Urban resilience: A vague or an evolutionary concept?

Abstract

• Despite years of research the concept of resilience remains ambiguous. • Ambiguities could lead to difficulties in theory and practice. • We address some of these ambiguities through a literature review. • Contextual issues and constant evolution are main reasons behind the ambiguities. • We propose a conceptual framework for better understanding of the concept. Considering the rapid urbanization trends in many parts of the world and the increasing consequences of climate change, more and more cities are at risk of natural disasters and other environmental, socio-economic, and political disruptions. To address these issues, resilience thinking has attracted the attention of a wide range of stakeholders. However, despite considerable attention to this concept and its frequent usage, resilience remains ambiguous with diverse interpretations in policy discussions and academic debates about cities. Since such vague interpretations would lead to difficulties in theory and practice, the present study aims to clarify some of these concepts by providing a comprehensive review focused on resilience features and comparing different perspectives regarding urban resilience. The study results showed that the main reason behind such ambiguities is that resilience has undergone fundamental changes since its inception, and recent approaches to resilience are generally based on the non-equilibrium model of resilience. There are three main dimensions, including systems, agents, and institutions, as well as three main approaches to urban resilience, including recovery, adaptation, and transformation. This study's conceptual framework of urban resilience provides scholars and policymakers with a more transparent and comprehensive picture of urban resilience and helps them make better-informed decisions.