Key Concepts for Critical Infrastructure Research, 2018
As mentioned above, the concepts of vulnerability and resilience are somehow complementary, both ... more As mentioned above, the concepts of vulnerability and resilience are somehow complementary, both focusing on systems exposed to stress or perturbations (Miller et al. 2010). Whereas vulnerability usually highlights weaknesses, the concept of resilience concentrates on the abilities of the systems to resist, recover or adapt. 1 Ad-Hoc Description Resilience is the capacity of a system to absorb and cope with perturbations. There are two major conceptions of resilience. First, resilience describes a system 'bouncing back' to its original state after a shock-this is equivalent to 'recovering'. Second, resilience describes a system 'bouncing forward' to another state in the case of a perturbation-i.e. 'adaptation'. This would mean the system demonstrating either one or a combination of the following capacities if confronted with a perturbation:  absorbing (preventing a crisis)  recovering (short-term coping and 'bouncing back' to the original state)  adapting (long-term coping and 'bouncing forward' to a new state) A definition of resilience as used in disaster risk reduction is '[t]he ability of a system, community or society exposed to hazards to resist, absorb, accommodate to and recover from the effects of a hazard in a timely and efficient manner, including through the preservation of its essential basic structures and functions' (UNISDR 2009: 24). 2 Literature Overview The Handbook of International Resilience recently edited by David Chandler and Jon Coaffee (2017) shows the broad variety of disciplines using the resilience concept. It includes contributions from the fields of political sciences, philosophy,
Abstract Despite the burgeoning popularity of resilience as an urban policy narrative, we know li... more Abstract Despite the burgeoning popularity of resilience as an urban policy narrative, we know little about how policymakers and planners approach the challenge of operationalising urban resilience or what problems they face. Although their ultimate goal is presumably to integrate resilience goals into sectoral policy and decision-making as well as to dissolve policy silos, the concept of mainstreaming has received relatively little attention in urban resilience literature so far. To address this void, we use the concept of mainstreaming to analyse the two cities of Christchurch and Rotterdam, both participants in the Rockefeller Foundation’s 100 Resilient Cities Programme. We identify three main challenges that are apparent in both cities despite their contextual differences. The first is to make resilience a top priority for policymaking and planning because it competes with other urban development agendas for political commitment. Secondly, institutionalising cross-sector governance constitutes a challenge because participation in 100 Resilient Cities brings few incentives for institutional reforms. The third challenge – to actively engage decision-makers from public and private sectors – arises because urban policymakers and planners are not sufficiently equipped to convince them to invest additional resources in terms of personnel, time and money and to dissolve conflicts of interest between them. In the light of these challenges, we argue that participating in 100 Resilient Cities is a relevant but not sufficient first step towards mainstreaming urban resilience in Christchurch and Rotterdam. In addition to developing a resilience strategy and appointing a Chief Resilience Officer, formal changes (for instance in procedural law and national policymaking) are required, to address the challenges identified.
The management of large-scale disasters in urban agglomerations often reveals fragmented governan... more The management of large-scale disasters in urban agglomerations often reveals fragmented governance structures. Accordingly, recent debates in the field of disaster risk management call for better coordination of agencies and actors across organisational and territorial boundaries, arguing that this would ultimately improve the resilience of urban areas. However, our analysis of the metropolitan area of Greater Christchurch, which experienced a series of devastating earthquakes in 2010/2011, shows that this conclusion inadequately acknowledges the uncertainties and institutional complexities in the governance of resilience. We show that debates on urban resilience can benefit from the concept of institutional connectivitydefined as institutionalised forms of vertical, horizontal or cross-territorial interactionto systematically address these complexities. Our empirical results suggest that the efficacy of different forms of institutional connectivity depends on prevailing circumstances. Therefore, particular forms of connectivity should be prioritised on a case-by-case basis. Our empirical study reveals that enhancing institutional connectivity is a resource-intensive and contested process that might induce negative trade-offs. We contend that because institutions shape how different agencies and organisations interact, scholarly debates on urban resilience should put more emphasis on processes of institutional reform and stress the political dimension of institution building for urban resilience.
The concept of resilience has attracted considerable attention in policy and research communities... more The concept of resilience has attracted considerable attention in policy and research communities in the fields of both urban and infrastructure development and governance. Resilience has been framed as a boundary concept bridging different communities of knowledge production and practice. However, a closer look at the joint enterprise, the shared repertoire, and the mutual engagement of respective knowledge communities in urban and infrastructure research and planning practice reveals that resilience is understood and dealt with in rather diverging ways. This paper explores some of these divides, then argues that differences in knowledge production can induce somewhat disconnected policy outcomes and governance approaches which consequently weaken cities' ability to address current and future challenges. Therefore, we call for more interaction and crossboundary learning between respective knowledge communities.
