Figure 4: Number of climate related events and their perils

1.6 Resilience for whom?

Resilience and sustainability has difference in terms of their goal, scale of implementation , input and outcomes. Despite the dichotomy, when it comes to their implementation in spatial and temporal planning, there are parallels. Both of them discuss a city’s or region’s socio-ecological aspects. There are some commonalities exist between the two concepts, such as an emphasis on socio-ecological system features and dynamics. Not just that, when it comes to climate change related discussion in the paradigm of urban planning, they always go hand in hand. Resilience and sustainability go hand in hand, with sustainability serving as a guiding paradigm and resilience serving as a descriptive concept for resolving any complex ecological system.

Because of its flexibility, resilience has acquired favor in a variety of fields. As the term “urban resilience” is so broad, it has both benefits and drawbacks. It allows stakeholders from many sectors to collaborate on the phrase “resilience” without having to agree on a clear definition, but operationalization is difficult when it comes to implementation due to the ambiguity. Different stakeholders perceive this word differently and interpret it according to their own perspective, resulting in ideological and strategic conflicts. According to the literature analysis, the best way to reach a common ground is through the problem structuring process (PSP), in which stakeholders attempt to analyse current conditions that have been converted into problems and rectify them through particular research activities. It is critical for stakeholders to first create a mental model and then develop strategic agendas based on that model. The breadth of resilience analysis can then be determined using their negotiation skills. Despite being such a buzzing topic in the realm of planning, resilience is sometimes undervalued by those who claim to be politically impartial. Practitioners frequently monitor the influence of powerful stakeholders. Poor stakeholder management, which has an impact on the studies’ outcomes, runs the danger of delaying the implementation of proposed policies and, in the worst-case scenario, putting persons in more vulnerable situations accidentally. Larger and more powerful stakeholders, such as central government NGOs and other large-scale stakeholders, have more authority to shape the scope of resilience analysis, whereas small-scale stakeholders, despite being the most affected, have less negotiation power in the decisionmaking process. Hence For the last citizen, resilience required equity and social accountability. Equity does not imply equal distribution of goods and services; rather, it entails recognizing and meeting one’s needs in order to foster trust and emotional bonds.

“sustainability is the measure of system performance, whereas resilience can be seen as a means to achieve it“ (Tendall et al., 2015)

Source: Adapted from Resilience for Whom? The Problem Structuring Process of the Resilience , Herrera, H. (2017). Analysis.