TOPIC 02

T2.7: Marginality, Inclusiveness and Resilience

The session “Marginality, Inclusiveness, and Resilience”, takes a variety of approaches to address the topic of urban resilience. Focussing on the resilience of marginalised communities or landscapes, most presenters organised themselves around the frames of “community resilience” and what I would call “climate resilience”, to foster inclusiveness.

Though some speakers placed urban resilience in the context of climate change adaptation, in most instances, resilience was simplified to mean, in a vague sense, the opposite of vulnerability (Chelleri et al. 2015). Such ‘fuzziness’ (Meerow et al., 2016) made it difficult to distinguish where concrete “resilience” was being implemented, and where the word was just a form of tokenism.

Firstly, the session has proposed that community empowerment in marginalised areas develops community resilience. Secondly, that marginalised landscapes can be reclaimed through inclusive planning strategies to build resilience to climatic risks and urbanisation.  As far as “reframing” goes, I am unconvinced about how far this sessions content went on reframing “resilience”. It appears to me, that resilience too often used as an umbrella term to label planning and engagement strategies, with resilience ‘to what’ not being clearly defined. 

Resilience, capacity, empowerment, discourse on what we define as the broad term of “community resilience” often begins to feel like the term “resilience” is used as a form of tokenism to associate public participation with some sort of higher power. This is not to say that presented studies are lacking, but rather that the term “resilience” should not necessarily apply to these strategies, or requires further research to establish how we define community resilience. 

Glasgow, environmental justice and community resilience
Shivali Fifield

Fifield’s research responds to a perceived lack of intersectionality between discourses of resilience and climate policy, versus environmental justice in marginalised communities. Focusing on Rigmar, an area marred by social and economic decline following Glasgow’s de-industrialisation, Fifield argues that the lack of quality green space in low-income areas is a form of “environmental injustice”, negatively impacting on the health and wellbeing of residents. 

She divides “environmental (in)justice” into three categories: procedural, distributional, and recognition, using Schlosberg’s justice trivalent (2004) to frame the narrative. Procedural examines the operational constraints of ‘greenspace empowerment’. With the backdrop of Glasgow’s 100RC and city development plan, Participatory Action Research (PAR) methodology is used to explore how policy emphasis on climate resilience indicators is negatively impacting community capacity. Distributional refers to the unequal distribution of environmental ills; and recognition acknowledges the limited individual and organisational capacity of CBOs, and the need for government bodies to help build competencies. Whilst Fifield’s research does not criticise existing resilience discourses, praising how they are at least bringing a variety of different stakeholders to the table, she raises the issue of a need to contextually shift from climate resilience to wellbeing research in low income areas to develop community resilience to socio-environmental and spatial inequalities.

The backside of the city. Marginality and waste landscapes in the Tunjuelo watershed.
Claudia Lucia Rojas Bernal

Bernal uses a ‘research by design’ approach to examine alternatives for the integration of watershed planning into Bogota’s urban system, to design resilient landscapes that tackle both social inequality and environmental justice. Rapid urbanisation along the Tunjuelo watershed has entrenched societal inequalities, with informal settlements existing alongside landfills and mining activities. Making the link between resilience, green space, and public health in response to these large-scale ecosystem disturbances, she developed cartographic plans of alternatives to contemporary water management in Bogota, providing integrated solutions for a more inclusive environment.

Reimagining Bogotas Circuito Ambiental along the watercourse, she addresses gaps in the city’s existing planning strategies. Outlining three design strategies: flood risk, low landscape value, and traditional hard-engineered approaches; she develops a holistic approach to resilience along the floodplain. Both blue and green interventions are proposed to manage flood risk and develop productive landscapes through the co-production of public space, whilst decentralised large-scale engineered projects work with the water cycle. These three principles, alongside the legalisation of informal settlements, she argues, must work together, integrating biological diversity and socio-cultural issues to achieve city resilience, particularly within marginalised communities. 

Moving into peri-urban mosaics. Building resilient relationships along the margins: the Green System Plan of Ravenna for a new liveability
Vittoria Mencarini and Laura Abbruzzese

Framing their discourse with Kipar’s (1994) definition of a “mosaic” as a space where settlement, agricultural, and environmental systems coexist, Abbruzzese and Mencarini explore how resilience to environmental risk factors such as climate change, and socio-urban discontinuity can be built along the “margins” of fractured peri-urban landscapes.  Using Ravenna’s “Green Systems Plan”they look at how model planning policies can result in a paradigm shift to place design relevance in landscape and ecological components. Proposing a hypothesis of peri-urban fringes as places to implement and experiment with resilience, they suggest that these spaces can be re-thought and re-framed to combine dynamic environmental processes. Using a multi-scalar research methodology, active resources which could work for land reclamation and water management for developing green infrastructures were identified. Alongside this, gaps were identified in government tools, proposing the integration of public-private partnerships to adapt existing design resources. 

In conclusion, Abbruzzese and Menacarini suggest that the development of a multifunctional system which restores nature and creates green infrastructure can help to address the challenges of urban resilience, as well as developing community bonds within these interventions through stakeholder participation.

Towards climate resilient and inclusive urban development in Latin America: showcasing a participatory planning project in Colombia, El Salvador, and Argentina
Ebru Gencer, Jorgelina Hardoy, Manuel Winograd 

Entitled “Participatory Planning for Climate Resilient Urban Development in Latin America”, this presentation focused joint methodologies developed by the Climate and Development Network (CDKN) and the International Development Research Centre (IDRC) applied to the city of Santa Ana in El Salvador to develop an urban resilience strategy for the city.  Inadequate urban planning, institutional weakness, and citizen education and communication were identified as resilience issues within the city, and as a result data collection was a crucial part of resilience building and planning. City data was found to be dispersed amongst different organisations, with no interconnectivity, nor did the municipality keep risk map data. Accessed through the Inter-American Development Bank, hazard and risk data was collected, with a contextual emphasis on flooding and landslide risks. 

