city and its citizens build capacity to mitigate flood risks as they recover from recurring flood events. Bianchi asks if these events are used as “learning opportunities.” Beginning with a review of resilience among the social domain, she discussed the tensions of and the approaches to flood risk management. Her definitions of resilience included the following:

    • Resilience is not revealed, but created through practice.
    • Resilience is co-produced through formal and informal actor networks.
    • Resilience makes use of local knowledge.
    • Resilience is interconnected between social and policy learning processes.

Despite gaps between the idealized principles of resilience and the practice of those principles in the public realm, Bianchi analyzes the post-flood reorganization process through the lens of four European flood-prone cities—Genoa, Hull, Leeds, and Milan. She focused on Hull, UK while analyses on the other cities are forthcoming. Through the mapping of flood-risk oriented activities at different scales—neighborhood, municipal, regional, and national—the drivers that trigger reflection and action were identified. These drivers were then used to determine the “barriers and enablers” that affect Hull’s capacity to support its adaptive and inherent resilience.  

Why and how to build back better, in shrinking territories?
Grazia Di Giovanni

Grazia Di Giovanni presented her research on the concept of ‘Build Back Better’ (BBB, Clinton 2006) by asking the question “Why and how to build back better, in shrinking territories?” After reviewing the 10 principles of BBB and the assumption that reconstruction is not equal to rebuilding, she listed three key tensions involved—past vs. future, speed vs. deliberation, and restoration vs. transformation. The drives for policies in territorial and economically shrinking contexts were examined in order to study the effectiveness of BBB.

Abruzzo, Italy was used as a case study due to its low population, high aging index, intense seismic activity, and current recovery from the 2009 earthquake. Giovanni re-clustered the BBB principles in accordance to the policies, reconstruction plans, and interviews with those involved in the reconstruction. She found that  the goal of involving and empowering local institutions and communities was not achieved, but the top-down, temporary reinforcing offices led to grassroots projects and NGOs to fill the gap. The efforts to promote fairness and equity through the recovery process were met in the funding response, but not in the speed of reconstruction. Although laws, goals, and reconstruction plans were developed alongside widespread research about rebuilding safer urban fabrics, these tools did not include the power needed to be effective. Also, these funding plans directly correlated with the damage rather than future innovation in addition to focusing most of the funds toward housing rather than public building and infrastructure.

Di Giovanni ended with three questions. Intentions to BBB are good, but what about the “back”? How do you operate in a shrinking context? How do you link reconstruction to socio-economic transformation through the BBB framework?

Optimisation of post-disaster assisted self-build housing construction and labour safety in developing countries
Maria del Mar Casanovas-Rubio, S.M. Amin Hosseini, Albert de la Fuente, Oriol Pons

The presentation by Maria del Mar Casanovas-Rubio focused on “Optimization of post-disaster assisted self-build housing construction and labor safety in developing countries”. Statistics from different United Nations agencies provided a basis for the importance of housing needs in a post-disaster context. She provides three areas to consider for proposed housing solutions: 1) sustainability and security, 2) methods and technologies, and 3) the labor method. By focusing on the assisted self-build or community-based construction methods of labor, Casanovas-Rubio refines the housing response to include:

    • Use local materials and methods of construction
    • Use local knowledge to improve safety and security of housing
    • Design low-technology, but high-knowledge buildings
    • Provide a sustainability assessment that includes labor risks
    • Define a teaching context and plan.

Since post-disaster decisions are complex with many alternatives, the Multi-attribute Utility Theory (MAUT) method for a sustainability assessment and occupational risk index is proposed. The sustainability assessment tool creates a value tree using requirements, criteria, and indicators concerning social, environmental, and economic factors. A formula to determine the sustainability index was provided to equally compare categories with different units. Similarly, a formula for the occupational risk index was s provided. Since these indexes are not utilized very often in housing risk reduction, these assessments will be applied to Iran through a joint research project with PhD students in Tehran. In conclusion, the need to provide sustainable and secure homes requires a methodology—the proposed MAUT—to determine exactly what housing to provide and how to provide it.

Disaster Resilient Residential Planning through the Integration of Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Disaster Response to the Economic and Socialized Housing Project Standards in the Philippines
Vinson Pacheco Serrano

Vinson Serrano compared global and national standards in his presentation about “Disaster Resilient Residential Planning through the Integration of Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Disaster Response to the Economic and Socialized Housing Project Standards in the Philippines”.  The Philippines has a high risk of vulnerability according to the World Risk Index due to the high number of earthquakes, tsunamis, and volcanoes. Serrano used both the disaster risk reduction management (DRRM) cycle and the 4R’s of resilience— Robustness, Redundancy, Resourcefulness, Rapidity—to compare the global SPHERE standards to the BP 220 which is the national standard. This comparison was made through a table with columns for both sets of standards, the DRRM category, and the 4R’s category. Bistekville 3, a social housing project, was used as a case study to see the realistic effects of implementing the national standards given the gaps found in the comparison. He observed the following improvements would bring about a more resilient national standard:

  • Robustness – incorporate preventative maintenance of infrastructure.
  • Redundancy – provide more than the minimum space standards in addition to communal open space.
  • Resourcefulness – design new facilities as multi-purpose buildings.
  • Rapidity – focus on non-structural programs to support the communities.