List of figures 6 List of tables 6 List of abbreviations 6 1 INTRODUCTION 7 1.1 Introduction 8 1.... more List of figures 6 List of tables 6 List of abbreviations 6 1 INTRODUCTION 7 1.1 Introduction 8 1.2 Urban and infrastructure resilience in theory and policy practice 9 1.3 An institutional perspective on the governance of urban and infrastructure resilience 19 1.4 Research aim, research questions and thesis outline 20 1.5 Research design and methodology 23 2 URBAN AND INFRASTRUCTURE RESILIENCE: DIVERGING CONCEPTS AND THE NEED FOR CROSS-BOUNDARY LEARNING 27 2.1 Introduction 28 2.2 Knowledge communities and cross-boundary learning 29 2.3 Methodology 31 2.4 Knowledge communities with regard to urban and infrastructure resilience 33 2.5 Discussion 39 2.6 Conclusion 42 5 TABLE OF CONTENTS BUILDING URBAN AND INFRASTRUCTURE RESILIENCE THROUGH CONNECTIVITY: AN INSTITUTIONAL PERSPECTIVE ON DISASTER RISK MANAGEMENT IN CHRISTCHURCH, NEW ZEALAND 61 4.1 Introduction 62 4.2 The need for institutional connectivity in order to achieve urban and infrastructure resilience 63 4.3 Methodology 66 4.4 Risk management in Greater Christchurch: Institutional reforms before and after the 2010-2011 Canterbury Earthquake Sequence 67 4.5 Discussion: Institutions, connectivity and resilience 75 4.6 Conclusion 77 MAINSTREAMING URBAN RESILIENCE IN CHRISTCHURCH AND ROTTERDAM? 79 5.1 Introduction 80 5.2 Mainstreaming urban resilience: Political commitment, governance networks and active engagement of decision-makers and citizens 82 5.3 Rotterdam and Christchurch as participants in 100RC: Problems of mainstreaming urban resilience 85 5.4 Discussion: Mainstreaming urban resilience requires more than participation in 100RC 92 5.5 Conclusion 94 CONCLUSIONS AND REFLECTIONS 97 6.1 Introduction 98 6.2 Summary of results 99 6.3 Institutional arrangements and the governance of urban and infrastructure resilience 103 6.4 Reflections and outlook 109 References 113 Appendices 133 Appendix 1: Overview of interviews-Chapter 3 (Rotterdam) 133 Appendix 2: Overview of interviews-Chapter 4 (Christchurch) 135 Appendix 3: Overview of interviews-Chapter 5
Key Concepts for Critical Infrastructure Research, 2018
As mentioned above, the concepts of vulnerability and resilience are somehow complementary, both ... more As mentioned above, the concepts of vulnerability and resilience are somehow complementary, both focusing on systems exposed to stress or perturbations (Miller et al. 2010). Whereas vulnerability usually highlights weaknesses, the concept of resilience concentrates on the abilities of the systems to resist, recover or adapt. 1 Ad-Hoc Description Resilience is the capacity of a system to absorb and cope with perturbations. There are two major conceptions of resilience. First, resilience describes a system 'bouncing back' to its original state after a shock-this is equivalent to 'recovering'. Second, resilience describes a system 'bouncing forward' to another state in the case of a perturbation-i.e. 'adaptation'. This would mean the system demonstrating either one or a combination of the following capacities if confronted with a perturbation:  absorbing (preventing a crisis)  recovering (short-term coping and 'bouncing back' to the original state)  adapting (long-term coping and 'bouncing forward' to a new state) A definition of resilience as used in disaster risk reduction is '[t]he ability of a system, community or society exposed to hazards to resist, absorb, accommodate to and recover from the effects of a hazard in a timely and efficient manner, including through the preservation of its essential basic structures and functions' (UNISDR 2009: 24). 2 Literature Overview The Handbook of International Resilience recently edited by David Chandler and Jon Coaffee (2017) shows the broad variety of disciplines using the resilience concept. It includes contributions from the fields of political sciences, philosophy,
Abstract Despite the burgeoning popularity of resilience as an urban policy narrative, we know li... more Abstract Despite the burgeoning popularity of resilience as an urban policy narrative, we know little about how policymakers and planners approach the challenge of operationalising urban resilience or what problems they face. Although their ultimate goal is presumably to integrate resilience goals into sectoral policy and decision-making as well as to dissolve policy silos, the concept of mainstreaming has received relatively little attention in urban resilience literature so far. To address this void, we use the concept of mainstreaming to analyse the two cities of Christchurch and Rotterdam, both participants in the Rockefeller Foundation’s 100 Resilient Cities Programme. We identify three main challenges that are apparent in both cities despite their contextual differences. The first is to make resilience a top priority for policymaking and planning because it competes with other urban development agendas for political commitment. Secondly, institutionalising cross-sector governance constitutes a challenge because participation in 100 Resilient Cities brings few incentives for institutional reforms. The third challenge – to actively engage decision-makers from public and private sectors – arises because urban policymakers and planners are not sufficiently equipped to convince them to invest additional resources in terms of personnel, time and money and to dissolve conflicts of interest between them. In the light of these challenges, we argue that participating in 100 Resilient Cities is a relevant but not sufficient first step towards mainstreaming urban resilience in Christchurch and Rotterdam. In addition to developing a resilience strategy and appointing a Chief Resilience Officer, formal changes (for instance in procedural law and national policymaking) are required, to address the challenges identified.