Transformative resilience within communities was facilitated using participatory workshops, increased public awareness seen as key to stakeholder empowerment and resilience building. At a community level, implemented programs included awareness building about flooding through social networks, and using signage to combat garbage dumping. Policy recommendations included a long-term commitment to developing a strategic resilience plan using green-blue infrastructure to increase resilience to flooding and landslides. Knowledge exchange and capacity building were outlined as crucial to develop an urban resilience strategy. 

Community-led practices for triggering long term processes and sustainable resilience strategies. The case of the eastern Irpinia, inner periphery of southern Italy
Katia Fabbricatti, Vincenzo Tenore, Michele Citoni, Lucie Boissenin

Fabbricatti’s research asks: can heritage be the driving force for community resilience? She argues that, in recent years, Italy’s inner-peripheries have become incubators of community resilience, developing “heritage communities” which encourage an active public participation in cultural values and heritage. Rural heritage is being affected by global (climate, resource scarcity, migration) and local (depopulation, identity erosion, landscape degradation) risks. Fabbricatti’s framing of the value of cultural heritage within SDG 11, for DRR, and within the framework of the Faro Convention (2005), validates her view that tangible and intangible cultural heritages have a direct affect on the recovery and maintenance of built heritage. Her investigations indicate that despite limited capacities, positive results from such events demonstrated the validity of cultural practices in generating external interest. Analysis of a variety of case-studies, which developed community-led practices by reinterpreting local culture and traditions through craft and artistic festivals, suggest that such reactivations of lost synergies can be instrumental in pursuing sustainability and resilience agendas. 

Such actions emerged from an absence of government initiatives and involvement, and as public policy on “community resilience” rarely fits local contexts, Fabbricatti sees the potential to develop “Resilience Laboratories” to bridge this gap. Envisioned as places of learning, participation, and decision making; they will mediate between government and community to begin a process of building resilient and sustainable cultural landscapes. Whilst development at a government level may be difficult to achieve, municipal networking contributes to the system quality.  

T2.6: Nature-Based Solutions, Frameworks & Water

Wery often the plans carried out are not enough framed or they remain just rhetoric on paper. The main challenge of these author is to provide a policy recommendation for land use control, by empowering the nature-based solutions and climate resilience on one hand, and try to extend this framework in different levels, from the neighbourhood to the regional scale.

In this session, the concept of urban resilience has been embodied by concrete frameworks, investigating different approaches to address it to climate change. So, in this case, the word “resilience” referred to something practical: all the authors try to design a framework and a methodology in order to enhance and supply the governments, since there is a huge gap in the governance models referred to resilience in climate change. 

Even though all the authors dealt with governance in climate resilience, the first one analysed the governance approach in an external point of view with a systematic literature review and a quantitative analysis of the methodologies used to assess climate resilience. In this case, a recommendation on the approach has been given, it didn’t deal with the planning in a practical way, but with the methodology. A possible gap of this case study could be the limitation of the research: the results reached depends on the literature review carried out, which could have considered also a larger patterns of case studies, obtaining different outputs. Instead, for the other case studies, the authors aim at giving a solid recommendation on planning, based on database collections, multilevel investigations such as morphological, natural-ecological, social and infrastructural. A part from the first one, all these others want to extend the climate urban resilient approach on different levels, spreading out in different scales. 

All the lectures assume that manmade interventions influenced and affected the natural water cycle and are addressed to persuade government to regulate the urban sprawl and developments. The critic and limit highlighted by all the authors is the high rigidity of the governments, so that every research is planned for a long term process in the future. 

Nature-based solutions and resilience as complementary strategies for urban governance and planning: A review of assessment methodologies
Marta Suàrez, Beatriz Fernàndez de Manuel, Leire Méndez-Fernàndez, Miren Onaindia, Erik Gòmez-Baggethun

The authors want to analyse the connections and differences within two different approaches, which address climate change. Cities are suffering the effect of climate change and governments are applying complementary strategies of mitigation and adaptation by using urban resilience (directed to reduce vulnerability and enhance community resilience) and natural-based solutions (concept related to ecosystem services, ecosystems based adaptations and Green-blues infrastructure). The main question is if these strategies have been implemented in an integrated manner and how these approaches address climate change. In order to do that, a systematic review of scientific literature has been carried out, searching methodologies to assess resilience or ecosystem services to address climate change impact in cities. The main result is that the majority of the papers analysed (90%) reports that the ecosystems services can increase climate urban resilience, so studies about resilience to ecosystem services are predominant (and not vice versa). The question not investigated yet is: does ES can take into consideration community resilience and/or include equity and justice? The authors in the end give some recommendations for the future: on one hand, the concept of Resilience and Ecosystem Services should be both integrated in the conceptual and methodological research; on the other one, the local government should take into account both of these concepts to reframe resilience strategies.

