Booklet: Towards Urban Resilience

TOWARDS URBAN RESILIENCE: Challenges and strategies in a comparative perspective of Bangkok and Barcelona

Roger Barres Lapthawan Leerapongkul

HOW TO USE This is a guidebook for a journey between two cities, Bangkok and Barcelona, and their strategies to be more resilient. This project aims to explain and discuss the concept of urban resilience by comparing two cities that have developed a resilience model and strategy. By explaining some of the main challenges these two cities are facing, and evaluating how their resilience strategies are capable of providing solution we try to explain and critique the concept of urban resilience, its implications and limitations.

The use of this guide has to be accompanied with 2 sets of cards about some of the particular most significant urban challenges that both cities are facing nowadays or might face in the near future.

The selection of challenges has been made through the analysis of academic articles, policy and situation reports, our own local knowledge, and news. Nevertheless, we are aware of the limitations of this selection, mainly by the agenda-setting effects, and we assume, and it is not our main goal, that it is not a systematic nor complete selection of the most relevant and pressing challenges might face these two cities.

Each card portrays a brief visualized data about the challenge and explains why they are matter. Also, to comprehend the wicked problems, all cards are designed separately allowing the users freely match, link, or group the challenges in order to further understand the connection among problems and how complicated they are.

In order to use this guide effectively, here we explain its main points and how you should interact with them:

First, in the section called About urban resilience, a brief debate on the concepts, its limits, and risks.

This is to be followed by the Perspectives on urban resilience that we contrast how Bangkok (BKK) and Barcelona (BCN) identify the concept through the definition they use. Then, we explain the main characteristics of the resilience models and strategies implemented by two cities in order to become more resilient.

The third section is Resilience strategies analysis. We analyze and evaluate case by case about how their resilience models fit and can deal with each challenge. In this step, we recommend you to collate the challenge cards with the strategy assessment page for each challenge.

In the assessment, you will find the main strategies, mechanisms, and initiatives that we have identified in relation to each challenge, and the Resilience Evaluation Box assessed its adequacy and risks. In order to do so, we use the ‘5Ws of urban resilience’ approach, by which we take into consideration of whom, what, when, where and why of each strategy (Elmqvist, 2014; Meerow et al. 2016; Vale, 2014).

Finally, we present a set of conclusion derived from the analysis of the relevance and impact of the strategies over the challenges in each city and taking into account all the previous, a final consideration about the concept of urban resilience.

ABOUT URBAN RESILIENCE

As cities and urban issues are gaining relevance and interest it is not unusual to see new concepts being linked to visions and future perspectives of the city: smart city, sustainable city, etc. Among these concepts one could find ideas such as Urban Resilience pursued by cities, private corporations, and international organizations, like the United Nation or Rockefeller Foundation through 100 Resilient Cities (100 Resilient Cities, 2017a; 2017b; UN Habitat, 2017).

The concept has exploded in popularity in recent years both in academic and policy discourses as an attractive perspective with respect to cities, and the challenges they face nowadays as complex systems (Meerow, et al. 2016). In this sense, most often concepts as such are explaining stories about how we have to plan the city in the present and the future. The use of these concepts seems to be more and more important in explaining and visioning the city. Not only they are becoming important, but they are also becoming mainstream: they are charged with positive and aspirational connotations (Marvin et al., 2016).

Even though these concepts share something in common, they are controversial and loosely defined. Urban resilience is not an exception; it has a conceptual vagueness made it a ‘boundary object’ that can appeal to multiple worlds and allow stakeholders to come together without the need to agree on the definition (Brand & Jax, 2007; Leichenko, 2011; Meerow et al., 2016).

