A review of the transition from the positivist resilience paradigm to the integrated discourse of resilience in the field of contemporary urban planning

Document Type : Article extracted From PhD dissertation

Authors

1 PhD Candidate in Urban Planning, Faculty of Art, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran.

2 Professor of Urban Planning, Faculty of Art, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran.

3 Associate Professor of Urban Planning, Faculty of Art, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran.

4 Professor of Urban Planning, Faculty of Art and Architecture, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran.

Abstract

Introduction: Resilience thinking, a slippery concept, encompasses different principles and components across various intellectual systems. Integrating these theoretical approaches often leads to ambiguity in understanding, interpretation, and application. This ambiguity arises from the diverse contexts of resilience, from ecological to socio-economic systems. The interdisciplinary nature of resilience thinking requires synthesizing knowledge, which can obscure clear guidelines. Ongoing research and dialogue are essential to refine its framework and enhance its utility across different domains.
 
The Purpose of the Research: The main purpose of this research is to investigate the evolution of the theoretical frameworks of resilience from the past to the present in different intellectual systems, in order to gain a precise understanding of the discourse of resilience in the field of contemporary urban planning.
 
Methodology: In this regard, based on the paradigm of interpretivism and by adopting the inductive strategy and by reviewing library documents and analyzing theoretical opinions and using the method of situational analysis, a systematic review of the selected studies with the aim of clarifying the situational elements as the units of analysis were conducted. The studies selected at this stage are based on a systematic review in the WoS and Scopus citation database between 1972 and 2023, as well as Persian sources, with the entry criteria of English, open access, high referencing, and the exit criterion of lack of originality and innovation in the presented definition of resilience, conference articles and book chapters (28 final sources), actively and in successive stages with the aim of clarifying situational elements as units of analysis were studied. Based on this, in this paper, to explain the conceptual model using the situational analysis method, three categories of maps have been introduced and drawn: a) Situational map (both unstructured and regular versions are used for data): To show the breadth and scope of the issues involved in the situation under investigation, specifying all actors, including individual or group actors, including non-human information-cognitive elements, spatial elements and components, historical, narrative and administrative discourses and the articulation of the relationships between them, b) the map of the arena or social worlds: the size, location and intersections of the social worlds are shown with the aim of stabilizing various discourse worlds in one arena, and c) the positional map: reflecting the elements and collections in a situation and different perspectives, with the aim of simplifying and understanding more clearly the expressed and unexpressed situations in the fields or discourses.
 
Findings and Discussion: The findings show that four epistemological perspectives or four generations of the concept of resilience can be explained. The first generation, under the umbrella of the positivist paradigm, goes back to the early days of the concept of resilience in ecology, which is known as feedback to restore and maintain the resilience of systems. The second generation, which crystallizes in the post-positivism paradigm, emphasizes the principle of adaptability. The third generation stands out in the paradigm of pragmatism by insisting on what is used in practice, and the fourth generation produces and reproduces its own understanding of resilience with a constructive-interpretive view.
 
