uncertainty is inevitable and impossible to plan for every outcome

Through the capacity of self-organisation (Folke, 2006) and social learning (PahlWostl, 2009) resilient communities react to changes

Made it an appealing concept in fields with a lot of uncertainty

Increasingly popular amongst practitioners who are seeking out ways to manage the increasingly uncertain urban environments with the added uncertainty of global environmental change - climate change (Beckwith, 2020)

Pursuing resilience in one area, may come at the expense of resilience in another area (Bahadur and Tanner, 2014; Friend and Moench, 2013; Martin-Breens and Anderies, 2011)

Institutions play a role in resilience, especially in resource dependent communities (Adger, 2000; Folke & Berkes, 1998)

Such is the case when preventative infrastructure is deployed to protect economically valuable urban cores from flooding at the expense of low income settlements on the periphery (Marks and Lebel, 2016).

Urban resilience is used as both a policy goal (a positive end to strive for) as well as a conceptual or analytical framework for understanding urban challenges or as a metaphor to promote cross-sectoral collaboration (Béné et al., 2018).

The attributes of ‘resilience thinking’ (Folke et al., 2010) such as adaptability, flexibility and self-organization are identified as advantages over traditional urban planning, particularly to meet the uncertainties of climate change which are resistant to solutions developed through a ‘predict and plan’ approach (Quay, 2010).

This is particularly true for cities in the Global South where multiple priorities need to be met with scarce resources and without the accumulated resilience that has been generated through advances in infrastructure and institutions in many developed contexts (Satterthwaite, 2013).

While conventionally urban systems were designed to be robust or resistant to failure, an urban resilience approach implies that systems should be designed with the ability to adapt or selforganize in the face of change, even when unexpected, through strategies such as redundancy (Tyler and Moench, 2012).

The governance of urban resilience is one of the central challenges of translating theory into practice. Governing resilience is thought to require attributes such as accountability, transparency (Friend et al., 2014), and institutional coordination (Brown et al., 2012).

The integration of local knowledge and the participation of multiple stakeholders, including citizens, encourages a diversity of perspectives that helps to understand resilience from different viewpoints and benefits adaptation decision-making (Bulkeley and Castan Broto, 2013; Weichselgartner and Kelman, 2015; Chu, 2018).

Olssen et al. (2006) have shown that ‘shadow networks’ outside of bureaucratic institutional structures are important for informal knowledge sharing and innovation that can improve the governance of resilience. However, in many cases policy makers still employ resilience with a techno-scientific slant as a lens for risk management, leading to policies that reinforce the status quo rather than challenge power asymmetries (Beilin and Wilkinson, 2015; Leach, 2008).

In response to the need for a more explicitly political approach to resilience, theorizations have expanded to see resilience as a spectrum (See Figure 2.2). The resilience spectrum goes from persistence at one end through incremental adjustment followed by transformational change at the other (Béné et al., 2014; Pelling et al., 2015).

In the resilience spectrum, the persistence of a system refers to changes that are made in response to a shock or stress that help the system to retain the same structure and function (Béné et al., 2014). This is in line with an understanding of resilience as an ability to ‘bounce back’.

The mid-point of the spectrum is incremental adjustment which refers to modifications that move systems to other equilibria through small step changes. Incremental adjustment may lead to transformational change by pushing a system beyond a threshold or tipping point (Pelling, 2011).

Finally, transformation refers to a fundamental change in the structure of the system. Although much of the use of resilience in the field of international development assumes resilience to be positive, change and even transformation can of course also lead to negative outcomes, or both positive and negative simultaneously, depending on perspective.

For instance, persistence requires absorptive capacity that will allow the system to remain stable in the face of shocks or stressors. Adaptive capacity meanwhile, helps the system to be flexible, adjusting to new realities through incremental adjustments. Finally, transformative capacity is necessary to lead systems through a process of deeper change that may be required if stressors push the system beyond their existing parameters.

