TOPIC 01

T1.6: Social Implications of Resilience

This session focused on the factors working both in favour and against the ability of a communities to recover, adapt and transform from crises.

Resilience was broadly framed in response to natural disaster (Ryokawa, Gonçalves and Ortiz) and economic shock (Masik). The goal of Resilience was broadly identified as enabling affected communities to both withstand the initial crisis, adapt to changed situations and ideally transform to better cope with future crises. There was a range of different approaches taken to defining Resilience with some papers (Masik and Gonçalves) discussing it from a theoretical starting point, while others (Ryokawa and Ortiz) focussed more on their case study examples as starting points. The key take-away from this session was understanding the situation of communities adequately pre-crisis to better support Social Resilience post-crisis – the actions taken and understanding made before a crisis need to be given as much attention as decisions and policy made after the crisis to truly enable a community to transform. 

Ryokawa discussed the situation of the fishing communities in Ecuador, highlighting their pre-existing dependence on the sea for livelihood, yet post-crisis policy drew them away from these areas with inland construction adversely affecting their ability to withstand the shock of the disaster. Similarly, Ortiz noted the pre-existing vulnerability of communities in Mexico with limited to no government support. While the community came together in self-organised groups, these quickly disbanded following the disaster leaving the community still vulnerable to shock. Gonçalves noted the pre-crisis forested environment of Portuguese rural areas, exposing communities to high levels of risk without corresponding education, while post-crisis efforts fell short at addressing these vulnerabilities and providing transformational solutions. Conversely, Masik highlighted what were important pre-existing factors in enabling Polish communities to withstand the economic crisis, including human, social and institutional capital in place before the crises that allowed for strong Social Resilience to the economic consequences of the Global FInancial Crisis.

Ultimately this session reframed Urban Resilience Implementation in terms of understanding pre-existing social factors critical for the preparation and anticipation of future crises.

Human behavior response to disaster-caused environmental changes: A case of fishermen community, San José de Chamanga, affected by the 2016 Ecuador earthquake
Atsuki Ryokawa

Atsuki Ryokawa began the session presenting human behaviour response to the 2016 Earthquake in Chamanga, Ecuador, focusing on the situation of the fishermen in the community. His used the concept of ‘reactive force’ to frame Resilience as observed in community behaviour to the disaster. The challenge observed in this case study was the government reconstruction policy. This involved relocating much of the fishing community away from the coast, further inland to higher ground deemed safer, yet further away from their previous livelihoods. The ‘reactive force’ observed within the community was twofold. Firstly, the community that were relocated began opening up new businesses in these areas, eventually creating a whole new main street. Secondly, though relocated, some of the fishermen found ways to maintain their livelihoods on the sea through the help of friends and family still living on the coast who were able to store their fishing supplies. 

The main conclusion was that the ‘reactive force’ which led people to shape their own environment was at odds with government post-disaster policies of reconstruction. In essence government policy did not sufficiently take into account people’s livelihoods pre-disaster so the post-disaster response was lacking. Ryokawa concluded that strategies and formal methods should be implemented to better take the situation of the community into consideration.

Social resilience during and after the crisis. The case of Gdańsk-Gdynia-Sopot Metropolitan Area in Poland
Grzegorz Masik

Grzegorz Masik spoke on Social Resilience during and after the 2008 Global Financial Crisis as experienced in  Gdansk-Gdynia-Sopot Metropolitan Area, Poland. His main contention was the more assets people have in responding to a crises the more resilient they are. These assets can be considered as more than simply material, but also include human, social and institutional capital. Masik began by presenting findings from an analysis of current literature, with focus on Social Resilience. He noted that much attention is paid to assets within a community as forming the basis for Social Resilience. Masik also noted the importance of considering Resilience from an agency perspective, considering the role of government, different stakeholders and key actors in imagining, anticipating and responding to change. Masik then presented findings from interviews with key stakeholder that identified key determinants that enabled the community to withstand the shocks of the crisis with reasonably limited detrimental effects. 

Three areas (assets) were identified as forming the basis for this Resilience. Firstly human capital of a society well able to adapt and be flexible within a changing environment. Secondly, social capital of a consensus among business owners of the importance of maintaining job security for members of society, allowing flexible forms of employment and short term contracts. Thirdly institutional capital of a pre-existing conservative banking policy across Poland and overlapping policies of different institutions that created favourable pre-crisis conditions.