Conclusion: Although in the process of this formulation, the capacities and potentials of each of these four generations were compared with each other from the point of view of direction, fundamental components, focus points and the course of outstanding changes., however, it seems that in the current situation of societies, the use of the fourth generation approach is more responsive to the expectations of the present and future. The evolution of the concept of resilience, highlighted above through the lens of different generations, has identified a number of emerging lessons for policy makers that are now being applied in policy areas at different spatial scales. Although the initial ideas of urban resilience were generally resource driven by the (perceived) need to return to an earlier state, environmental and economic changes now create varying degrees of risk and desirability for urban policymakers. This has led to a new body of work in the urban planning literature focused on applying resilience principles to policy and practice. In addition to the efforts made, we can take a detailed look at the consideration of the fourth generation approach according to the requirements of civil societies and citizens.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. Annan, J. (2005). Situational Analysis: A Framework for Evidence-Based Practice. School Psychology International, 26(2), 131-146. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143034305052909
  2. Bahadur, A., Ibrahim, M., & Tanner, T. (2010). The resilience renaissance? Unpacking of resilience for tackling climate change and disasters. https://eprints.soas.ac.uk/id/eprint/31402
  3. Berkes, F. (2007). Understanding uncertainty and reducing vulnerability: lessons from resilience thinking. Natural hazards, 41, 283-295. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-006-9036-7
  4. Beymer-Farris, B.A., T. Bassett, and I. Bryceson. 2012. Promises and pitfalls of adaptive management in resilience thinking: The lens of political ecology. In Resilience and the cultural landscape, ed. T. Plieninger, and C. Bieling. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://10.1017/CBO9781139107778.020
  5. Bojović, M., Rajković, I., & Perović, S. K. (2022). Towards resilient residential buildings and neighborhoods in light of covid-19 pandemic—The scenario of Podgorica, Montenegro. Sustainability, 14(3), 1302. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14031302
  6. Bosher, L., & Coaffee, J. (2008). International perspectives on urban resilience. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Urban Design and Planning, 161(4), 145-146. https://doi.org/10.1680/udap.2008.161.4.145
  7. Brand, F. S., & Jax, K. (2007). Focusing the meaning (s) of resilience: resilience as a descriptive concept and a boundary object. Ecology and society, 12(1). https://www.jstor.org/stable/26267855
  8. Brown, K. (2014). Global environmental change I: A social turn for resilience? Progress in human geography, 38(1), 107-117. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132513498837
  9. Campanella, T. J. (2006). Urban resilience and the recovery of New Orleans. Journal of the American Planning Association, 72(2), 141–146. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944360608976734
  10. Cannon, T., & Müller-Mahn, D. (2010). Vulnerability, resilience and development discourses in context of climate change. Natural hazards, 55, 621-635. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-010-9499-4
  11. Carpenter, A. (2013). Social Ties, Space, and Resilience. Community and Economic Development Discussion Paper, Community and Economic Development Department, 1000. https://www.atlantafed.org/
  12. Carpenter, S. R., Folke, C., Scheffer, M., & Westley, F. (2009). Resilience: accounting for the noncomputable. Ecology and society, 14(1). https://www.jstor.org/stable/26268046
  13. Carpenter, S., Walker, B., Anderies, J. M., & Abel, N. (2001). From metaphor to measurement: resilience of what to what?. Ecosystems, 4, 765-781. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-001-0045-9
  14. Carpenter, S. R., Westley, F., & Turner, M. G. (2005). Surrogates for resilience of social–ecological systems. Ecosystems, 8, 941-944. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-005-0170-y
  15. Chapin, F. S. (2009). Managing ecosystems sustainably: The key role of resilience. Principles of ecosystem Stewardship: resilience-based natural resource management in a changing world, 29-53. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-73033-2_2
  16. Chapple, K., & Lester, T. W. (2010). The resilient regional labour market? The US case. Cambridge journal of regions, economy and society, 3(1), 85-104. https://doi.org/10.1093/cjres/rsp031
  17. Chelleri, L. (2012). From the «Resilient City» to urban resilience. A review essay on nderstanding and integrating the resilience perspective for urban systems. Documents d’Anàlisi Geogràfica, 58(2), 287–306. https://dag.revista.uab.es
  18. Christopherson, S., Michie, J., & Tyler, P. (2010). Regional resilience: theoretical and empirical perspectives. Cambridge journal of regions, economy and society, 3(1), 3-10. https://doi.org/10.1093/cjres/rsq004
