3.1 What is a Framework?

“Resilience is a critical urban development agenda. Building resilience in cities requires an understanding of both what contributes to resilience and how it can be measured” – ARUP, Resilient Cities Index

Critical evaluation frameworks are essential for understanding how a city has performed: a benchmarking tool which aids in spotting strengths and weaknesses in the current action plan. It is a common practice in modern city planning, giving us the ability to compare and share analytics. Some successful actions may then be taken on-board or developed further by cities with common goals whilst poorer performing areas are identified, and their actions and goals re-evaluated. A typical framework will consist of qualitative and quantitative indicators, each of which are scored using a pre-defined scoring system. This is then tallied up into drivers and pillars, combined to give an aggregate score of the overall resilience of that city. Measuring resilience, especially social aspects of resilience, is extremely difficult as it is often not visible or quantifiable. There are various existing approaches which have been taken to assess resilience. These typically focus on physical urban structures or systems. Physical infrastructure, nature, and human behaviour are often referenced in these. The existing asset-based approach tends to focus too much of the physical instead of qualitative systems which influence social behaviour. These include belonging, culture, social capital, and identity. They may also miss assets which aid the city from the surrounding hinterlands such as a hydro-dam or freshwater reservoir.

By comparing and combining some of these existing frameworks, I will be able to create a boutique framework which will suit my evaluation of Stockholm. These reference frameworks include ‘The City Resilience Index’19 by ARUP in collaboration with Rockefeller (CRI), OECS’s ‘Resilient Cities Measurement’ (RCM) and the UN-Habitat’s CityRAP Tool (CityRAP). I have also identified a paper by the Stockholm Resilience Centre titled ‘Arctic Resilience Assessment’20 (ARA) which highlights several indicators towards resilience in Sweden’s Arctic climate. Developing on Berkes et al21 research, these indicators are predominantly on a social level. By blending these frameworks together, I will be able to make a well researched and relatable framework which evaluates Stockholm’s unique situation. I can then use this to compare and analyse other cities comparatively. UN’s 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) which outline 17 goals for a sustainable future alongside 169 future targets through 6,015 actions will also be analysed in relation to resilience.

‘What is badly defined is likely to be badly measured’ - (Handbook on Constructing Composite Indicator, 2008, p.22.)