Pro-Resilience Governance and (in)Accessibility to Services of General Interest: evidence from the Portuguese Center region after 2017 wildfires crisis
Carlos Gonçalves, João Marques, Monique Borges, Gonçalo Barros

Carlos Gonçalves spoke on governance and the accessibility of Services of General Interest (SeIG) in response to the 2017 Portuguese Wildfires, with particularly focus on how these services were delivered in rural areas and how they were reported on and perceived by the community. His main contention was that a typology of Resilience that places emphasis on transformation is key to helping vulnerable communities respond to disaster.

The problem Gonçalves addressed was the partial collapse of SeIG’s (such as civil protection, water, electricity, etc) to be adequately delivered for dispersed settlements in the affected rural area in the wake of the 2017 wildfires. Contributing factors included an already elderly and thus vulnerable population, recent and widespread change to the natural landscape (once agricultural land had now been transformed into forested areas) and a lack of education or awareness among the community of the dangers of living in such forested areas. Gonçalves then discussed a theoretical framework from a literature review for proposing a typology for Resilience. Results from this review suggested the importance of moving from recovery (where vulnerability is maintained) to transformation (where vulnerability is minimized). 

Secondly, content analysis of 150 newspaper articles on the disaster were presented. The newspapers made primary mention of the impacts of the disaster with some reference to social impacts. However there was a lack of reporting on actions taken and required for long term transformation. Gonçalves concluded that a typology of Resilience that focuses on transformation and which can be easily translated and understood by the community is needed.

Facing 19th september earthquake in Morelos, Mexico. Eventually effects and organization on the epicenter
Rafael Monroy Ortiz, Rafael Monroy Martínez, Columba Monroy Ortiz, Celia Jiménez, Rodrigo Flores, Cesar González

Rafael Ortiz presented bottom-up community initiated recovery strategies as evidenced in the 2017 Earthquake in Morelos Mexico. His main contention was that local strategies implemented by local actors involved or affected by a disaster can be an effective solution in the absence of government support, but that systemization is needed to sustain this for future disasters. Morelos state, one of the poorest in Mexico also is one of the most prone to earthquakes and hurricanes. In response to a similar earthquake in 1985 exactly 32 years earlier than the one in question, local members of the community volunteered immediately to help victims trapped under the rubble, forming self-organised recovery groups – significantly, without government support.  Thirty-two years on, and again in response to another earthquake, community members went out on their own initiative to help save trapped victims without government support or aid. Ortiz noted in the wake of the disaster many informal organisations of volunteers were formed. However few remained post disaster. 

Ortiz’s study looked particularly at the role of the University Collection Center (UCC) set up in response, noting how both members of the public, students and teachers came together to provide basic provisions for affected communities. Students of architecture even helped design basic shelters for people rebuilding on their own. This all happened without and sometimes despite government interference. Ortiz concluded that while such self-organized approaches were found to be effective, they must be systematized to anticipate of future events.

T1.5: Resilience Refugees & Integration

The central theme of this session was the importance of social resilience in the framework of urban resilience. Social capital paving a way for social resilience is one of the most important aspects of holistic urban resilience.

Studies show that the current wave of migration has been the first biggest wave of mass migration since the Second World War (OECD, 21017), and that calls for new systems (tangible and intangible) of integration. Hence there is currently a need to bring refugee integration mechanisms to the forefront to be studied and tackled. The authors of the papers below have used case studies from various parts of the world, global north and south, to elaborate how integration policies are imperative for social capital and thereby leading to social resilience.

This sessions highlights the importance of social capital and emphasis on a renewal of integration frameworks world-wide to facilitate welcoming urban environments for people fleeing climate change and war. Although each presentation aimed to bring about social resilience, their approaches were unique. One propagated the use of technology, the other, studying urban landscapes and using that as a tool, and another using the theoretical framework of the right to the city and asset acclamation for eliminating poverty traps.