The management of large-scale disasters in urban agglomerations often reveals fragmented governan... more The management of large-scale disasters in urban agglomerations often reveals fragmented governance structures. Accordingly, recent debates in the field of disaster risk management call for better coordination of agencies and actors across organisational and territorial boundaries, arguing that this would ultimately improve the resilience of urban areas. However, our analysis of the metropolitan area of Greater Christchurch, which experienced a series of devastating earthquakes in 2010/2011, shows that this conclusion inadequately acknowledges the uncertainties and institutional complexities in the governance of resilience. We show that debates on urban resilience can benefit from the concept of institutional connectivitydefined as institutionalised forms of vertical, horizontal or cross-territorial interactionto systematically address these complexities. Our empirical results suggest that the efficacy of different forms of institutional connectivity depends on prevailing circumstances. Therefore, particular forms of connectivity should be prioritised on a case-by-case basis. Our empirical study reveals that enhancing institutional connectivity is a resource-intensive and contested process that might induce negative trade-offs. We contend that because institutions shape how different agencies and organisations interact, scholarly debates on urban resilience should put more emphasis on processes of institutional reform and stress the political dimension of institution building for urban resilience.
The concept of resilience has attracted considerable attention in policy and research communities... more The concept of resilience has attracted considerable attention in policy and research communities in the fields of both urban and infrastructure development and governance. Resilience has been framed as a boundary concept bridging different communities of knowledge production and practice. However, a closer look at the joint enterprise, the shared repertoire, and the mutual engagement of respective knowledge communities in urban and infrastructure research and planning practice reveals that resilience is understood and dealt with in rather diverging ways. This paper explores some of these divides, then argues that differences in knowledge production can induce somewhat disconnected policy outcomes and governance approaches which consequently weaken cities' ability to address current and future challenges. Therefore, we call for more interaction and crossboundary learning between respective knowledge communities.
List of figures 6 List of tables 6 List of abbreviations 6 1 INTRODUCTION 7 1.1 Introduction 8 1.... more List of figures 6 List of tables 6 List of abbreviations 6 1 INTRODUCTION 7 1.1 Introduction 8 1.2 Urban and infrastructure resilience in theory and policy practice 9 1.3 An institutional perspective on the governance of urban and infrastructure resilience 19 1.4 Research aim, research questions and thesis outline 20 1.5 Research design and methodology 23 2 URBAN AND INFRASTRUCTURE RESILIENCE: DIVERGING CONCEPTS AND THE NEED FOR CROSS-BOUNDARY LEARNING 27 2.1 Introduction 28 2.2 Knowledge communities and cross-boundary learning 29 2.3 Methodology 31 2.4 Knowledge communities with regard to urban and infrastructure resilience 33 2.5 Discussion 39 2.6 Conclusion 42 5 TABLE OF CONTENTS BUILDING URBAN AND INFRASTRUCTURE RESILIENCE THROUGH CONNECTIVITY: AN INSTITUTIONAL PERSPECTIVE ON DISASTER RISK MANAGEMENT IN CHRISTCHURCH, NEW ZEALAND 61 4.1 Introduction 62 4.2 The need for institutional connectivity in order to achieve urban and infrastructure resilience 63 4.3 Methodology 66 4.4 Risk management in Greater Christchurch: Institutional reforms before and after the 2010-2011 Canterbury Earthquake Sequence 67 4.5 Discussion: Institutions, connectivity and resilience 75 4.6 Conclusion 77 MAINSTREAMING URBAN RESILIENCE IN CHRISTCHURCH AND ROTTERDAM? 79 5.1 Introduction 80 5.2 Mainstreaming urban resilience: Political commitment, governance networks and active engagement of decision-makers and citizens 82 5.3 Rotterdam and Christchurch as participants in 100RC: Problems of mainstreaming urban resilience 85 5.4 Discussion: Mainstreaming urban resilience requires more than participation in 100RC 92 5.5 Conclusion 94 CONCLUSIONS AND REFLECTIONS 97 6.1 Introduction 98 6.2 Summary of results 99 6.3 Institutional arrangements and the governance of urban and infrastructure resilience 103 6.4 Reflections and outlook 109 References 113 Appendices 133 Appendix 1: Overview of interviews-Chapter 3 (Rotterdam) 133 Appendix 2: Overview of interviews-Chapter 4 (Christchurch) 135 Appendix 3: Overview of interviews-Chapter 5
Uploads
Papers by Andreas Huck