6.0 Conclusion

This report sought out to evaluate the sustainable development within Stockholm. The report began by outlining the definition of resilience. Resilience is introduced and defined by referencing academic literature as having Persistence, Adaptability and Transform-ability, before being split into categories of physical and social resilience. These categories are defined through examples of cases where a lack-of resilience has highlighted their importance in a city context. It was also important to differentiate resilience and sustainability, treating them as two sides of the same coin and highlighting the subtle differences and similarities. To effectively evaluate the resilient development in Stockholm, I employed an original critical evaluation framework. This was developed by dissecting four existing resilience frameworks (CityRAP Tool, Resilient Cities Index, Resilient Cities Measurement & Arctic Resilience Analysis). I picked indicators and themes from these and refined them to a framework which suited the evaluation I wished to conduct. In doing so, I broke down resilience into 5 pillars, 17 drivers and 61 indicators. These were then scored according to action plan sources found in my initial research into Stockholm. From the evaluation framework, we can conclude that Stockholm is a resilient city. The city development plans identified showed good actions in place for city governance, societal and infrastructure. However, economy and health & well-being resilience could use some more goals to create a more well-rounded resilience strategy for the city.