A framework for conceptualizing the resilience of urban green spaces in transition - The case of Frankfurt Rhine-Main
Pinar Bilgic

Planning for urban growth is already a problem: the regional housing demand until 2030 (taking into consideration refugee situation and domestic migration) is huge. The aim of this paper is to try to respond in a practice way to urban growth in Frankfurt Rhine-Main, by implementing green urban strategies: on one hand, by designing green around the city against urban densification (but it’s really hard because of promptness to floods and droughts), and on the other one, by designing green within cities against urban sprawl. Can be density be done right with balance? it’s a problem of sustainability: maybe we can make the inner city as green and compact as possible and then, instead of sprawling, we can build along the infrastructures. The approach used is the triangle of conflicting goals for planning (Campbell) in which economic development (embedded by social subsystems) and environmental protection (embedded by ecological subsystems) are in conflict. The limits and gap of this approach are the fact that government is too rigid and takes a lot of time to make decisions. More adaptive government can make the difference in the resilience process. On the other hand, there is the problem of complexity and uncertainty in urban processes. The main challenges of this research is try to influence the government to support resilient way of doing things, building bridges and achieve the SDG by understanding the complexity of the social ecological system within the composition of sustainability.

Water sensitive urban design: Addressing flooding resilience in Ho Chi Minh City
Mariana da Cunha Oliveira Santos

The author wants to address the research to integrate urban strategies with flood protection measures in the Ho Chi Minh City, refurbish the existing infrastructure in order to be resilient to flooding, create storage areas by improving the landscape and a network of stakeholders and public participation, in order to create and holistic assessment. In HCMC land uses are changing, the infrastructures are altering the natural water cycle with consequent risk of flooding and there is the climate change. The city is composed by a large network of rivers but the main one is reformed for economic market. Moreover, the hydrogeological network is complex and the city standard is to grow closer and closer to the river. The main issue is that the city is vulnerable to floods because the drainage system is not managed to support the growing city infrastructure and the urban increase. Structured measures to retain floods have been proposed from the government but they are resilient just for flooding and not for climate change; change in land use and lack of control to preserve permeable areas; lack of capacity in policy to regulate the housing demand and new developments; lack of knowledge and cooperation with the planning department. The method used is analysing the urban morphology and creating a BIM database with classification of architecture by land use; making flooding simulations, a urban analysis for maintenance level. The results of this research are addressed to give some recommendations and criteria for future land use, such as site of the plot and topography, innovative design solutions and technological innovations. It remains unsolved the assessment for effectiveness water sensitive urban design strategies, since it is the next step for the research.

The Healing Grid Project: unlocking the potential of Nature Based Solutions in Timisoara, Romania
Loredana Gaita

The author carried out a research for Timisoara, Romania, aiming at creating a connection of ecological corridors at municipal and regional level, trying to upscaling the project in multidisciplinary with ecological, infrastructural, social and morphological functions. The drainage channels are in great danger. The Healing Grid System is a project that uses nature-based solutions to increase the city resilience seeing the existing drainage system as an opportunity to create connections of green corridors, creating a blue-green infrastructure. The current situation is critical, since the channel system can collapse because of the urban sprawl, there is a lack of accessible green spaces in periphery and different urbanistic plans are not connected for every administration. The methodology used tries to create a dialogue between stakeholders, use new technologies to map the system preventing lack of knowledge and data, study of urban morphology and social-demographic disparities and creation of guides and awareness campaign for residents. Actually the author achieved the possibility to apply for European funds in order to start the pilot project but the main challenge is upscale it by a long term process addressing the system to different neighbourhoods, negotiating for the privatized areas and ensure a continuity of ecological corridors in regional scale.

T2.5: Urban Resilience Perspectives

The Urban Resilience Perspectives session approaches how different sectors understand resilience and the conflicts that might issue from these disparities.

The session Urban Resilience Perspectives, part of the Topic 2: Climate Resilience, Governance and Planning Baravikova, Meerow, Woodsen, Marques and Sainz presented papers on the matter. The approach towards the concept of resilience was mainly on the way it is perceived by people, from governmental workers to academics and practitioners. This approach shows the importance of the perception of the concept in the process of implementation, deepening on the meaning of resilience itself. Likewise, similar approaches question the implementation of such a concept in different contexts and the gaps that occur during this process, mostly due to discrepancies around the understanding of resilience.  Baravikova and Meerow focused on reframing urban resilience starting from its meaning and people’s perspective, and how this influences implementation. 

These researches may allow future project proposals to establish a more reliable communication between citizens and agencies working on the field of urban resilience. Similarly, Woodsen points out the need for a better understanding and more homogenous vision of resilience to ease collaboration between organizations. On the other hand, Marques questions the ambiguity of the proposed indicators to measure SDGs progress and the cost of achieving resilience, among other targets that are part of the SDGs. This sets forth another dimension of urban resilience that should be addressed for it to be sustainable and accountable. Furthermore, Sainz, Galarraga and Olazabal took a closer look to how countries are preparing in terms of management and risk assessments, to facilitate the path towards resilience; where at the moment there are still challenges in reference to understanding risks and promoting investment in long-term solutions.

Urban Resilience Definitions and Principles: European perspectives
Aliaksandra Baravikova, Lorenzo Chelleri

In Urban Resilience Definitions and Principles: European perspectives by Aliaksandra Baravikova and Lorenzo Chilleri, resilience is not addressed in a specific context, but in a sense of looking at different perceptions and trying to define where is Europe standing regarding the perception of resilience. Baravikova and Chilleri present a clear intention of reframing resilience starting by identifying academics and practitioners’ perspectives on resilience. Three surveys were made with 160 participants, the first one showed that 72% think that resilience is about “bouncing back” and “bouncing forward”; the second survey was about the main characteristics of resilience and the order of importance: adaptive, inclusivity and integration turned out to be the most relevant; the third one showed that the relation between sustainability and resilience was questioned and the results were 60% recognized the relation not being problematic. The definitions may vary according to specific situations, but still can share some ground even if the survey does not mention the resilience to what. Moreover, there is a more homogeneous understanding of resilience on paper, perceived as a goal; but when it comes to understanding the concept of resilience, not only as a goal, but also as a whole process that requires implementation of resilient measures, there is still not a clear connection of people with this, as revealed in the second survey, where the participants did not consider “decentralized” as an important characteristic of resilience.

