1 Research Background
In the context of urban studies and urban planning, future citieso development and prosperity is highly related to their capacity to adapt and recover from shocks and changes caused by diverse types of hazards
[1][2]. Hence, resilience has emerged as a fundamental concept exemplified by frameworks like the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (2015–2030)
[3]. Beyond the Sendai Framework, the United Nations also published several guidebooks outlining pathways to build hazard-resilient cities, such as the
City Resilience Action Planning Tool and
How to Make Cities More Resilient: A Handbook for Local Government Leaders (2012 and 2017 Versions)
[4][5].
The substantial task of cities worldwide is to develop their hazard-resilience strategies and pathways. A notable piece of evidence is the project of 100 Resilient Cities (100RC) pioneered by the Rockefeller Foundation
[6], which attracted more than 1, 000 applications from cities aspiring to join the network
①[7]. The governments of the selected cities were committed to fostering long-term thinking and enhancing decision-making processes related to hazard management and its underlying causes
[8]. This reflects a growing acknowledgment of the intricate challenges posed by cascading and non-stationary risks within interconnected and increasingly globalized societies
[9].
① The Chinese cities/counties selected for the 100RC project include Deyang, Haiyan, Huangshi, and Yiwu.
Although the globalized nature of initiatives like 100RC and the Sendai Framework helps align objectives for resilient future and develop resilience strategies at national level, it has sparked critiques regarding their effectiveness in enhancing local risk management and practice, particularly for lower-income countries
[10]. These critiques underscore chronic governance issues often exacerbated by colonial legacies, different governance cultures and approaches, and economic challenges related to neoliberal economic models
[7].
This paper takes a comprehensive approach to examining the development of urban resilience, both within and outside of global resilience initiatives, considering the complexity of resilience challenges that vary widely among cities and societies, intertwined with the unique governance, cultural, and economic contexts at local level. To critically assess how risk is defined and evaluated, and how resilience pathways are constructed within official governance structures and local practices, this study conducted case studies and applied a theoretical lens rooted in the framework of socialenvironment systems. Such a comparative study helps enhance our understanding of the vulnerabilities in hazard-resilience strategies and enable necessary adjustments in practice.
2 A Conceptual Framework for Hazard Risk and Urban Resilience
Resilience is generally understood as the ability of the system to reconstruct itself by altering non-core attributes in response to impacts or pressures, gradually adapting to new environments and surviving
[11]. Risk, on the other hand, signifies the likelihood of system collapse or the inability to sustain itself due to such impacts or pressures. Internationally, cutting-edge strategies and policies for disaster prevention and reduction are mainly based on disaster risk assessment. One important reason for this trend is that risk theory provides a perspective of "managing disaster risk"
[12] rather than "eliminating disaster risk, " which has become the mainstream approach to disaster prevention and reduction both domestically and abroad. In this context, numerous countries have developed comprehensive risk evaluation frameworks to facilitate understanding of hazards, compare risks across cities or regions, and formulate policies and action plans for enhancing resilience. However, nuanced differences in focus exist from one locale to another. A detailed examination of these differences, alongside an integration of their commonalities, could yield significant insights.
This study drew inspiration from the Disaster Resilience of Place model proposed by Susan L. Cutter et al., which conceptualizes resilience from social, economic, institutional, infrastructure, ecological, and community competence
[13]. Additionally, it integrated Christopher G. Burton’s multi-dimensional explanation of resilience, which covers social, economic, institutional, infrastructure, community, and environmental aspects
[14]. Building upon these foundations, the study further delineates each dimension and introduces a new dimension of urban-rural spatial, encompassing aspects such as city planning and urban landscapes, influence exposure levels, and spatial equity in disaster risk and resilience. Meanwhile, based on our previous research
[15], a framework is developed to decompose the resilience of urban systems into seven closely interrelated dimensions: social/community, technology/infrastructure, environment-climate, economic/livelihood, political/governance, cultural/worldviews, and urban-rural-spatial (Fig.1).
This framework holds three significant implications for comprehending disaster risk and proposing effective pathways for resilience construction. Firstly, it acknowledges that elements influencing disaster risk and resilience encompass both material factors and human factors. Thus, an examination of risks and enhancement of resilience should consider more than just the direct technical and climate concerns. It should also delve into the profound societal, cultural, and political facets under synergistic effects. For example, a seemingly straightforward material factor like a blocked drain leading to flooding is intertwined with humanrelated factors such as communication networks, maintenance programs, or working conditions, reflecting the cognitive capital or deeper intricacies involved
[15].