One might find a great variety of definitions of urban resilience; most of them share in common the idea that urban resilience is related to the ability of the (urban) system to recover from stresses and shocks (100 Resilient Cities 2017; Friedman & Lee, 2017; Resilient Regions, n.d.; UN Habitat, 2017). Although, with such a loose definition, many questions arise; what does it mean to recover? From where and to where? It implies coming back to an original point? What are the connotations of this original point? What kind of problems/challenges are considered to be resilient? How and who identifies these shocks and stresses? Who identifies them? etc. Among these questions, Meerow et al. (2016) identify the main tensions still unexplored by current definitions of the concept:

Notions of equilibrium

Single, multiple or dynamic?

Resilience as a positive concept

Is it always a positive concept?

What if an original state is undesirable?

Pathways to urban resilience

Persistence, transition or transformation?

Understanding of adaptation

Should it be ‘specific’ or ‘general’?

Timescale of action

Focused on rapid-onset disasters or gradual changes?

Such fuzziness makes urban resilience difficult to operationalize and, therefore, hard to develop indicators and evaluate its impact and incidence. Moreover, as authors like Marvin et al. (2016), Peck (2005), and Swyngedouw (2010) would argue, these ideas may partly dishonest and need to be discussed and challenged. From that perspective, these concepts have, inevitably, not only positive impacts but also negative effects, and have been originated under certain conditions, by specific agents with particular agendas. Accordingly, the interests of private organizations in promoting them through international network should raise questions about democracy, transparency and legitimacy (Fernández de Losada, 2018). In Swyngedouw’s words, any of these concepts “is not independent from class, gender, ethnic or other power struggles.” (2010: 203). Furthermore, it is also very relevant to think about its post-political condition in which political struggle (and democracy) could replaced by mainstream, universally accepted, visions and perspectives, considered non-ideological and positive per se (Swyngedouw (2010).

It is not the intention of this work to ignore or critique on the potential benefits of resilience. Our intention, is to discuss the conceptualization of the concept and its implication by evaluating both positivities and negativities from a critical perspective.

PERSPECTIVES ON URBAN RESILIENCE

[

BANGKOK

.....

]

1

“The capacity of individuals, communities, institutions, businesses, and systems within a city to survive, adapt, and grow, no matter what kinds of chronic stresses (factors that pressure on a daily or reoccurring basis) and acute shocks (single event disasters) they experience. City resilience is about making a city better, in both good times and bad, for the benefit of all its citizens, particularly the poor and vulnerable.� (100RC)

REACTION, GROWTH, IMPROVE, CITIZENS

1

Bangkok has not developed a comprehensive definition of urban resilience. They use 100RC approach. (According to the personal interview with Dr. Supachai Tantikom, Bangkok Chief Resilience Officer, 100 Resilient Cities, May 9th 2018)

[

BARCELONA “A resilient city is not just a city that protects itself against the impacts or critical situations it expects to face, either because it has suffered them in the past or anticipates them occurring the future; it is a city with the capacity to plan and to anticipate risk by means of preventive actions, and to intervene in order to modify the conditions that will enable to move towards the city model we wish to build.�

]

PROTECTION, PREVENTION, CHANGE, VISION

URBAN RESILIENCE MODELS

BANGKOK RESILIENCE MODEL

Bangkok’s resilience model is based on project-based strategic planning.

In this sense, this model tries to identify which are the main problems in the city, then design and implement specific projects (more or less coordinated) policies or initiatives in order to reduce or change the conditions of these problems.

The process of developing its resilience strategy started in 2014, promoted, accompanied and partly funded by 100RC. The firsts actions were a number of consultation in which more than 500 participants from government, academia, NGOs, and business identified and defined of strengths and weaknesses of the city, which ended up with a Preliminary Resilience Assessment.

Based on the diagnosis, 5 working teams (flooding, mobility, economic prosperity and equality, health and wellbeing, and reducing impacts of shocks) from the government officials, experts, and 100RC, were set up in order to establish priorities and propose initiatives. The result of these working teams is Bangkok Resilience Strategy launched in 2017.