Positively resilient? Public perceptions of urban resilience
Sara Meerow, Fabian Neuner

The hypothesis of the concept of resilience being most perceived as more positive, than other concepts such as “vulnerability”, was introduced in Positively resilient? Public perceptions of urban resilience by Sara Meerow. The study was realized to obtain empirical evidence on the perception of concepts around the topic, and it was carried out through three surveys. The purpose of the first one (500 US adults) was to identify the connotation of different words: “resilient”, “vulnerable”, “adaptive”, and “sustainable”, as well as the importance and the support given by the participants in hypothetical situations where those concepts were applied. The intent of the second survey (1000 US adults) was to show the perception of “sustainability” when presented with or without environmental prompt. The third one (1000 US adults) had the objective of knowing if the people associate the concepts of the first one with being implemented in “cities” or “communities”. The research revealed that the concept of resilience is not necessarily more appealing than other terms like sustainability, which turned out to be perceived as very positive. However, vulnerability was being connected to crime and participants showed a weaker support towards this. The contribution of this paper to the resilience framework is with respect to the use of language and public response towards each concept. Using the right word when proposing measures for resilience or in any other context, can have an important impact; and for this, it is fundamental to understand how people perceive each concept first, in order to verify if communication is being effective or if the approach has to take a different direction to achieve the objective.

The urban resilience perspective of Sustainable Development Goals: reframing definitions and indicators
Cesar Marques

In The urban resilience perspective of Sustainable Development Goals: reframing definitions and indicators by Cesar Marques, he questions whether Sustainable Development Goals indicators are reliable measures that can show the progress. Marques presents a need to reframe definitions and indicators in relation to the SDGs and focuses his research on Brazil and the SDG 11: Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable). The indicators of the SDG 11 were analyzed through a qualitative method and it is clear there are many gaps in the way the SDGs are being measured; also, the time set for some objectives is ignoring the difficult political situation that affects the process of implementation in this case study. In the SDG 11, the target 11.1 addresses the access of affordable housing and slum upgrading, where the indicator will be the quantity of people living in informal settlements and adequate housing; but this is not revealing the increase of wellbeing, it does not show if relocation is actually improving people’s lives. Urban resilience is taken as a very wide concept and local context is not being considered, as well as the steps it takes to achieve it. When talking about wellbeing in relation to some SDGs, it is assumed that there is a direct correlation between achieving SDGs and wellbeing, but the cost of the process is not being considered and it can create other problematic situations, which would not necessarily increase wellbeing.

From Reclamation to Resilience: Restructuring Governance for Long-term Climate Adaptation
Lindsay Woodson

Lindsay Woodson presents in From Reclamation to Resilience: Restructuring Governance for Long-term Climate Adaptation the situation after the 2013 Typhoon Haiyan in the city of Tacloban, located on the coast of Philippines. One Architecture, a private firm, won a grant and started working in Tacloban with PRA (Philippines Reclamation Authority), the government and NGOs, to implement pilot ecological restoration projects designed by the Dutch government’s Disaster Risk Reduction agency. One architecture works with climate adaptive policy and design, so their intervention was through Natural Based Solutions. They worked on pilot sites where they planted 10 hectares and enhance community participation through training. Resilience is being addressed from the perspective of Natural Based Solutions to mitigate risk of flooding on the coast. The government has been taking an approach of short-term “solutions” such as hard and defensive infrastructure: a huge sea wall around the city, and land reclamation processes are very permissive and common, which are detrimental to the mangroves and contribute to the risk of flooding. This project shows the added difficulties in the implementation phase of projects related to resilience due to different interests between institutions; local and national agencies disconnection in terms of sharing information; overlapping jurisdictions, and fragmented resilience thinking. Woodson proposes the anticipated identification of potential sites for resilience projects as a way of accelerating future processes of implementation.

Building long-term resilience by aligning adaptation and disaster risk reduction policies in cities
Elisa Sainz de Murieta, Ibon Galarraga, Marta Olazabal

In Building long-term resilience by aligning adaptation and disaster risk reduction policies in cities, Elisa Sainz, Ibon Galarraga and Marta Olazabal present a comparative research between Copenhagen, Vancouver, Quito and Durban, following an alignment framework for disaster risk reduction based on the Sendai Framework, recognizing that the adaptation plans to be implemented would respond to risks that had not been defined yet. This alignment framework is divided into four categories: understanding risk, investing in measures towards DRR, strengthening governance, and preparedness and post-disaster recovery. After analyzing the four case studies through a set of indicators developed to test the alignment framework, the results show that Durban does not work with probabilities and Quito does not look at very low probability high damage events. Moreover, risk is well incorporated in adaptation plans in the four cities and they also show that institutions share knowledge with experts, and there are institutional and political structures that support preparedness and post-disaster measures. The author brings up the questions: which population is going to still be at risk after implementation of measures? Who benefits from adaptation? Which cannot be addressed without a specific case of resilience to what, for who, etc. Comparing resilience measures in diverse contexts with different risks may create gaps in the research. In addition, the methodology of the analysis was not clear because the indicators for each category were not shown. However, an alignment framework that works as a base for adaptation and disaster risk reduction policies is important in the process of becoming more resilient.