Proposed scenarios for the use of Social Resilience Digital Tools in the assessment of refugees’ integration process in the Greek cities
Eleni Oureilidou, Konstantinos Ioannidis

Oureilidou proposes using digital platforms for urban placemaking to facilitate the integration of refugees in Greek cities. She uses theoretical backgrounds of smart cities, urban & social resilience, urban informatics & urban big data, urban commons & digital tools, Greek cities & on-going refugee crisis as a preamble to her proposal. She intends to use participatory platforms and technologies as indicators of cultural symbiosis. Oureilidou claims the main problems experienced by Athens & Thessaloniki are unprecedented urban expansion combined with the growing pressure of becoming a global city. With the financial crisis Greece is experiencing, the added “burden” of refugee integration wasn’t given a priority and there is a gap in the current approaches by the government to facilitate successful integration processes. She argues that by integrating, networking and creating social capital, the Greek cities will achieve social resilience. Her approach although seems pragmatic, might leave poorer sections of the community out from interacting with technology. An interesting point she brought up was that, the collection of urban data can explain urban patterns, processes and urban engagement/ civic participation. And using this urban data, the proposals for placemaking could be streamlined to facilitate bottom up urban making. The process she wants to use first collect data using social media platforms and sensor systems installed in the city, creating social capital. Then organising activities to assess the needs of the citizens and refugees alike (including vulnerable populations – the how, was not elaborated upon). Using the data from the needs assessment, online applications would facilitate bottom up initiatives of placemaking (market, playgrounds, etc) thereby resulting in the indicators of cultural symbiosis, hence, long-term social resilience.

Landscape, community, and resilience: migration and inclusive cities
Maria Trovato, Katherine Dunster

As landscape architects, their aim was to find the path to shared landscapes. They mainly looked at cultural resilience and how refugees appropriated the built environment in their own way. The authors of this paper wanted to explore and compare cultural appropriation in two contexts by the same group of people. Vancouver was of stark contrast in how the government and the citizens actually invested time, energy and monetarily in refugees by sponsoring them, setting up welcome centres, and helping opening small businesses. The government had a framework of integration for the migration that would take place to support their integration into society. Small Syrian and Turkish businesses started popping up around the neighbourhood, there were graffiti (although informal, nevertheless heart-warming) with ’refugees are welcome here’ signs.

In Vancouver and Beirut, the built environment is used as a tool for placemaking in their own way, however the context allows them to. Could this placemaking lead to cultural resilience and hence contribute to building community resilience for disaster risk reduction?

The arguments to these approaches could be highly contextual. These initiatives seem effective if implemented by governing agencies, as in the example of Vancouver. These top-down initiatives encourage more citizens to be accommodating of migrants. Another important thing to note was that Vancouver is essentially a migrant city, compared to Beirut; so how we expect these two populations to receive refugees the same way? It would have been interesting to know how Beirut could learn from Vancouver or vice versa. 

Resilience of urban refugees in Dar es Salaam
Maria Trovato, Katherine Dunster

Through her research, Aisling intends to tackle the resilience of the urban poor communities (of refugees as well as Tanzanians) in Dar es Salaam through asset accumulation to strengthen them against the shocks and stresses of disasters and ultimately relieve them of poverty. Aisling uses the theoretical framework of right to the city authors such as David Harvey, Peter Marcuse, Henri Lefebvre and theories by Jeffery Sachs and Caroline Moser of how asset accumulation could be a way out of the poverty trap. She stipulates that resilience needs to be looked at the household and municipal level in order to achieve urban resilience and that the poorest communities need to be looked at because of the level of social disparity in Dar es Salaam. She heavily condoned the Tanzanian government, instigating that their lack of vision has led to its current piecemeal and uncoordinated approach towards urban development thus propagating poverty and poor integration of urban refugees. She gives an example of the government’s lack of investment into its public transport infrastructure that led to children from poorer and remote areas needing to drop out of schools, then taking up street vending jobs, perpetuating them further into poverty. To summarise, she proposed to tackle urban resilience through a) to look into needs assessment at household and municipal level; b) household asset accumulation; c) long term vision of urban development.

T1.2: Community & Organizational Resilience

Topics such as community, social, housing, and urban resilience, lead the conference and opened discussions about how cities are practicing the concept, and what are the main challenges these cities have to overcome to start reframing resilience.

The main goal of this session was to explain and present different ways in which the concept of resilience was analyzed and applied in different backgrounds. In order to tackle issues like population growth, climate change, and natural/man-made disasters, there is a need for cities to come up with better bottom – up strategies and policies. Although the session covered different aspects of how to define and practice resilience, all of them tried to analyze the actual context of the diverse case studies, and if the methods and solutions that are applied while thriving for resilience are indeed the accurate ones. The idea is to understand, what are the main problems in the strategies used to achieve solutions applied today and in what way we can reframe these. In addition, not only is the role of the governance important, but us as citizens should think about the consequences our actions are having in the cities we are living in and how we can contribute to change. 

