Suchergebnisse

What transformations do municipal administrations implement to enact a resilience policy? This article responds to this question from a comparative perspective by analyzing enabling and impeding mechanisms developed in the cities of Montreal (Canada) and London (UK) as they establish their strategies. Collaborative network governance and institutional work mechanisms used in Montreal and London are analyzed in connection with the influence of macro‐ and micro‐contextual elements under which a network can resiliently manage risk and crises. In both cases, the development of resilience emerges from their emergency management structures, as units in charge try to animate their new area of responsibility through collaborative governance. As a siloed approach this is embedded in daily routines, organizations with limited resources focused on shared motivation and values, collaboration across organizational boundaries and creation of joint capacity to implement resilience. This transformative process concerns the organization in charge of resilience in the municipal administration and the wider network that they build and animate.

One of the main challenges in crisis management is to assess, ahead of time, the resilience of a system before a crisis erupts (pandemic, computer bug with large‐scale effects, cascade effects in critical infrastructure, etc.). In this article, we propose to reconcile the multiple and sometimes divergent definition of resilience by explaining the complementarity of stability and adaptability inherent to the concept. Also, we integrate a new dimension to the assessment of resilience by analysing the dynamics of negentropy (order, stability) and entropy (disorder, change) between factors. Until now, the evaluation of organizational and interorganizational resilience focused on analysing the presence or absence of resilience factors. With this new dimension, we show the complementarity and interdependence of resilience factors. Finally, we demonstrate how resilience is based on both favourable order and favourable disorder which create diversity and conformity in the system, while vulnerability relies on unfavourable order and unfavourable disorder.

This study applies a strategic framework for assessing organizational and network resilience of 75 critical infrastructure (CI) players in the Greater Montreal area. It identifies the challenges to these CIs' resilience. Contingency analysis is used to describe the main tendencies regarding values, practices, rules and norms, communicational and decisional structures as well as the interdependencies and their institutional, normative and economic contexts. This article examines three well‐known CI networks: transportation, energy and telecommunication, comprising governmental, community and private‐sector organizations. To do so, we developed a survey instrument to collect data from hundreds of critical infrastructure managers. Our findings indicate discrepancies in internal and external resilience factors across organizational type, size and CI.

AbstractDespite growing interest in urban resilience, there is a significant gap between discourse and the capacity to develop resilience in practice. This scoping review assembles and shares evidence and insights from empirical studies of attempts to implement urban resilience published between 2005 and 2017. More precisely, it seeks to identify enabling strategies, impeding factors and trade‐offs in the implementation of urban resilience. Findings are presented along the dimensions of urban resilience detailed in the City Resilience Framework (ARUP/Rockefeller Foundation): Health and Wellbeing, Economy and Society, Infrastructure and Environment, and Leadership and Strategy (which we present as a cross‐cutting theme). While some enabling and impeding factors in implementation are associated with a specific dimension, others are common to all three. Across dimensions, we find that transparent, inclusive and supportive governance reduces the risk of negative impact that resilience implementation will have on communities. Conflicting priorities of managing risk and meeting short‐term needs are found to diminish the potential for transformative resilience action. Integrating risk into planning appears as a promising strategy in all dimensions of resilience. Trade‐offs are found in resilience implementation, and range from adverse effects associated with infrastructure to power imbalances when the power to implement resilience privileges one system level over another.