T2.4: Panel on Co-Producing Urban Resilience to Extreme Events

In this special panel the Sustainable Research Network (URExSRN) discusses their concept of urban resilience through positive future approach.

Instead of looking from single perspective of dystopian scenarios URExSRN focuses on generating new scenarios, social-ecological-technological strategies and transformative pathways, by using the knowledge collected from different histories, geographies and experiences of people to support sustainable urban governance programs and planning processes. Case studies in 9 cities set light to compare and evaluate sustainable future visions in case of extreme events such as coastal flood, urban flood, heat, drought with the help of infrastructure, data, maps, models created by Urban System Labs.

Positive futures
David Iwaniec, Marta Berbes, Elizabeth Cook, Melissa Davidson, Nancy Grimm, Timon McPhearson, Tischa Muñoz-Erickson

First presentation of Sustainable Research Network presented by David Iwaniec gives the conceptual framing of works and explains their research agenda. The team challenges ill-defined, interconnected, wicked problems of urban governance and planning in the case of extreme events, failing infrastructure, excessive use of motor vehicles, pollution, resource scarcity, increasing surface temperature. The presenter reframes resilience implementations by focusing on positive futures concept and criticizing the dominant discourse of dystopian future scenario from single perspective. David Iwaniec mentions that the problems of today are the products of solutions of the past and correction of these solutions and being solution oriented rather than problem based would lead us to positive futures. The aim of the study is increasing human well-being and environmental quality at the same time by understanding different histories of different places and different people and addressing challenges, drivers, consequences, impacts of changes. He explores multiple, diverse pathways of transformative interventions, different combinations of social-ecological-technological strategies and the interactions between strategies, scales and scenarios for a positive future. The study researches multiple scales such as global, city, municipal, neighborhood and community visions and question how they interact, support each other and how they conflict. The work focuses on finding a balance between plausible, desirable futures and business as usual state to reach sustainable urban governance structures through understanding, what is the combination of worldviews, values, cultures, and choices by understanding unintended consequences as well as intended consequences with equal attention.               

A social- ecological-technical systems approach to understanding urban complexity and building climate resilience
Nancy Grimm, Marta Berbés Blasquez, Mikhail Chester, Elizabeth Cook, Peter Groffman, David Iwaniec, Timon McPhearson, Thaddeus Miller, Tischa Muñoz-Erickson, Charles Redman

Nancy Grimm presents a social-ecological-technological systems (SETS) approach to understanding urban complexity and resilience. The challenge the presenter focuses on is infrastructure failures in the case of extreme events which are results of climate change, to transform cities to resilient cities, into resilient systems. She defines infrastructure as fundamental components of cities and shows the points how infrastructure makes the cities vulnerable to extreme events. SETS approach aims to integrate multiple perspectives, different types of expertise and trans-disciplinary ways to provide more resilient solutions for protection against extreme events. The presenter explains the dynamic system and continuous cycle of capital inputs of SETS resulting in service provision, ecosystem services and jobs created and final result outcomes as persistence, adaptation, transformation, ecological changes and the changes on people. First case study is from San Juan, a conceptualization of ecosystem services of SETS infrastructure in the case of flooding in an open canal area left to fill in. The main question she asks in this case, how to rebuild resilience in disadvantaged, poor community but avoid gentrification? It is a community involvement to think about the solution together to find effective, affordable, technologically advanced solution by participation in a more just environment. Second case study is “Safe-to-Fail and Green Infrastructure”, which focuses on uncertainty of extreme events to understand managing the consequences rather than lowering the probability of failure.  She claims that pre-planned, controlled failure gives the opportunity to minor consequences. Third case study is in Hermosillo, Mexico focuses on future projections in the case of vulnerability to flooding. The study is on mapping exposure and assessing aspects of social vulnerability, infrastructure vulnerability, ecological vulnerability and showing the combined risk.

Co-development of positive visions for future urban sustainability and resilience
Elizabeth Cook, Marta Berbes, Melissa Davidson, Nancy Grimm, David Iwaniec, Timon McPhearson, Tischa Muñoz-Erickson

Elizabeth Cook presents co-development of positive future visions for urban sustainability and resilience with comparisons and different future scenarios in different cities like Valdivia-Chile, Hermosillo-Mexico, Phoenix-Arizona US, Baltimore-Maryland US. Her work focuses more on thinking of visions and scenarios rather than challenge a problem. She criticizes the approach when we are asking the questions “What is? What could be?” rather than “What should be?” to understand the problematic situations. Her work tries to illustrate future visions of diverse cities by asking different stakeholders what are their future visions. As a result she finds lots of diversity, differences and similarities. With a participatory co-development workshop aiming to understand resilience, equity and transformative potential she works on scenarios to explore alternative, positive futures. The workshop asks people, “How can we start to minimize the sustainability and resilience gap between plausible and desirable futures?” Workshop outputs such as comparison of scenarios, narratives, timelines, strategies lead to get a research agenda and explore trade-offs of resilience equity sustainability qualitative assessment (RESQ), land use, land cover change and future visualizations. She gives an example of Phoenix, Arizona with different visions such as mountain to river, just green enough, connected and mobile, cool desert city and equity district, dealing with different issues in the city. She explains RESQ and quantitative assessments looking at water security by using heat model in a drought scenario. Her study aims linking these visions to future actions for potential trade-offs and using these visions to support new and existing initiatives, supporting, planning and decision making through development of sustainability plans of cities with innovative solutions.