Secondly, the seven dimensions offer insights into both risks and resilience pathways. For instance, the social/community dimension includes demographics, lifestyle and consumption, and social inequality and vulnerability of the urban system. From a risk perspective, this framework offers a lens through which to assess the exposure of individuals and organizations to risks, their susceptibility to damage, and the potential of amplifying socio political risks. In terms of resilience pathways, it highlights the key role of stakeholders in addressing problems and the collective efforts to adapt to systemic changes. Similarly, the technology/infrastructure dimension addresses technical challenges related to the food-energy-water nexus, various critical infrastructure, and communication networks. Regarding the resilience pathways, it often includes transformative socio-technological innovations and essential technological solutions that mitigate risks.
Thirdly, theoretical exploration of hazard-resilience cities necessitates a top-level design view and systematic understanding of city mechanisms as complex social-environmental systems
[16]. The seven dimensions of the framework are interconnected and jointly influence a city’s capacity to withstand environmental, social, and economic risks. These dimensions reflect the influence of social systems on natural systems through policies and technological interventions, while the ecological, biophysical, and environmental components of systems subtly drive response dynamics
[17]. Complex interactions between urban social and environmental systems play a pivotal role in determining both risk and resilience within cities
[18]. To bolster risk-resilience, cities should extend their focus beyond the enhancement of individual dimensions to fortify their symbiotic relationships, recognizing the intricate web of cause-and-effect spanning climate impacts, ecosystems, socio-ecological systems, and socio-political systems. The proposed framework provides a lens for a refined comprehension of urban resilience, offering valuable insights for both research and practical applications in the improvement of risk-resilience.
3 Research Methodology
This study adopts the framework to examine the policies and local practices of five exemplary cities globally, assessing the inclusion of the seven dimensions outlined in the framework. Furthermore, the study investigates the variations and distinctiveness of each city in resilience-related policies and practices across diverse social, political, and cultural contexts.
3.1 Selection of Case Study Cities
This study selected five exemplary cities, namely Cape Town (South Africa), Greater Manchester (UK), Changsha and Wenchuan (China)
②[19][20], and San Juan City (Puerto Rico), spanning Africa, Europe, Asia, and the Americas. These cities were carefully chosen for their representative population sizes, urban positioning, and disaster types (Tab.1).
② According to China’s administrative division, Wenchuan is a county, which is an administration level between county-level city and town, covering 4, 084 km2, and has jurisdiction over 9 towns, 75 villages, and 8 communities. For an easier description, Wenchuan is regarded as a pcityq in this study, same as the other four cities (source: Refs. [
19] [
20]).
Cape Town, situated in the Western Cape Province of South Africa, is ranked as the country’s second most populous city
[21] with approximately 4.773 million residents
[22]. It is the capital of South Africa and boasts the country’s second largest municipal economy. Cape Town has faced severe water scarcity challenges, especially during the unprecedented drought from 2015 to 2019. In February 2018, the municipal water consumption even dropped from 800 million liters per day (ml/day) a year earlier and 1, 200 ml/day in February 2015 to a new low of 500 ml/day
[23]. In the same year, the city authoritieso announcement of an impending pDay Zeroqja day when the city was projected to run out of water
[24], which coincided with the highest levels of water restriction to delay pDay Zeroq as long as possible.
Greater Manchester, a metropolitan region in the northwest of England, serves as the largest economic zone in the UK, excluding London, and home to nearly 3 million people across its 10 metropolitan boroughs
[25]. To be a resilient place where everyone can pgrow up, get on, and age well, q Greater Manchester has developed its resilience strategy. Flood is one of the frequent natural hazards in this region, which has brought longterm troubles to the residents. The Boxing Day Floods in 2015 caused over 1, 100 households in Greater Manchester to lose power, flooding dozens of city center businesses and forcing the evacuation of approximately 100 properties
[26]. In July 2019, continuous heavy rainfall flooded streets, causing severe inconvenience to people’s travel
[27].