The strategy has led and monitored by the Chief Resilience Officer under the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration (BMA). However, the implementation of projects and initiatives are the responsibility of BMA agencies and departments, and it is apparently difficult to collaborate and share a vision of the main concepts, methods, and goals.2 PLAN OF ACTION Therefore, the primary expression of Bangkok’s resilience model is the action plan, developed by 3 Strategic Action Areas, 8 goals, and 60 projects, from which 8% are existing projects, 37% are in the scalable stage, and 55% are new. The three Strategic Action Areas are the following:

AREA 1: Increasing quality of life

GOAL 1 : Health and wellbeing for all city residents, now and into the future GOAL 2 : Safe, accessible and convenient transportation network GOAL 3 : Environmentally friendly urbanization

AREA 2: Reducing risk and increasing adaptation

AREA 3: Driving a strong and competitive economy

2

GOAL 4 : Improving resilience to floods GOAL 5 : Increasing public and community driven action on awareness, preparedness and adaptation GOAL 6 : Institutional capacity and regulation GOAL 7 : Facilitating city and community-based economy GOAL 8 : Expanding tourism, service industry and hospitality

According to the personal interview with Dr. Supachai Tantikom, Bangkok Chief Resilience Officer, 100 Resilient Cities, May 9th 2018.

BARCELONA RESILIENCE MODEL

Barcelona’s resilience model has to be understood as part of more complex strategic planning environment. The city is known as a planning city, meaning that it has developed through the years a structure of strategic plans in various areas.

The resilience model has its origin back into 2009. It started as a diversity of projects and irrelevant plans, with no cross-sector coordination. It first evolved improving the collaboration between internal stakeholders, and including external actors through public-private partnership (PPP), then improving the coordination mechanisms, and finally creating a permanent Department of Urban Resilience under the Urban Ecology Area, considered the first city to have such a figure. The model is based on a framework and strategic planning.

FRAMEWORK: Constructed by three phases and three key actors, aimed to respond to incidents and emergencies for a rapid recovery as well as learn and assess for continuous improvement towards urban resilience. The process starts when citizens or governmental agencies or departments detect and inform incidents or emergencies in the city; the Operations Center will be the incident response team on a 24/7 basis and be in charge of coordinating with other municipal units.

The Situation Room has a comprehensive overview of the city, and it is in charge of sharing and managing all the information to support decision-making processes.

Finally, the Resilience Boards are multidisciplinary teams of both municipal staffs and external organizations members under the coordination of the Resilience Department. They are responsible for the development of specific projects on diverse topics, derived from three pillars of the Strategic Planning. All projects implemented by the boards follow the same cycle, including communication among stakeholders, evaluation, and scaling.

STRATEGIC PLANNING: To implement the resilience framework, based on the tools that have been developed and the experience gained by it, in 2016 Barcelona’s City Council approved a strategic plan with the aim to serve as a roadmap for deploying proactive resilience measures and the main lines of action. The Strategic Planning includes the principles of the resilience model, policies and measures, and three main lines of action: climate resilience and adaptation, social Resilience, infrastructures and urban services resilience.

Climate Resilience& adaptation

Social Resilience

Infrastructures & Urban Services Resilience

RESILIENCE STRATEGIES ANALYSIS

BANGKOK

Challenge:

FLOOD RISK Strategic area 2: Reducing risk and increasing adaptation Goal 4: Improving resilience to flood Project 4.1 Management strategy and vision for the Chao Phraya basin: a study of lower Chao Phraya Basin and setting the vision for water management, flood hazard map for management and to communicate with the public in preparation for flood events, enhance the effectiveness of water and rainfall forecasts Project 4.2 Community water resource management program: watersensitive marketplace, management of waste collection for canal communities Project 4.3 Urban flood defenses: criteria for drainage, urban water retention, drainage systems along main roads, drainage tunnels, improvement of major canals, combined utility tunnels, feasibility assessment of flood resilience index

Resilience Evaluation Box •

Very preliminary phase, most projects are aimed to study, assess and evaluate current conditions and possibilities.

•

However, the information is critical for prevention and risk management.

•

A community-based approach in a number of projects: who is responsible for risk or catastrophe management?