  19. Clarke, A. E., Friese, C., & Washburn, R. S. (2017). Situational analysis: Grounded theory after the interpretive turn. Sage publications. https://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/id/eprint/804/1/ISSRM_Report_Public.pdf?utm_content=bufferabe93&utm_medium=social&utm_source=plus.google.com&utm_campaign=buffer#page=55
  20. Coaffee, J. (2008). Risk, resilience, and environmentally sustainable cities. Energy Policy, 36(12), 4633–4638. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2008.09.048
  21. Coaffee, J. (2013). Towards next-generation urban resilience in planning practice: From securitization to integrated place making. Planning Practice and Research, 28(3), 323–339. https://doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2013.787693
  22. Colding, J. (2007). ‘Ecological land-use complementation for building resilience in urban ecosystems. Landscape and urban planning, 81(1-2), 46-55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2006.10.016
  23. Cowell, M. M. (2013). Bounce back or move on: Regional resilience and economic development planning. Cities, 30, 212-222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2012.04.001
  24. Datola, G. (2023). Implementing urban resilience in urban planning: A comprehensive framework for urban resilience evaluation. Sustainable Cities and Society, 98, 104821. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2023.104821
  25. Datola, G., Bottero, M., De Angelis, E., & Romagnoli, F. (2022). Operationalising resilience: A methodological framework for assessing urban resilience through System Dynamics Model. Ecological Modelling, 465, 109851. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2021.109851
  26. Davies, T. (2015). Developing resilience to naturally triggered disasters. Environment Systems and Decisions, 35, 237-251. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10669-015-9545-6
  27. Davoudi, S., Shaw, K., Haider, L. J., Quinlan, A. E., Peterson, G. D., Wilkinson, C., ... & Davoudi, S. (2012). Resilience: a bridging concept or a dead end? Planning theory & practice, 13(2), 299-333. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2012.677124
  28. Davoudi, S., Brooks, E., & Mehmood, A. (2013). Evolutionary resilience and strategies for climate adaptation. Planning Practice & Research, 28(3), 307-322. https://doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2013.787695
  29. Edwards, C. (2009). Resilient Nation. London: Demos. https://core.ac.uk/
  30. Ernstson, H., Van Der Leeuw, S. E., Redman, C. L., Meffert, D. J., Davis, G., Alfsen, C., & Elmqvist, T. (2010). Urban transitions: On urban resilience and human-dominated ecosystems. Ambio, 39, 531-545. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-010-0081-9
  31. Fallahi, M., Aminzadeh, B., zebardast, E., & Noorian, F. (2022). Critical exploration of urban resilience concept from institutional power relations point of view. Urban Planning Knowledge, 6(3), 38-64. https://doi.org/10.22124/UPK.2022.20567.1675
  32. Folke, C. (2006). Resilience: The emergence of a perspective for social–ecological systems analyses. Global environmental change, 16(3), 253-267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.04.002
  33. Godschalk, D. R. (2003). Urban hazard mitigation: Creating resilient cities. Natural hazards review, 4(3), 136-143. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1527-6988(2003)4:3(136)
  34. Gunderson, L. (2010). Ecological and human community resilience in response to natural disasters. Ecology and society, 15(2). https://www.jstor.org/stable/26268155
  35. Hatt, K. (2013). Social attractors: a proposal to enhance “resilience thinking” about the social. Society & Natural Resources, 26(1), 30-43. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2012.695859
  36. He, J., Zhang, Y., & Yi, Z. (2023). Towards resilient neighbourhood governance: social tensions in Shanghai’s gated communities before and during the pandemic. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 10(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-02085-z
  37. Holling, C. S. (1973). Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual review of ecology and systematics, 4(1), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009177856.038
  38. Holling, C. S. (1996). Engineering resilience versus ecological resilience. Engineering within ecological constraints, 31(1996), 32. http://nap.edu/catalog/4919html
  39. Kalenda, J. (2016). Situational analysis as a framework for interdisciplinary research in the social sciences. Human Affairs, 26(3), 340-355. https://doi.org/10.1515/humaff-2016-0029
  40. Kirchhoff, T., Brand, F. S., Hoheisel, D., & Grimm, V. (2010). The one-sidedness and cultural bias of the resilience approach. Gaia, 19(1), 25-32. https://www.oekom.de/zeitschrift/gaia-2
  41. Labaka, L., Maraña, P., Giménez, R., & Hernantes, J. (2019). Defining the roadmap towards city resilience. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 146, 281-296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.05.019