Designing anticipatory knowledge for resilient and sustainable urban futures
Tischa A. Muñoz-Erickson, Elizabeth Cook, Mathieu Feagan, Robert Hobbins, David Iwaniec, Clark Miller, Thaddeus Miller

Tischa Munoz Erickson first asks the questions “How we think about them? How we approach them from SETS perspective? How we co-produce with different stakeholders? What are the challenges involved?” while designing different scenarios for positive futures. By asking these questions she points the limits of the approaches of existing governance systems to exhibit anticipatory capacities. The presenter stresses the importance of being a step ahead to know what is coming and to be able to use knowledge systems efficiently without privileging knowledge over other. In order to do that the team focuses on studying knowledge systems, how we develop data and produce knowledge. The example of Valdivia, Chile gives insight of URE x Governance Survey with participation of 43 governance organizations to analyze risks and explore long-term futures. At the same time survey aims to find out what knowledge counts with the experiences of people and with different methods to collect data. The result shows 13 forward-looking agencies taking the path of risk reduction, mitigation, adaptation, resilience and transformation. The study looks for the capacities and tools and practices used by central actors for the co-creation of future visions and pathways with long-term, alternative approaches.

Modelling urban futures: Resilience thinking in practice
Timon McPhearson
  • Urban systems futures modeling
  • Stakeholders, Current plans > Micro simulations of Heat, Urban Flood, Coastal Flood,   Population > Model outputs
  • Maps, timelines – qualitative and quantitative data
  • How they are connected? , How we can use them?
  • Modelling Urban Heat – data > process > output
  • Modelling Urban Flood – hazard > risk
  • How CA Model works? – Matrix of micro modules
  • Case study – Land cover – CA Model
  • Historical data – historical changes – feasible transition – 10m scale resolution
  • Patterns of identity and behavior
  • Combination of elements – longer-term future
  • To give opportunity for transformative change
  • Governance – how is the pathway?
  • Calibration phase – behavioral analysis – historical, probability
  • Case study – San Juan – Food & Energy Security Scenario
  • Restrictions and relocations
  • Example: Reduce urban extensions by increasing the amount of mangroves
  • Reduce urban extensions for agricultural area
  • Assessing social connection, mobility connection, coastal flood resilience
  • Achieve multiple goals

T2.3: Resilience Integrated Strategies and Cities

The major framework of the presentations in this session was mainly based on the 100 Resilient Cities approach by the Rockefeller Foundation. The 100 RC framework has also introduced a City Resilience Index, which included a set of 12 goals and 52 indicators when it was developed together with ARUP  in 2013.

Three of the presentations shared more about urban governance (Melbourne and Thessaloniki and Central America). Two presentations shared more about implementation process (flooding and insurance). In an integrative manner towards the discussion in city resilience, further research shall be emphasis on the following topics: 

  1. In what way, the pre-existing governance and planning experience or new experiment can be either be translated into the framework of urban resilience, or be put into longitudinal studies for observation and studies in Global North cities;
  2. Adaptation pathway approach in climate resilience can be better quantified into a meaningful sets of numbers and figures, or even infographics and put to evaluation;
  3. How governance planning and institutional co-operations can be improved;
  4. How the small grants program is then eventually connected to international funding bodies and global investors and insurers in Global South cities.
The Resilient Melbourne Experiment: mobilising transitions in urban resilience governance and planning?
Susie Moloney

This paper examined the topic of Melbourne’s experiment in urban resilience governance and planning in 2016. The author also highlighted the process of Melbourne in setting up 100 RC strategies initially involving a bottom-up collaborative approach with voluntary participants of 32 local governments and other organizations. Framing and purposes were set forth together by the governments and organizations. The author presented the strong enabling conditions in Melbourne include: strong democratic governance and institutional setting, the cities were framing urban resilience beyond short-term risk reduction initiatives. The author addressed the prospects for mobilizing urban resilience in governance and planning, including addressing and reframing pre-existing condition, recognizing vulnerable populations, bottom-up local government collaborations, and partnerships…etc, which many of them already happening for long, there is a need to translate it into a resilience framework.

Resilience thinking transforming urban governance: The case of Thessaloniki, Greece
Vangelis Pitidis, Jon Coaffee,Joao Porto de Albuquerque

The author first identified challenges in government and planning, as transformation is constrained by custom and practice. The authors asked how do institutional inheritance shapes future possibilities, how innovative ideas can be incorporate, and also take an active role to transform the mainstream practice in planning and governance.

The authors discussed the key goals of Thessaloniki to achieve climate resilience. The goals were: shaping a thriving and sustainable city, co-create an inclusive city, build a dynamic urban economy, re-discover the city’s relationship with the sea. As simple as a slogan, the reality is that resilience is about a process, not outcomes. The pathway to resilience practice in Thessaloniki also took a lesson that they had to get the right people around the same table and building effective partnerships. Coaffee, suggested that it shall involve a mutual and accountable network of civic institutions, agencies, and individual citizens working in partnership. A common goal and common strategies is needed. In the case of Thessaloniki, the author pointed out the city had a need to seek more longitudinal studies to better understand how resilience practice can become mainstream.

Applying the adaptation pathway approach to increase resilience to flooding: experiences and outlook from the city of Bilbao
Maddalen Mendizabal, Saioa Zorita, Nieves Peña, Efren Feliu

The author framed Bilbao’s city’s challenges in its adaptation pathway approach to flooding. The author pointed out the adaptation pathway approach had already shown insights in dealing with other climate issues such as urban heat. The key discussion was, in a quantifying manner, how to reduce flood impacts on transport, by reducing flooded areas and increasing the soil permeability.