•

The relevance of touristic locations and infrastructures, and unequal treatment between the city center and periphery. Who are the beneficiaries of these projects?

BARCELONA

Challenge:

WATER MANAGEMENT Concerning this challenge, the resilience framework is focused on the management of the service failure. In this sense, provision of water is one of the services monitored by the resilience framework, both by the Operations Center and Resilience Boards. One specific project implemented by the Resilience Boards aimed to establish protocols with utility companies in order to improve communication and failure management. In this case, Agbar, the company supplying water to the city is a part of this protocol.

Also, the line of action Climate Resilience and adaptation of the Strategic Planning, in junction with other programs and departments, elaborates and implements a Climate Change Adaptation Plan. Under this plan, there are a number of initiatives aimed to guarantee water supply (i.e. Technical Plan for the Utilization of Alternative Water Resources 2012-2015, Municipal Action Plan for Risk of Drought, a desalination plant and awareness campaigns), saving water by public activities, and flood management.

Resilience Evaluation Box

•

The resilience approach to this challenge is mainly focused on the provision of water as a supply. Few projects are approaching the challenge as a problematic environmental issue, and tackling the initial causes

•

In this sense, even it can be considered preventive in terms of managing information, prevent risk, etc., it is mainly reactive if we consider the causes of the problem

• In order to be more effective, this resilience model needs to be embedded in the environmental strategic planning of the city

BANGKOK

Challenge:

TRAFFIC CONGESTION Strategic area 1: Increasing quality of life Goal 2: Safe, accessible and convenient transportation network Project 2.1 Integrated mass transport system: one way to reduce the road traffic is to encourage people using public transport. By doing that, BMA has planned to increase the connectivity between different transport modes across Bangkok. The ongoing initiatives are the expansion of monorail feeder, light rail system and water transport network, an integrated information system for traffic management and planning.

Project 2.2 Improving traffic flow in the city: as Bangkok commuters still predominantly travel by road, a range of interventions will be initiated to improve the traffic flow; the pilot study on reducing traffic around schools, the study of integrated management of road network and development of a master plan, and a feasibility study for driving credit measures and taxes.

Goal 3 : Environmentally friendly urbanization 3.2. Encouraging low carbon transport: by improving air quality management and promoting existing emission-free transport, and study on building new bicycle pathways and facilities across the city. These projects would reduce car use and commuters will enjoy safer journeys.

Resilience Evaluation Box • Multidimensional and comprehensive approach: mass transit systems (monorail, water transport network), traffic management, facilitating other means of transportation • However, the strategy is not taking into account critical fundamental issues.

Not a single measure meant to control the number of cars or the affluence of cars into the city, the quality of the public transport service provision, equal access to transport. Thus, who is the main beneficiary of these policies?

• Most projects are preliminary studies, low-impact, and short-term initiatives

BARCELONA

Challenge:

AIR POLLUTION Under its resilience framework, Barcelona has not directly implemented any specific action against air pollution. However, one of the main lines of its Strategic Planning is the adaptation to climate change.

Under this line of action and in junction with other programs and departments, elaborates and implements a Climate Change Adaptation Plan.

About this plan, there are 13 sectorial plans and programs. Specifically, the Energy, Climate Change and Air Quality 2011-2020 implements projects aimed to reduce private transport, and reduce the environmental impact of large infrastructures and governmental facilities, such as polluting industries, port, airport.

Resilience Evaluation Box • The resilience model is not tackling the problem directly, but it is trying to give answers to some of the consequences (effects of climate change)

• From this perspective, even though, the model is intended to be preventive concerning the direct effects of climate change, it is not directly facing the initial causes

•

In this sense, we might consider the model more reactive than preventive, in relation to this challenge

• Again, this model has to be understood under the planning environment in order to have a complete view of the strategy against this specific challenge

BANGKOK

Challenge:

SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT Strategic area 1 : Increasing quality of life Goal 3 : Environmentally friendly urbanization Project 3.1 Green growth: BMA will support the better recycling and disposal of rubbish and wastewater by promoting community recycling and waste collection, and through the development of waste-to-energy.