  42. Leach, M. (2008). Re-framing resilience: trans-disciplinarity, reflexivity and progressive sustainability–a symposium report. https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12413/2315
  43. Manyena, S. B. (2009). Disaster resilience in development and humanitarian interventions. University of Northumbria at Newcastle (United Kingdom). https://nrl.northumbria.ac.uk/id/eprint/661/
  44. Martinez, L. A., & Opalinski, A. S. (2019). Building the concept of nurturing resilience. Journal of pediatric nursing, 48, 63-71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pedn.2019.07.006
  45. Masnavi, M. R., Gharai, F., & Hajibandeh, M. (2018). Exploring urban resilience thinking for its application in urban planning: A review of literature. International journal of environmental science and technology, 16, 567-582. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-018-1860-2
  46. Meerow, S., Newell, J. P., & Stults, M. (2016). Defining urban resilience: A review. Landscape and urban planning, 147, 38-49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.11.011
  47. Mehmood, A. (2016). Of resilient places: planning for urban resilience. European planning studies, 24(2), 407-419. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2015.1082980
  48. Naghshizadian, S., Rafiian, M., & Motavaf, S. (2010). Measuring the Components of Resilient Communities in the Process of Urban Crisis Management, Case of District 17 of Tehran Municipality. Journal of Land Planning, 14, 331-342. https://scj.sbu.ac.ir/article_100369_90bbf8a70da4f9722d834144f0882b34.pdf
  49. O'Brien, G., & Read, P. (2005). Future UK emergency management: new wine, old skin?. Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal, 14(3), 353-361. https://doi.org/10.1108/09653560510605018
  50. Olsson, L., Jerneck, A., Thoren, H., Persson, J., & O’Byrne, D. (2015). Why resilience is unappealing to social science: Theoretical and empirical investigations of the scientific use of resilience. Science advances, 1(4), e1400217. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1400217
  51. Pendall, R., Foster, K. A., & Cowell, M. (2010). Resilience and regions: building understanding of the metaphor. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 3(1), 71-84. https://doi.org/10.1093/cjres/rsp028
  52. Pendall, R., Theodos, B., & Franks, K. (2012). Vulnerable people, precarious housing, and regional resilience: an exploratory analysis. Housing Policy Debate, 22(2), 271-296. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2011.648208
  53. Pimm, S. L. (1984). The complexity and stability of ecosystems. Nature, 307(5949), 321-326. https://doi.org/10.1038/307321a0
  54. Pizzo, B. (2015). Problematizing resilience: Implications for planning theory and practice. Cities, 43, 133-140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2014.11.015
  55. Ray, D. M., MacLachlan, I., Lamarche, R., & Srinath, K. P. (2017). Economic shock and regional resilience: Continuity and change in Canada's regional employment structure, 1987–2012. Environment and Planning A, 49(4), 952-973. https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518X16681788
  56. Resilience Alliance (2007) Assessing and managing resilience in social-ecological systems: a practitioner’s workbook, Vol 1. http://www.resalliance.org/3871.php
  57. Simmie, J., & Martin, R. (2010). The economic resilience of regions: towards an evolutionary approach. Cambridge journal of regions, economy and society, 3(1), 27-43. https://doi.org/10.1093/cjres/rsp029
  58. Swanstrom, T. (2008). Regional resilience: a critical examination of the ecological framework. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9g27m5zg
  59. Välikangas, L. (2010). The Resilient Organization: How Adaptive Cultures Thrive Even When Strategy Fails. https://doi.org/10.7146/jod.7360
  60. Välikangas, L., & Romme, A. G. L. (2013). How to design for strategic resilience: a case study in retailing. Journal of Organization Design, 2(2), 44-53. https://doi.org/10.1108/10878571211242948
  61. Habitat, U. N. (2018). Tracking Progress towards Inclusive, Safe, Resilient and Sustainable Cities and Human Settlements. SDG 11 Synthesis Report-High Level Political Forum 2018. https://uis.unesco.org/
  62. Walker, B., Holling, C. S., Carpenter, S. R., & Kinzig, A. (2004). Resilience, adaptability and transformability in social–ecological systems. Ecology and society, 9(2). https://www.jstor.org/stable/26267673
  63. Wardekker, J. A., De Jong, A., Knoop, J. M., & Van Der Sluijs, J. P. (2010). Operationalising a resilience approach to adapting an urban delta to uncertain climate changes. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 77(6), 987-998. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2009.11.005
  64. Zabaniotou, A. (2020). A systemic approach to resilience and ecological sustainability during the COVID-19 pandemic: Human, societal, and ecological health as a system-wide emergent property in the Anthropocene. Global transitions, 2, 116-126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.glt.2020.06.002
Urban Strategic Thought
Volume 2, Issue 2 - Serial Number 4
September 2024
Pages 1-18

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics