Search results

Cover -- Title -- Copyright -- Dedication -- Contents -- ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS -- LIST OF FIGURES -- 1 Resilience and geographic thought -- 2 Resilience as essentially contested concept -- 3 Resilience as subjugated knowledge -- 4 Resilience as critique -- 5 Resilience as design -- 6 Resilience as control -- 7 Un-worlding resilience -- 8 Conclusions: re-designing resilience? -- REFERENCES -- INDEX

This commentary provides an overview of the idea of resilience, and acknowledges the challenges of defining and applying the idea in practice. The article summarizes a way of looking at resilience called a "resilience delta", that takes into account both the shock done to a community by a disaster and the capacity of that community to rebound from that shock to return to its prior functionality. I show how different features of the community can create resilience, and consider how the developed and developing world addresses resilience. I also consider the role of focusing events in gaining attention to events and promoting change. I note that, while focusing events are considered by many in the disaster studies field to be major drivers of policy change in the United States disaster policy, most disasters have little effect on the overall doctrine of shared responsibilities between the national and subnational governments.

Resilience thinking has been roundly critiqued for not accounting for the political – and inherently power-laden – structures that shape decision-making. In light of the range of critiques as well as the increasing global momentum around resilience thinking, this paper develops the concept of 'Negotiated Resilience.' The concept highlights processes of negotiation to situate, ground, and operationalize 'resilience.' The concept puts particular accent on the procedural orientation of resilience – it is not something that 'exists' and that we can uniformly define, rather it is a process that requires engagement with diverse actors and interests, both in specific places and across scales. Negotiation also inevitably entails contestation and an ongoing consideration of diverse options and trade-offs. We suggest that when considering the inherent complexities of resilience, we would do better to explicitly theorize, analyze, and speak to these negotiations. ; Science, Faculty of ; Non UBC ; Resources, Environment and Sustainability (IRES), Institute for ; Reviewed ; Faculty

This commentary provides an overview of the idea of resilience, and acknowledges the challenges of defining and applying the idea in practice. The article summarizes a way of looking at resilience called a "resilience delta", that takes into account both the shock done to a community by a disaster and the capacity of that community to rebound from that shock to return to its prior functionality. I show how different features of the community can create resilience, and consider how the developed and developing world addresses resilience. I also consider the role of focusing events in gaining attention to events and promoting change. I note that, while focusing events are considered by many in the disaster studies field to be major drivers of policy change in the United States disaster policy, most disasters have little effect on the overall doctrine of shared responsibilities between the national and subnational governments.

This commentary reviews key themes posed by papers in this Special Issue and points to open questions. For example, does resilience in socio-technical systems degrade with use or, like immune systems, is resilience upgraded with use? Similarly, is resilience about responding in the face of the rare event? Or, is it being prepared for the rare event? Is it useful to think about the evolution of resilience? What are the risks posed by models of risk? That is, do models to reduce vulnerability to risk, increase vulnerability? What is the role of reflexivity in the analysis of resilience?

International audience ; This paper presents the EU H2020 project Smart Mature Resilience, which takes advantage of the fact that many cities are committed to become increasingly resilient and have ongoing processes for urban resilience. Smart Mature Resilience develops resilience management guidelines based on a Resilience Maturity Model that engages a growing number of stakeholders and multi-level governance in order for cities to become vertebrae for society's resilience backbone. In a dual approach, employing a systematic literature review of international resilience implementation approaches alongside group processes with experts, the Smart Mature Resilience project has developed a preliminary resilience maturity model consisting of five stages Starting, Moderate, Advanced, Robust and verTebrate (SMART) and a Systemic Risk Assessment Questionnaire. The SMART Resilience Maturity Model suggests two principal processes for the transition to resilience maturity: (1) A process of increasing engagement and collaboration with new stakeholder types, from local, to regional, to national to European in a growing resilience backbone, and (2) a process of quality improvement of policies for transitioning from a Safety-I to a Safety-II perspective (from risk assessment & mitigation to adaption to future surprises as conditions evolve).

This paper analyses contrasting academic understandings of 'equilibrium resilience' and 'evolutionary resilience' and investigates how these nuances are reflected within both policy and practice. We reveal that there is a lack of clarity in policy, where these differences are not acknowledged with resilience mainly discussed as a singular, vague, but optimistic aim. This opaque political treatment of the term and the lack of guidance has affected practice by privileging an equilibrist interpretation over more transformative, evolutionary measures. In short, resilience within spatial planning is characterised by a simple return to normality that is more analogous with planning norms, engineered responses, dominant interests, and technomanagerial trends. The paper argues that, although presented as a possible paradigm shift, resilience policy and practice underpin existing behaviour and normalise risk. It leaves unaddressed wider sociocultural concerns and instead emerges as a narrow, regressive, technorational frame centred on reactive measures at the building scale.

In this paper, I study long-run population changes across U.S. metropolitan areas. First, I argue that changes over a long period of time in the geographic distribution of population can be informative about the so-called "resilience" of regions. Using the censuses of population from 1790 to 2010, I find that persistent declines, lasting two decades or more, are somewhat rare among metropolitan areas in U.S. history, though more common recently. Incorporating data on historical factors, I find that metropolitan areas that have experienced extended periods of weak population growth tend to be smaller in population, less industrially diverse, and less educated. These historical correlations inform the construction of a regional resilience index.

Objective:As human factors and ergonomics (HF/E) moves to embrace a greater systems perspective concerning human–machine technologies, new and emergent properties, such as resilience, have arisen. Our objective here is to promote discussion as to how to measure this latter, complex phenomenon.Background:Resilience is now a much-referenced goal for technology and work system design. It subsumes the new movement of resilience engineering. As part of a broader systems approach to HF/E, this concept requires both a definitive specification and an associated measurement methodology. Such an effort epitomizes our present work.Method:Using rational analytic and synthetic methods, we offer an approach to the measurement of resilience capacity.Results:We explicate how our proposed approach can be employed to compare resilience across multiple systems and domains, and emphasize avenues for its future development and validation.Conclusion:Emerging concerns for the promise and potential of resilience and associated concepts, such as adaptability, are highlighted. Arguments skeptical of these emerging dimensions must be met with quantitative answers; we advance one approach here.Application:Robust and validated measures of resilience will enable coherent and rational discussions of complex emergent properties in macrocognitive system science.

Studies of queer and trans suffering, resilience, care, and vitalities are invariably also investigations into the difficult and painful articulations of lives that feel worth living and deaths that feel okay dying. The notion of resiliency, referring to a conditional state of overcoming difficult situations, neglects to fully encompass our understandings of risk, vulnerability, and life. This article explores the ways in which Washington, DC–based trans activists discuss shared coalitional labor as constituting that which renders viable life—or, in some cases, what they describe as deaths worth dying—in a contemporary moment that is distinctly violent. While health researchers have long noted the beneficial role that a coalition serves in better representing needs in research, this article focuses on how individuals meet their needs not through solitary and normative resilience strategies but within and through spaces of coalitional action. This approach to radical care and viable life encourages us to rethink how a necropolitics of trans life—lives marked as morally suspect and intrinsically disposable—coexists with a notion of trans vitalities that this article develops. Ultimately, embracing the concept of trans vitalities is not simply a refusal or disavowal of projects of normalization or the commodifiability of trans rights but, rather, a vigilance toward the violently homogenizing expectations of the heterogeneity of lived experience.

This discussion panel unpacks the political, economic, and social impacts of resilience. Panelists speak to resilience in the trade industry, climate change, the human body, and the commonalities between the three. ; CAUS Diversity and Inclusion Committee