Less fossil fuel will be consumed, and the ecological impacts of waste will be reduced.

Resilience Evaluation Box •

Double approach: waste reduction and waste as a source of energy (waste-to-energy)

• Waste reduction: two main measures, taxation and awards program

•

The measures implemented are not pursuing the primary objective (waste reduction)

•

Waste-to-energy: long-term and multivariable perspective, intended impact over waste management, energy consumption, greenhouse gas emissions, and employment

• Possible threats, the location of energy plants affecting vulner-

able/resourceless communities (NIMBY): “The development of this project will include […] meaningful community input into selecting sites for the plant that maximizes the potential for environmental, social and economic benefits.”

BARCELONA

Challenge:

PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICE FAILURE

This challenge is in the origin of Barcelona’s resilience model. When it was designed, was mainly aimed to reduce the impact of the crisis occurred concerning infrastructures and services during the 2005-2008 period.

Nowadays, the Resilience Boards are developing a variety of projects that are directly focused to reduce and prevent shocks and risks from the failure of infrastructures and services in the city, mainly by coordinating actors, managing information and reducing reaction times in a number of areas: utility companies, sensitive facilities, and tunnel infrastructures.

Resilience Evaluation Box • The resilience model was initially designed to focus on this specific problem

•

In this sense, all the experiences and expertise gained through years has a direct impact in the implementation and management of this specific issue

• Resilience, in this case, is understood as the most hard-functional

part of the city, how it works as a system of flow of energy and service, how to keep it function effectively.

• In this sense, it has a low capacity to build something transform-

ative as it is focused on the persistence of the existing functioning of the city system.

BANGKOK

Challenge:

WORKING CONDITIONS Strategic area 1 : Increasing quality of life Goal 1 : Health and wellbeing for all city residents Project 1.2 Improving workplaces and living conditions for migrant workers : it is critical that health and safety regulations and standards are complied with at all employment places to ensure the well being of workers. It has been identified that some workplaces, in particular those which employ a high proportion of migrant workers and low-income workers, i.e. the industrial sector, do not comply, thereby putting this section of society at risk. Moreover, many of these workers live in substandard housing at different locations of the city. The initiative to achieve this goal is the study of the current situation of high risk workplaces, and the living environments of their work, especially of concentrations of migrant workers to ensure a higher health and safety standard.

Resilience Evaluation Box • Only one threat related to working conditions is considered: health and conditions in the workplace

•

Thus, the strategy is not taking into account root problems: informality, labor laws, insecurity, low wages etc.

• Accordingly, only health governmental agencies are taking part of this project, no labor governmental agency or department involved

•

Focus on a particularly vulnerable group: migrant workers, while other workers or migrants are not taken into account

•

Moreover, migrants and nationals in the informal labor market remain ignored

•

Limited impact in the short and mid-term. Policies implemented only preliminary studies

BARCELONA

Challenge:

PRECARIOUS WORK In relation to social resilience, Barcelona’s resilience model has developed to main activities. First, the Resilience Boards develop a project by which they identify and monitor “high-sensibility” services and facilities (hospitals, schools, energy facilities, social services). On the other hand, one of the lines of action of the strategic planning is Social Resilience.

Under this line of action in 2015, it was created Xarxa BCN-R, Barcelona Resilience network, formed by the municipality, NGOs, and police and emergency services. It aimed to support individuals and their families affected by critical incidents (grief counseling, suicide, medical emergencies, fire, and salvation) to establish preventive actions and exchange experiences and information among the members in the network.

Resilience Evaluation Box •

This resilience model does not consider structural and multicausal problematics with social impact, such the ones related to labor, poverty, etc. as part of neither its framework nor strategy, even though it has profound and severe social effects

•

It might only have a reduced impact over some of the most indirect and extreme consequences of this problem: accidents, medical conditions, or even death, related to insecurity, poverty, etc.