Overall, Serrano found that strong social capital encourages activities in the community. To create more resilient cities, the national and global standards need to incorporate measures to address social as well as technical solutions.

No posts found!

Reframing Urban Resilience – 2018


Why should we re-frame Urban Resilience and its implementation?
In what is widely now seen as a state of planetary emergency, a glaring vacuum of global leadership on how to address key drivers is noticeable. As urgent action by national leaders fails to crystalize, actions on the urban and regional level to reduce emissions, use resource more sustainably and build resilience have emerged more prominently.

In what is widely now seen as a state of planetary emergency, a glaring vacuum of global leadership on how to address key drivers is noticeable. As urgent action by national leaders fails to crystalize, actions on the urban and regional level to reduce emissions, use resource more sustainably and build resilience have emerged more prominently. The concept of urban resilience has not only been packaged into city resilience plans but has also infiltrated a number of other policies related to sustainable development, adaptation, disaster risk reduction, recovery and climate change.

But how is urban resilience defined and implemented? How compatible is the concept with sustainability? This was the topic of discussion at the 11th International Forum of Urbanism ‘Reframing Urban Resilience Implementation: Aligning sustainability and resilience‘, organised by the Urban Resilience Research Network, the School of Architecture of UIC Barcelona and UNHabitat in December 2018 in Barcelona.

Urban resilience refers to the ability of an urban system- and all its constituent socio-ecological and socio-technical networks across temporal and spatial scales- to maintain or rapidly return to desired functions in the face of a disturbance, to adapt to change, and to quickly transform systems that limit current or future adaptive capacity.

Sarah Meerow, 2015

Why does reframing matter

Notwithstanding the uptake of resilience, many urban resilience initiatives fail take to into account the complexity and interrelation of their challenges through a systemic, long-term approach. In some cases, this has reinforced undesirable conditions by maintaining a status-quo with unsustainable patterns of developments.

Framing and defining the resilience framework is an important process for actors who seek to understand and act on complex situations. Frames define the scope and problem at issue, which stakeholders (agencies, sectors, scales and communities etc.) get activated and engaged, and which are left out, and whether popular support can be mobilized or not. Fuzziness of the resilience concept can also lead to implementation challenges, as the objective (bounce forward or back) and its relationship to sustainability remain unclear. (Meerow, 2015, 2016; Coaffee, 2018; Chelleri and Baravikova ). The application of global frameworks for disaster risk reduction (Sendai), climate change (Paris Agreement) and sustainable development (Agenda 2030), also requires a reframing of urban resilience with a closer look at issues such as inequality and inclusion.

Where do we start
The conference provided an opportunity for resilience scholars to convene and discuss and potential improvements for the application of the resilience framework. With a focus on the “soft” aspects of urban resilience, the conference looked at four complementary angles:
TOPIC 1: Climate Resilience Governance and Planning
How can a reframing of the concept engender more inclusive governance and planning modalities? How can local knowledge be appropriately included?  And how can all segments of society, including the vulnerable and marginalized be engaged and served so no one is left behind? Do we all have the same vision? Are we all looking sufficiently far ahead?
Browse all the presentations in this topic:
TOPIC 2: Urban Design and Management
How are we managing urban growth? How can we look beyond the conventional, technocratic focus on the built environment for resilience? How can green infrastructure and nature-based solutions be integrated into resilience projects without driving gentrification?
Browse all the presentations in this topic:
TOPIC 3: Community Resilience
Do we pay attention for whom we are building resilience, and who is left behind? Are we considering issues of inequality? How can communities become more resilient, self-reliant? How can we promote decentralization of resilience? How can we avoid unintended consequences? Promote inclusive, participatory approaches?
Browse all the presentations in this topic:
TOPIC 4: Post-Conflict and Disaster Resilience
Are we bouncing back or forward? Can we expand our disaster risk reduction approach from prevention to include adaptive capacities and managing the consequences?  What are the opportunities for transformational change post-disaster? Can these opportunities be anticipated? How can we ensure that social and environmental aspects considered?
Browse all the presentations in this topic:
Where do we go now

Responding to these challenges, as Meerow states, requires an integrated framework that incorporates sustainability, social-environmental-technological factors and deals with interactions, capacities, vulnerabilities and time periods. …(…) the framework of urban resilience should therefore be related to wider sustainability challenges, including (a) climate change and natural hazard threats, (b) unsustainable urban metabolism patterns and (c) increasing social inequalities in cities.” (Chelleri, Waters, & Olazabal 2015).

The research introduced at the IFOU conference offered compelling reasons for re-framing the resilience framework to better address the complex problems of the 21st century. It highlighted the importance to ask how resilience interventions impact the most vulnerable segments of societies and how it relates to sustainable development. Thus, there is a need for reframing resilience through more inclusive engagement in the formal governance, planning and implementation system. Moreover, it is important to incorporate values into urban planning that go beyond mere economic growth and financial objectives, and rethink the relationship to environmental, civic and social infrastructures to pursue sustainable resilience for all.