Changsha, the capital of Hunan Province in China with a population exceeding 5 million
[28], is a key growth pole in the urban agglomeration along the middle reaches of the Yangtze River
[29]. Although not having developed a separate resilience strategy, Changsha has explored many comprehensive disaster prevention plans and specific disaster prevention plans. The city is bisected by the Xiangjiang River, a major tributary of the Yangtze River, rendering it susceptible to flooding during the rainy season. In 2017, Changsha endured its longest, most widespread and severe rainfall in recorded history, causing a catastrophic flood that significantly impacted its residents
[30]. Consequently, the Chinese government identified Changsha as one of 60 cities that have suffered severe waterlogging disasters in recent years
[31].
Wenchuan County, nestled in the high mountain canyons on the northwest fringe of Sichuan Basin and along the seismic belt of Qinghai–Xizang Plateau, with an altitude difference of over 5, 000 meters
[19], is among the largest settlements of the Qiang ethnic group in China. Wenchuan has developed disaster emergency plans to tackle the challenges posed by frequent earthquakes and mountain floods. These disasters, along with secondary hazards triggered by earthquakes, form a typical geological and meteorological disaster sequence. In 2008, Wenchuan was struck by a catastrophic earthquake of magnitude 8.0
[32], leading to nearly 30, 000 aftershocks
[33], severely affecting ten counties (cities)
[34] and resulting in nearly 70, 000 fatalities
[35]. Following this catastrophe, in 2013, Wenchuan faced a severe mudslide, which damaged farmhouses on both sides of the ditch and buried roads and farmland under debris flow deposits
[36][37].
San Juan City, situated on the island of Puerto Rico, finds itself in the hurricane-prone zone of the Caribbean Sea and boasts a unique and rich cultural heritage, a blend of Spanish, African, American, and Taíno indigenous traditions. San Juan City has developed a resilience strategy through the core project, ReImagina Puerto Rico, led by Resilient Puerto Rico Advisory Commission to promote the recovery and reconstruction of the city. Recurring hazards such as hurricanes, floods, and landslides threaten the infrastructure and the well-being of its residents
[38]. Notably, in September 2017, Puerto Rico was hit by two Category 5 hurricanes, Irma and Maria, only 12 days apart
[39]. These storms severely impacted the island’s infrastructure, leaving many residents without access to water and electricity for months
[40] and resulting in the loss of 4, 645 lives
[41].
The five selected cities enable the exploration of different strategies tailored to disaster risks faced by each city, emphasizing the diverse approaches required for comprehensive and singlerisk scenarios. Additionally, this study reveals that in different cities with varying levels of understanding and emphasis on hazard-resilience capacity construction, and that the performance of such construction in each city varies in formulating strategic documents and local practices. The diverse geographical settings of these cities further highlight the significance of contextual and place-based considerations in developing resilience strategies.
3.2 Data Sources and Comparative Analysis
The analysis of case cities in this study focuses on two key questions: first, how these cities define and understand disaster risk; and second, how these case cities respond to typical disaster risks. The former is explored through comprehensive risk assessments according to the seven outlined dimensions, and the latter is addressed by implementing resilience enhancement strategies and constructing resilience pathways. The primary data sources for this study comprise official policy documents related to risk-resilience, including strategies for resilience, water resource management, disaster reduction plans, and assessment reports (Tab.2). In addition to formal policy documents, this study recognizes the significance of everyday responses to crises through years of observation, investigations, and research about the case study cities. These unofficial or informal pathways offer alternative perspectives on resilience, underscoring the significant role of local bottom-up experiences in orchestrating socialenvironmental systems, especially for situations where informal activities compensate for or challenge formal management. The evidence of informal resilience measures collected in this paper enrich the comprehensive construction of the resilience framework.
4 Risk Implication and Resilience Pathways in Policy Documents
The policy review started with extracting information related to risk (Tab.3) and details regarding resilience pathways
[42][43] (Tab.4). By coding and analyzing policy materials based on the framework, this research unveils the varying focuses across five cities.
4.1 Policy Review of Cape Town
In the document for “Cape Town Resilience Strategy”
[43], distinct risk definition or risk evaluation are not explicitly provided. However, another document encapsulates that “risk readiness should be incorporated into all aspects of government operations and disaster risk management could be better integrated into proactive decision-making before disaster events occur”
[44]. Specifically, the factors resulting in drought risks in Cape Town cover all seven dimensions of the framework. For example, in the dimension of economic/livelihood, Cape Town believes that “while the City has embarked on a journey to build resilience in the urban water system, the financing of required infrastructure and actions is not yet secure. The absence of sustainable funding mechanisms increases the risk and vulnerability of Cape Town to shocks and stresses.”