The classical approach, usually, focuses on “what if climate changes in a scenario of flooding”. However, the adaptation approach, focuses on ‘how much’ flooding the city can cope with. Focusing on the transport system, the author discussed the case of Bilbao, with numerical figures with rainfall alert minimum amount, soil infiltration capacity, and traffic road pavement covering. The results are a selection of the best alternative options for climate flooding risk management presented, including reducing soil pavement and lowering the minimum amount for rainfall alert.

Planning in Central America in the 21st century: possibilities and limitations for resilience implementation
Carlos Ferrufino

The authors discussed different approaches to promote urban resilience and its implications for planning governance at the multinational, national, and metropolitan levels. The study of Central American planning cases permits to identify four tensions which are relevant for the discussion of the linkages between resilience implementation, planning, and governance.

The first tensions is, despite official discourses, numerous contradictions persist with ongoing strategic economic ventures and large infrastructure projects. There is incomplete coordination between environmental and economic ministries. Second, new issues incorporated into national and metropolitan development plans, such as gender equality, human rights, and civil society participation pose diverse implementation challenges for traditional planning organizations and professionals. Third, the conservative legal frameworks had become a limit for achievement, as legal disputes around private property and plan implementation continue. Finally, numerous stakeholders such as multilateral organizations, local governments, private investors, and grassroots organizations have not been fully involved in planning processes preventing multiple interests to be considered in the decision-making process.

The author finally put forth an unanswered question as to how effective planning on governance and institution co-operations can be improved in Central America.

Innovative financial mechanisms and stakeholders involvement for climate resilience implementation in Himalayan cities
Ramiz Khan

The authors addressed the challenges of climate change and gave a project examples on water scarcity, drainage and solid waste management in Himalayan. The project is based in three cities in the Indian Himalayan region (Shimla, Kurseong, Gangtok) and their resilience strategy formulation using ICLEI ACCCRN Process (IAP) toolkit.

Shimla and Kurseong brought forth water supply systems as one of the most fragile urban systems. Whereas, Gangtok recognized the essential need to adopt a proper Solid Waste Management system, especially to avoid clogging of open drains and natural streams in order to reduce the threat of landslide incidences that result in infrastructural, financial and human loss. The key process of laying the path is critical in getting an active stakeholder engagement.

This case demonstrated an innovative financing mechanism by linking the projects with the Small Grants Fund to create success stories which can further be upscale through convergence with existing federal government schemes. The further unasked questions that underlined this topic, were made on how the small grants are then eventually connected to international funding bodies and global investors, as global investors also tend to seek low-risk projects to insure and execute.

T2.2: Spain & Barcelona Experience in Resilience

The second session on ‘Climate Resilience Governance and Planning’ focused on the city of Barcelona, Spain, examining through the use of different ‘hands-on’ analysis to determine the extent to which resilience was present and successful in the city, and in one instance nationally.

The session began with an assessment of how resilience implementation does or does not exist within the legislative framework, followed by a comparative analysis of resilience frameworks in Barcelona to other cities in Spain. The presentations then proceeded to focus solely on the city of Barcelona by examining the metropolitan area of the city as a ‘benchmark’ for city resilience and then identifying an existing population vulnerability that still needs to be addressed. Finally, the session concluded with a case study example of the concept of resilience implemented at the community scale through the reuse of existing building infrastructure. 

By focusing mostly on the city of Barcelona, the different presenters have demonstrated different ways in which the concept of urban resilience has been integrated into the city’s governing framework and implementation strategies. Although Barcelona as a city has demonstrated leadership in its adaptation plans regarding resources, MER and adaptation management, it nonetheless presently needs to deal with the gaps and inconsistency of regional wide urban resilience strategies. There is a need for a more comprehensive plan throughout the metropolitan region that can be supported from a top-down approach financially and through regulatory enforcement, whereby resilience and its strategies should be reframed  with a more ‘modernized’ framework that includes issues other than natural disaster and climate change as well more pressing topics such as inequality. Furthermore, continued support of bottom-up strategies that continue to foster community based initiatives and plans is important to Barcelona’s continued development of urban resilience. Mechanism for how both bottom-up and top-down strategies can be synchronised and work together will be important in the city’s future plans for urban resilience. 

Urban resilience in Spanish legislative and regulatory framework
Ana Díez Bermejo, Ana Sanz Fernández, Agustín Hernández Aja

Ana Sanz Fernandez in Urban Resilience in Spanish Legislative & Regulatory Framework presented the results of the analytical research done to determine to which extent resilience exists within the legislative and governing framework of the city of Barcelona. The issue raised is not whether resilience as a concept exists but if and how it is implemented in the administrative structure and urban planning system. This was examined by thorough analysis of key terms in legal documents  of governing bodies in the city. The results of the research identified that the concept of resilience was incorporated starting in 2006, with dulls along the years, and an increased relevance around 2013. Its presence in legal documents was mostly in conjunction with other concepts such as climate change and natural disasters, vaguely under the pretext of goals, and lacking in a developed understanding of the theory in connection to other topics such as the Urban Agenda.  The results found through Fernandez’s analytical research is exemplary of the gap in how a city may claim to address the issue of resilience as a goal to aspire to without designing the legislative implementation framework that would allow such a goal to be fully achieved. There is a lack of confluence between academic and scientific discourse on the urban resilience and its application in Spanish legal framework, which Fernandez proposes can be overcome with a broadening of legal framework to ease the implementation of policies towards resilience – how that can be achieved necessitates further research. 