Resilience comes from the Latin root resilire, meaning to spring back. Physical scientists were the first to use the term resilience to denote the characteristics of a spring, and describe the stability and resistance of materials to external shocks (Davoudi et al. 2012).

Since the 1960s, starting with ecologists and the rise of systems thinking, multiple concepts and meanings have since been developed. These include disaster resilience, psychological resilience, and military resilience, amongst others. In the field of urban resilience, the three main areas of resilience are engineering resilience, ecological resilience, and socialecological resilience.

Contrary to the engineering perspective, Holling (1973) developed a model of resilience that refers to system transformation rather than returning to a previous equilibrium and operates within a socio-technical framework. Social-ecological resilience views the world as whole, rather than trying to understand the separate parts (Hes & du Plessis 2015). The socialecological approach recognises that the different parts of a system co-exist and co-evolve, forming one integrated system. It challenged the notion of equilibrium, and instead advocates for systems to change (Scheffer 2009).

Essentially, this approach interprets resilience as the ability of systems to adapt, change, or transform in response to shocks or stresses (Carptener et al. 2005).

The resilience of a social-ecological system may be related to the ecological system, especially with regards to populations that depend upon a single resource or ecosystem, although this is a contested definition (Adger 2000). Or it may be related to the ability of individuals and communities to withstand and recover from stress (Stockholm Resilience Centre 2015). Social-ecological resilience is dependent upon the balance and relationship between environmental governance and ecosystem dynamics (Olsson et al. 2014).

Carpenter et al. (2001) defined social-ecological resilience as having three defining characteristics. 1) The amount of change a system can undergo, while retaining control and function of the structure; 2) the systems’ ability to self-organise; and 3) the system’s capacity to increase and build resilience through learning and adaptation.

Simmie and Martin (2010) interpreted this type of resilience as ‘adaptive ability;’ the ability to adapt to changes that are shaped by the evolutionary dynamics and trajectories of the system over time. Other authors have argued that bringing resilience and adaptability together provides a richer space for evolutionary scope (McGlade et al. 2006).

Critical to the ability of a system to be resilient, and increase its resilience is through enhancing diversity. In this case, there are two main types of diversity, functional and responsive. Functional diversity, including composition and richness, affects the processes of a system.

It is appropriate to view cities as social-ecological systems, because cities are complex, dynamic, multi-scale, and adaptive systems (Davoudi et al. 2013). The Stockholm Resilience Centre uses the term urban social-ecological systems, which includes ecosystem services, biodiversity, societies, and humankind, to analyse urban resilience (Stockholm Resilience Centre 2015).

As a social-ecological system, a city’s form and structure can change over time, and rather than be viewed as an artefact, it is ever changing, self-organising, and an adaptive living entity. In order to understand cities as socialecological systems, change needs to be accepted and embraced (du Plessis 2008). A socialecological system that is able to adapt and adjust to uncertainty and disruption is also able to capitalise on positive opportunities that the future may bring (Berkes & Folke 1998; Barnett 2001) while retaining its essence through change.

As Newman and Jennings (2008) suggested, “the revitalisation of older areas disturbed by a loss of economic function or the decay of buildings, may enable a new phase in city development to occur that can utilise new technologies and create new urban options” (p. 122).

The resilience of cities is dependent upon their ability to adjust and adapt in the face of change (Alberti et al. 2003; Alberti & Marzluff 2004; Pickett et al. 2004). In this sense, resilience is about more than recovering or rebuilding (Campanella 2006; Elmqvist et al. 2014). Urban resilience, according to Elmqvist et al. (2014) “is therefore about navigating a desirable system trajectory and state rather than avoiding abrupt change and collapse” (p. 22)

Yet, there is a growing interest to strengthen the resilience of cities in the face of climate change, economic cycles, demographic trends, amongst other shocks and stressors. Hundreds of cities around the world have been searching for better was to assess urban trends and development (Holden 2006).