[44]The response of Cape Town to severe drought has prompted a fundamental overhaul of its water management strategies. Since 2018, the city has invested substantially in enhancing groundwater resources and wastewater recycling efforts to supplement its surface water resources. Moreover, Cape Town remains committed to exploring diverse water supply solutions. Its resilience strategies encompass a broad spectrum of initiatives, focusing on social/community, technology/infrastructure, economic/livelihood, and political/governance dimensions, while also significantly influencing environment-climate, cultural/worldviews, and urbanrural-spatial dimensions.
4.2 Policy Review of Greater Manchester
The Greater Manchester Resilience Strategy (2020–2030) builds on the insights gained from Preliminary Risk Assessment and previous civil contingency strategies, without directly defining risk. It operated on the understanding that “risks across the world can impact us within Greater Manchester” and “risks can now operate across borders”
[25]. Acknowledging and comprehending these risks is crucial for strengthening and sustaining resilience. The flood risk assessment in GM considers various factors such as life and property, infrastructure failures, climate change, covering all the seven dimensions. Another relevant document notes that “Greater Manchester sits in a natural bowl. This results in a flashy response to rainfall events, in which water levels rise rapidly, and flood risk can come from areas upstream in the river catchments”.
[45] Therefore, water resource management is highlighted as a vital component of flood risk mitigation within the political/governance dimension. Notably, in the environment-climate dimension, climate change may affect floods and coastal changes, with observations indicating that “high rainfall illustrated how existing flood defences may be overtopped in future”
[25].
The resilience pathways of GM focus on all six dimensions in the framework except the urban-urban-spatial dimension. The Greater Manchester Resilience Strategy (2020–2030) emphasizes the human and organizational aspects of disaster risk reduction and urban resilience as a system, putting forward five key resilienceenhancing priorities: communities, discovery, leadership, place, and responding
[25]. These priorities advocate for a comprehensive “adaptive governance” model, which engages and empowers all stakeholders, as explored in subsequent discussion on plocal practices.q Building cohesive, healthy, and resilient communities, measuring resilience through indicators and baseline assessments, conserving the natural environment, and developing recovery plans are presented as effective methods mentioned in resilience strategies. Given the dual role of the city’s peri-urban areas as sources of climate risks (especially regarding fluvial flooding) and contributors to climate adaptation functions (e.g., through natural flood management and biodiversity conservation), Greater Manchester values actions related to water resource management and climate adaptation. Other documents related to Greater Manchester’s water management outline exemplary practices, including fostering cooperation to overcome water management challenges, leveraging multifunctional blue-green infrastructure, developing relevant digital tools, and embedding social and ecological values into investment portfolios.
4.3 Policy Review of Changsha
The disaster prevention and mitigation policies in Changsha categorize risk into 1) disaster risk, which is defined by hazard and frequency of occurrence, and 2) vulnerability, primarily assessed through built environment and population density
[46]. Flood risks in Changsha are grouped into four levels: extremely high, high, medium, and low
[46], with the risk assessment covering social/community, technology/infrastructure, environment-climate, economic/livelihood, political/governance and urban-rural-spatial dimensions, but lacking consideration on culture/worldviews dimensions.
The disaster reduction policies in Changsha place more emphasis on engineering solutions and emergency support, highlighting the resilience pathways in the dimensions of technology/infrastructure and political/governance. It pays less attention to the dimensions of social/community, economic/livelihood, and cultural/worldviews, and needs to strengthen the dimension of urban-rural-spatial to achieve disaster reduction goals. Changsha Municipal Government takes a leading role in disaster prevention, relief, and emergency management, concentrating on defining and coordinating the responsibilities of various governmental departments in disaster preparedness. From a spatial planning and layout perspective, the city strives to meet a broad spectrum of disaster response requirements, ensuring rapid disaster alerts and tiered infrastructure protection. Strategic initiatives—including the demarcation of flood risk control zones, the construction of hydrological and meteorological monitoring and early warning systems, the establishment of flood control dispatch systems, and the maintenance of emergency channels and urban lifeline projects—can help form a more secure emergency system in Changsha, to better achieve regional coordination and emergency rescue during floods.
4.4 Policy Review of Wenchuan
Among relevant policy documents, the risk indicators of Wenchuan mainly include the population affected by disasters, facility monitoring data, rainfall and duration, and economic losses caused by disasters. These indicators touch upon six of the seven dimensions except for cultural/worldviews. For instance, within the technology/infrastructure dimension, the Hydrological and Water Resources Survey Bureau strengthens hydrological monitoring, increases the frequency of monitoring data collection, and closely monitors the trend and changes of floods
[47]. This includes scrutinizing river water levels and embankment conditions to forecast disaster trends and impacts, thereby enabling government departments to set appropriate emergency or early warning response level for floods. For the social/community dimension, Wenchuan mainly considers the number of people affected by the disaster and necessity for their resettlement.
The resilience pathways in Wenchuan’s policies focus more on post-disaster recovery and response, and with less emphasis on developing enduring resilience. This suggests that the concept of resilience is still nascent within the policy framework. The approaches to disaster relief lean towards engineering measures and emergency management, such as strengthening monitoring systems, ecological restoration, environmental management, and bolstering disaster relief command infrastructure. These pathways span the technology/infrastructure, political/governance, and environment-climate dimensions. Wenchuan also pays attention to social/community, economic/livelihood, and cultural/worldviews dimensions. This includes mobilizing community participation in disaster relief, securing necessary funding for flood and drought prevention, offering post-disaster psychological support, and fostering a positive spirit, rounding out the resilient measures of Wenchuan. For the dimension of urban-rural-spatial, efforts to optimize urban spatial layout and planning zones are considered to improve environmental carrying capacity and disaster prevention capabilities.
4.5 Policy Review of San Juan City
San Juan City adopts the perspective that “thinking about building resilience requires looking at an Island or community holistically, understanding their strengths and where they lie, the systems that make up the place and the interdependencies and risks they may face”
[48]. The disaster risk assessment of the city covers all the seven dimensions. In the dimensions of social/community and technology/infrastructure, “the high poverty rate in Puerto Rico and the lack of affordable housing have contributed to the inappropriate use of land, the increase of vulnerable populations that settled in high-risk areas”
[48]. The settling of population in the high-risk areas is attributed to historical injustices (within Puerto Rico and in its relations to the USA) and the inept responses from a collapsed state, product of decades of colonialism
③[49], recent neoliberal austerity, and debt policies
[50]. Not only poverty and social inequality will exacerbate San Juan City’s vulnerability, but insufficient disaster preparedness and coordination mechanisms, limited investment, and rising sea levels caused by climate change are also factors that pose significant challenges to the city.
③ San Juan was once home to the Taíno who were the indigenous people of the Caribbean. Founded in the 15th century, San Juan became an important strategic port, first as a colony of Spain and later the USA (source: Ref. [
49]).
Against the backdrop of various disaster threats such as hurricanes and heavy rainfall, San Juan City’s comprehensive resilience strategies and mitigation plans provide diverse and specific resilience pathway construction suggestions for its rapid recovery and adaptation to changes, covering all the dimensions. In terms of the technology/infrastructure dimension, San Juan City focuses on the research and development of infrastructure such as energy, telecommunications, and water supply systems. In the political/governance dimension, the city prioritizes the creation of water use plans, resource management plans, and housing improvement policies to enhance urban resilience. In addition, measures such as developing resilient community centers, protecting existing drinking water sources, and investing in improving physical infrastructure also help San Juan City advance towards resilience.
4.6 Policy Review Summary
A comprehensive review of policy documents about the five case study cities offers a detailed perspective of risk-resilience awareness. Generally, the dimensions of social/community, technology/infrastructure, environment-climate, economic/livelihood, and political/governance receive relatively higher attention in resilience construction (Fig.2). For the less emphasized dimensions—cultural/worldviews and urban-rural-spatial— it is imperative to acknowledge the existence of cultural gaps and barriers in public awareness and education, which may lead to mindset changes to the ignorance, skepticism, and denial of increasing hazard risks. Such divergent perceptions of risk may influence people’s willingness to pay for disaster risk reduction and preparedness efforts. Additionally, the urban-rural-spatial dimension is not sufficiently considered in risk assessments, indicating two crucial deficiencies that demand attention to address systemic problems in disaster risk reduction. Firstly, the perception of risk is often treated as a static process, rather than a dynamic and evolving system. While the probability and intensity of hazards can be projected over the next 50 or 100 years, it is challenging to forecast the dynamic changes in urban-rural land use and spatial distribution, resulting in their being underemphasized. Secondly, the prevalent disconnection between the sectors of spatial planning and disaster management in many countries perpetuates biased understandings of risk, undermining efforts to build resilience.