• In this sense, it would be a high reactive model, and the original problems are not taken into account

• The resilience model is not embedded in the system of strategic plans of the city, even if there are specific ones related to these issues

BANGKOK

Challenge:

URBAN DENSITY Strategic area 2 : Reducing risk and increasing adaptation Goal 5 : Increase public and community driven action on awareness, preparedness and adaption Project 5.1. Community-based adaptation and disaster preparedness and communication: by facilitating community-based and school-based adaptation and risk management, starting with raising public awareness.

Strategic area 3 : Driving a strong and competitive economy Goal 7 : Facilitating city and community-based economy Project 7.1 Supporting economic resilience in communities and encouraging the preservation of agriculture in the city: by creating income earning activities and career choices, and improving access to public services and utilities.

Resilience Evaluation Box • There is no straightforward recognition of this situation as a challenge.

No comprehensive approach, only disperse and independent actions.

• More importantly, no action for the recognition of informality (informal work, informal settlements, informal dwellers).

•

However, there are some projects to improve public health, access to public services and utilities, education and technologies, and financial support for vulnerable communities.

•

Risk of resourceless in community-based approaches. There is a link between social resilience and social capital; communities with more social capital and resources are more able to be resilientand develop community-based approaches. On the contrary, communities with less social capital and resources might have more difficulties (Cruz, et al.

2017). Thus, community-based approaches have important limitations.

BARCELONA

Challenge:

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

The housing crisis, in its current form, is a relatively recent problem in the city; however, the causes are both structural and contextual. In this sense, it might have been difficult to act preventively form a resilience framework.

However, housing problems are hardly included under this social resilience model. The Resilience Boards and the Barcelona Resilience Network could potentially have an impact in some cases of the most negative and extreme consequences of this problematic (such as evictions, and homelessness), but not tackle directly at the causes and direct effects of the housing crisis.

Resilience Evaluation Box • Even though this problem has high social costs and impacts, this challenge is not part of the social resilience approach of the city.

•

Very reduced impact over some of the most extreme effects of this challenge: accidents, medical conditions, suicide related to evictions, homelessness, etc.

•

In this sense, it would be a highly reactive model, only acting when the emergence and extreme social failures appear

• In this specific topic, the resilience model it is not embedded in the environment of strategic plans of the city

•

Moreover, there is no specific strategic planning about this challenge in the city

CONCLUSION BANGKOK

Bangkok’s resilience model is a project-based strategy and it is in a preliminary stage. This is the first time such policy has been designed and implemented in the city, and it has been in action for a short time. In this sense, most projects and measures are in a preliminary stage (diagnosis, information, etc.) with a low capacity to have an impact.

There is no resilience culture in the organization (BMA). And there is also a barrier to coordination between governmental departments and agencies.

Therefore, the strategy itself is not embedded in a system of strategic plans.

There is no monitoring or systematic evaluation of the projects. Thus, it is recognized the difficulty to assess the impact of the strategy and assure the continuity of the policies derived from it.

The model is framed from a ‘transformative’ resilience approach: it is intended to change the current state. Focus on city-system issues (mobility, public health, etc.), and natural conditions (floods and other natural disasters, sustainability). However, the strategy is also used to foster economic agendas (economic growth, tourism)

There is an unequal participation among sectors both in the definition of problems and solutions. Lack of identification of vulnerable groupsa and beneficiaries of resilience as well as the unclear role of the public sector in community-based projects.

BARCELONA Barcelona’s resilience model is based on the institutionalization of resilience organs and mechanisms i.e. department of urban resilience, operations center, and resilience boards. Experience and expertise are an important asset for a resilience model to be functional: coordination, information management, rapid response, organizational culture, etc.

As a strategic city, the resilience model is part of a comprehensive system of strategic plans.

The model has a particular focus on sharing and managing information to support the decision making process which is an indispensable tool in order to monitor and evaluate the impact of a given measure. Also, in the strategy stated that there is an explicit mission to develop evaluation tools.

Experience is a key asset for evaluating and monitoring.

The model is mainly focused on maintaining the functionality of the current city system: infrastructures, services, human and energy flow, etc. (‘hard’ policies). According to that, it has a limited transformative capacity. The ‘persistence’ approach makes this resilience model limited to preventive terms and the consequences of failures or emergency incidents, rather than the original causes.

This model is based in the PPP, with NGOs, civil society organizations and private companies. Regarding this, stakeholders participating in organs and mechanism are critical for its functionality, including managing and sharing information, and being part of multidisciplinary teams.

TOWARDS URBAN RESILIENCE Throughout this book, we have seen that the perspectives on urban resilience share some common ideas in their definitions but show clear differences when it comes to implementation.

Bangkok and Barcelona are clear examples of that. Obviously, we have to consider the starting point and contextual features. Barcelona has been working on its conceptualization and implementation of its resilience model for almost 10 years now, and Bangkok just started to think about it. Their way to approach the solutions are also different. Bangkok has decided to develop a project-based strategy, while Barcelona has focused on the institutionalization of organs and mechanisms, making them part of an already highly planned city model.

However, the most relevant findings of this projects arise when we consider the ideas behind the concept, its operationalization, and its actual impacts.

Even though it is conceptualized as transformative and preventive, it is still very reactive: it has a limited capacity to change or ameliorate primary causes of urban challenges and problems. Moreover, resilience is clearly balanced towards the persistence of an original stage of the city-system, or even reinforce existing power-relations.

Finally, even if it is intended to be identified as a comprehensive concept, it is still very focused in ‘hard’ areas of the urban-system: infrastructures, environment, humans, and energy flows, etc. Especially, social resilience is clearly the most underdeveloped concepts by urban resilience strategies.

We recognize the relevance of resilience for the urban system in the current global climatic context. Having said that, it is important to narrow down its definition and recognize its limitations and risks in order to have a real positive impact and not reinforce and maintain negative behaviors and relations for our cities, our neighbors, and space we all have in this world.

REFERENCES Urban resilience 100 Resilient Cities (2017). The metropolitan scale of resilience. Metropo

lis Observatory, Issue Paper 03 100 Resilient Cities (n.d.). What is Urban Resilience? Retrieved from:

http://www.100resilientcities.org/resources/ Ahern, J. (2011). From fail-safe to safe-to-fail: Sustainability and resilience

in the new urban world. Landscape and Urban Planning, vol. 100,

pp. 341-343 Brand, F. S. & Jax, K. (2007). Focusing the meaning(s) of resilience: Resil

ience as a descrptive concept and a boundary object. Ecology and

Society, 12(1), p. 23 Elmqvist, T. (2014). Urban resilience thinking. Solutions, 5(5), pp. 26-30 Leichenko, R. (2011). Climate change and urban resilience. Current Opin

ion in Environmental Sustainability, 3, pp. 164-168 Marvin, S.; Luque-Ayala, A. & McFarlane, C. (eds.) (2016). Smart urbanism:

utopian visions or false dawn. London: Routledge McCombs, M. (2005). A look at agenda-setting: Past, present and future.

Journalism Studies, 6(4), pp. 543-557 Meerow, S.; Newell, J. P. & Stults, M. (2016). Defining urban resilience: A review. Landscape and Urban Planning, vol. 147, pp. 38-49 Metropolis (2017). The metropolitan scale of resilience. Metropolitan Ob

servatory, Issue paper 03 Peck, J. (2005). Struggling with the Creative Class. International Journal

of Urban and Regional Research, 29 (4), pp. 740-770 Swyngedouw, E. (2010). Impossible Sustainability and the Post-Political Condition. In Cerreta, M. et al. (eds.) Making Strategies on Spatial Planning. Urban and Landscape Perspectives, 9 UN Habitat (2017). Trends in Urban Resilience.

Resilient Regions (n.d.) Urban resilience. Retrieved from: http://www. resilientregions.org/english Vale, L. J. (2014). The politics of resilient cities: Whose resilience and whose city? Building Research & Information, 42(2), pp. 37-41

Barcelona Ajuntament de Barcelona (2012). Pla d’energia, canvi climàtic i qualitat de

l’aire de Barcelona 2011-2020. Barcelona: Barcelona pel Medi Ambient Ajuntament de Barcelona (2015). Xarxa Barcelona Resilient. Barcelona:

CUESB Ajuntament de Barcelona (2017). Barcelona: building a resilient city. Bar

celona: Departament de Resiliència Urbana.

Ajuntament de Barcelona (2017). El trabajo asalariado en Barcelona 2015. Temporalidad, intensidad laboral y duración de los contra

tos. International Conference on Regional Science.

Ajuntament de Barcelona (n.d.). Climate Plan. Air Quality. Barcelona:

Ajuntament de Barcelona Ajuntament de Barcelona (n.d.). Climate Plan. Water Cycle. Barcelona:

Ajuntament de Barcelona Càritas (2018). Vides precàries. Quan la precarietat laboral ho envaeix tot.

Barcelona: Càritas Diocesana de Barcelona.

Cruz, H.; Martínez Moreno, R. & Blanco, I. (2017). Crisis, urban segrega

tion and social innovation in Catalonia. The Open Journal of Socio

political Studies, vol. 10(1), pp. 221-245 Fernández de Losada, A. (2018, May 15). El tablero internacional de las ciudades. El País Friedman, Y. & Lee, T. (2017). Cities Taking Action. NY: 100 Resilient Cities.

Observatori Metrolplità de l’Habitatge de Barcelona (2018). Presentació

dels primers continguts realitzats. Barcelona: Ajuntament de Bar

celona, AMB. Resiliència urbana. (2018, 19 May). Retrieved from: http://ajuntament.

barcelona.cat/ecologiaurbana/ca/que-fem-i-per-que/ener gia-i-canvi-climatic/resiliencia-urbana Ventayol, I. (2014). Barcelona, ciutat resilient al canvi climàtic. Barcelona:

Ajuntament de Barcelona

Bangkok Bangkok Metropolitan Administration. (2012). Bangkok flood protection system. Paper presented at the Retrieved from http://apcs.city. fukuoka.lg.jp/download/mayor/pdf/13_bangkok_10me.pdf Bangkok Metropolitan Administration, & 100 Resilient Cities. (2015).

Resilient Bangkok Bangkok Metropolitan Administration. (2018). Bangkok water manage

ment plan. Retrieved from http://203.155.220.119/News_dds/ magazine/Plan61/06.pdf Climate and Clean Air Coalition Municipal Solid Waste Initiative. (2015).

Bangkok solid waste management city profile.

Department of Environment, Bangkok Metropolitan Administration.

(2018). The average amount of bangkok solid waste generation

for fiscal year 2011-2017.

Department of Land Transport. (2018). The number of registered vehicles 2008-2017.

Jungrungrueng, S. (2010). Solid waste management in Bangkok.

Retrieved from https://www.iges.or.jp/en/archive/kuc/pdf/activi

ty20110314/9_WS-S1B-3-Bangkok_E.pdf Office of Transport and Traffic Policy and Planning. (2017). The average

vehicle speed in Bangkok metropolitan area 2013-2017.

Petchvirojchai, S. (2017). Tracking back 12 years of flooding in Bangkok.

Urban Design and Development Center.

Population and Housing Census, National Statistical Office Thailand.

(2017). The population density in Thailand.

The National Statistical Office. (2017). Summary of non-registered resi

dents in thailand 2016 The National Statistical Office. (2017). Summary of Thailand household socio-economic survey 2017 (First 6 months) The Office of Permanent Secretary Ministry of Labour. (2017). Labour

statistics yearbook 2016.

Valin, M., & Chotthong, B. (2001). Bangkok municipal solid waste man

agement: From public-operated to shared management and

financing. Paper presented at the SCTF Hong Kong Seminar

- Sustainable Urban Services.