Redefining Resilience in the Developed Cities: Opportunities and challenges of the urban built environment as housing for a post-disaster population, Athens and London
Christina Kavoura

Christina Kavoura in Redefining resilience in the Developed Cities: opportunities and challenges to the urban built environment as housing for a post-disaster population, gives a framework and compares how both Athens and London work around the concept of resilience in the housing accommodations for the displaced population. By analyzing both cases, she puts into perspective and questions how cities and their policies respond to crisis. Are these cities’ strategies working towards a social resilience at national, municipal and global levels? Are they working on a better solution to both, the refugee crisis in Greece and the infrastructural failure in London? In the case of Greece, she explains how the term of resilience is more focused on sustainability, green cities and common stresses, rather than actual climate change disaster risks. For this, the main problem is the unpreparedness in acting towards today’s challenge with the refugee situation. London, on the other hand, focuses on acting towards surviving and prospering. With this, she determines that the context of the built environment of the social background plays and important role for applying resilience.

The paper presents housing as the social, political and infrastructural capacity of the city to provide shelter to the victims of the disasters and which are the ways of resilience responding to this. The main discussion revolves around the how are these housing crisis affecting every citizen, and why are there still no solutions to accommodate all the displaced population, while having empty buildings in the cities. How all this knowledge and frameworks about resilience are engaging in the implementation of real solutions through practice?

The community resilience challenge - a case study from Sweden
Tove Bodland, Mikael Granberg

How community resilience can be reached through increased public involvement, is the intention of the research paper presented by Tove Bodland. By focusing on a first analysis of the literature on resilience as well as the technological and physical solutions at the moment, dominated by the top-down perspective, the conference explains how this knowledge and the need for the combination of top–down and bottom–up solutions are implemented in disaster mitigation strategies.

She highlights the challenges and opportunities that this approach to resilience presents. The mail challenges come mainly from knowledge gaps, the lack of interest from the public, a deficiency in cultural communication between stakeholders and communities, and difficulties to address vulnerability and poorly designed tools for solution-making. Then again, thriving for community resilience, improves the use of existing networks in order to ask different questions, it allows training for both the communities and volunteers and leaves room to the exchange of knowledge. By using resilience, we ask new questions and understand complexities.

Disturbances – Early detection as a prerequisite for resilience
Markus Stenger

Markus Stenger, by explaining the context and the actual scenario of the city of Munich during his conference on Disturbances – Early Detection as Prerequisite for Resilience, he approaches resilience, not as an opposition, but rather understanding the effect of resilience as a time event. A necessary opportunity for a “beautiful” new urban planning. Not only in developed countries, but also in urban systems of cities with high economies. The main problem is that cities like Munich, which lack of sustainable views and solutions for the future, with the increase in population growth, have no capacity for urban expansion and tend to push infrastructure to its limits. This will lead cities to a crisis that will affect urban systems. The main challenge of this scenario is to scan the city in ways that no one has ever done. To find specific spaces and situations and think of them as new opportunities for resilience. So the final question is: “Is this really the answer? This can’t be the future.”

Dutch resiliency in the coastal Delta by alert people
Frederik Sanders

“How do people feel about how we build our cities? How will people react?” Fred Sanders, in Dutch Resiliency in the Coastal Delta, by Alert People, analyzes the concept of resilience as adaptedness and self-organization in the context of coastal Delta in the Netherlands. What are the communities perceptions of a disaster, and how, by their own means, they respond to these stresses. Through interviews and direct interaction with the community, he concludes that people are aware of the dangers they face by being exposed to this hazards and how there are no specific means to prepare them for future situations.

On one hand, citizens, think in a small scale. They focus on small areas and by doing so, they understand the context in which they are working on. On the other hand, government policies focus on bigger scale areas. The approach presented is a standpoint of resilience, seen as a possible solution when there is a connection between citizens and professionals. To land the idea that if governments continue addressing bigger and more general needs, the connection between citizens and professionals will break, getting further from the solution to these socio-economic problems.

Standardization process for urban resilience
Rene Lindner, Jose Maria Sarriegi, Josune Hernantes

Standardization, a state–of–art, as a way of implementing resilience in urban scales is what Rene Lindner tries to approach in this session, Standardization Process for Urban Resilience. This controversial line to resilience puts in perspective the application of the systematization of methodologies that can apply in many given scenarios. During this conference, the main point that all cases shared, was the fact that resilience cannot be applied in the same way in different contexts. This framework opens a dialog to understand and address the difference in standardizing methodologies, rather than solutions for 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!