Are Spanish local adaptation policies likely to be successfully implemented and sustained in the long-term? An assessment of their legitimacy, scientific, policy and economic credibility.
Elisa Sainz de Murieta, Estíbaliz Sanz, Marta Olazabal

Through the project research of PROCESA, Marta Olazabal examined to what extent adaptation planning is taking place in Spain by examining the only 11 cities that have major adaptation plans in place. The Olazabal et al. adaptation policy credibility (APC) assessment tool was used as a guideline to evaluate adaptation planning and long-term institutional capacity building for the selected 11 cities. The APC included seven components and fifty-four metrics that fell under three major areas: political and economic credibility, scientific and learning credibility and legitimacy. The results of this analysis showed that cities like San Sebastian, Guadalajara and Valencia are at the forefront when examining the three major areas of analysis. Comparatively, a closer analysis of the seven components  such as Resources, Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting (MER), and Adaptive Management, demonstrates that cities of Cordoba, Barcelona and Murcia are the leading cities. While the results show that some cities may be more successful in their adaptation plans at the larger scale, some cities have thrived by focusing on specific targets in their adaptation plan strategies. A city like Barcelona does not have an overall strong adaptation plan addressing all of the determined seven components, but it nonetheless is leading in resources, MER and adaptive management strategies. There is a need for major national and regional governments to support capital cities through financial and technical support as well as regulation enforcement to promote a more cohesive national and city wide comprehensive strategy. With this, the issue of equity and justice also needs to be brought forward to be incorporated in adaptation plans.

Legacies and Tensions while Building Urban Resilience: Exploring Urban Plans in Barcelona and its Metropolitan Region,
Mar Grau-Satorras, Hug March, Isabel Ruiz-Mallén

In Legacies and Tensions while Building Urban Resilience: Exploring Urban Plans in Barcelona and its Metropolitan Region, Hug March presented the ongoing research on how different agendas transmit and shape ideas and practices of urban resilience; the interplay between international and local resilience-building efforts and identifying the potential elements of consensus or dissensus in how to design and implement urban resilience. Barcelona was used as the example of a benchmark city that began to embed resilience strategies in 2008 through the Covenant of Mayors which led to Pla d’Energia and Canvi Climatic Actions. Bottom-up strategies of participatory work towards co-production of policies helped develop the urban climate resilience agenda, while top-down processes with stakeholders like utility companies addressed multi-hazard urban resilience. All plans acknowledge the importance of resilience to varying degrees and it was through the action of legislation and strategies that resilience was ‘metropolitanized’ to the surrounding areas of the city. Cities in the metropolitan area have unfolded local adaptation plans for resilience while others are working with urban resilience with the perspective of a multi-hazard approach or with other concepts like that of the ‘smart city’. Cities on the outskirts of Barcelona are using the concept of urban resilience through European grants in smaller rural parts. Review of the regional and metropolitan plans of the many surrounding cities of Barcelona demonstrates the complexity in articulating the concept of resilience at the metropolitan scale, as some municipalities use more climate-oriented resilience while other focus on multi-hazard or mixed approach strategies. With this, the multiple approaches to urban resilience raise the possible implication and tensions between the bottom-up and top-down approach, if they can be combined and in which way such approaches can articulate with local politics.

Social vulnerability and coastal hazards: Acknowledging floating population needs in Barcelona, Spain
Aysun Koroglu Dogan, Lina Taing, Chris Zevenbergen

Aysu Korugu Dogan in Social vulnerability and coastal hazards: Acknowledging floating population needs in Barcelona, Spain, examined and identified a population’s inability to cope with adverse impacts of natural or man made disasters. In particular, Dogan identified the most vulnerable group as the ‘floating population’, of which there are thirty-five million a year as tourists. Barcelona is facing increasing socio and economic threats because of rising number of flash floods in coastal areas of which there was a twenty-five percent increase in the past few years. In analysing and then identifying the socioeconomic and demographic data that has  come of hazards, the attributes that make people vulnerable can be identified to help build the support structures and facilities for mitigation and recovery. The Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) was used to map and classify vulnerabilities in eleven main categories which include housing, age, race, education, and family structure. The results demonstrated Barcelona’s coastal area as particularly vulnerable to hazards, with the floating population being most vulnerable. With this, public emergency services for example should be accounting for needs of such vulnerable groups in disaster risk reduction strategies by using the SVI maps to inform how finances and services should be spatially distributed based on risk.

Can Fugarolas: A Story Of Urban Resilience
Diego Saez, Pere Fuertes

Diego Saez presented a different perspective on urban resilience by examining a building case study example of Can Fugarolas: A Story Of Urban Resilience in the city of Mataro, north of Barcelona. The socio economic conditions of the city include high unemployment and low housing construction rates. Cronopios Circus company saw an opportunity of rehabilitation for the community and the city as an engine for social and cultural participation through the building Can Fugarolas, what was once an old car dealership.  The rehabilitation project examined the complexities of different urban systems as adaptive means with regards to urban planning, cultural facilities, physical support and activity. The objective was to create a sustainable multi-disciplinary space that ecompasses differents types of arts, social projects and nurseries for social, sustainable and cultural companies. Through participatory group effort, the building was restored as different spaces serving different needs including artist in residence studios and a circus training gym. Different implementation strategies to transform the building including administrative, social and functional led to the legalization and specialization of the once empty building as a reserve for present and future needs. The project became symbolic of what Diego describes as the embedded resilience that the built heritage constitutes, particularly in its capacity to host different urban dynamics while formally and functionally accommodating, transforming and adapting. 

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 manners.by 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.