Analysis of resilience pathways of the five cities reveals divergent priorities in their policies (Fig.2). Taking Changsha as an example, its focus leans towards technology/infrastructure and political/governance dimensions, with relatively less emphasis on social/community, economic/livelihood, and cultural/worldviews dimensions. Notably, the response measures outlined in its policies predominantly involve practical, short- and long-term engineering solutions, such as enhancing flood disaster warning systems, strengthening engineering construction, promoting ecological restoration, and developing emergency service systems. In contrast, Cape Town places emphasis on the impact of financial investment on water resource management, highlighting the significance of cooperation between the government, enterprises, communities, and residents. The city values not only the political/governance and technology/infrastructure dimensions in its resilience-related strategies, but also the dimensions of social/community and economic/livelihood. Understanding the interplay among various dimensions, identifying key factors within the social-environmental system, and redirecting attention to underrepresented dimensions are pivotal in effectively bridging resilience gaps.
The comparative analysis suggests that the formulation of comprehensive resilience strategies can incentivize cities to prioritize the overall planning and development of hazard-resilient urban areas. Strategies adopted by Cape Town, Greater Manchester, and San Juan City provide an extensive overview of recovery objectives and actions in response to disasters. These strategies underscore clear concepts and comprehensive planning, which can be strategically and effectively applied in practical projects. While Changsha and Wenchuan’s strategies primarily focus on post-disaster response and recovery actions, such as detailed engineering plans and coordinated response strategies. Due to the lack of specialized disaster resilience planning or recovery strategies, it is difficult to combine long-term livelihood restoration and economic aspects with engineering disaster prevention measures. For cities aspiring to build resilience, strategic planning actions can align more closely with the overarching goal, thereby providing broader guidance for the city.
5 Resilience Pathways in Local Practices of the Case Study Cities
Recognizing policies outlined in the documents may not always equate to translating into actions. Therefore, the significance of local practices in disaster response and resilience-building efforts should not be overlooked. These practices encompass the implementation, experimentation, and enhancement of policies, and frequently mirror the collective understanding of resilience through the lens of specific cultural and social contexts. Moreover, local practices also emphasize the value of indigenous knowledge in mitigating disaster impacts, thereby complementing professional expertise.
5.1 Local Practices in Cape Town
In response to the 2018 drought and the consequent water scarcity crisis, Cape Town’s residents were encouraged to substantially reduce their water consumption to 50 liters of supply per person per day at the height of the drought
[51]. Restrictions were imposed on using municipal water for car washing, filling swimming pools, and irrigating gardens. The amalgamation of penalties and ethical persuasion prompted residents to adopt significant behavioral changes, such as shortening shower time and reusing greywater collected from showers and sinks
[52]. To supplement limited municipal water supplies, many residents accessed groundwater by commissioning their own boreholes or wellpoints for non-potable uses, and some collected water from natural springs in the city. Collectively, these individual measures played a crucial role in alleviating pressure on municipal water supplies, contributing to Cape Town’s resilience against the “Day Zero” drought scenario.
However, the equity of these individual efforts has been debated
[53]. Questions arise regarding whether those who can afford private water access should be allowed to do so, and whether it is fair or equitable that the cost of the drought is not evenly distributed across the city. Moreover, the actions taken by individuals also form the foundations for new resilience pathways. For the city, using boreholes for domestic irrigation can decrease the demand on municipal water supplies during summer peaks, thus allowing the focus to shift towards meeting the broader domestic needs across the city, albeit at the expense of municipal revenue. Set against this, the use of groundwater resources by Cape Town’s elite may represent the capture of a previously common pool resource
④.
④ In Cape Town, the elite class is often more likely to have private drilling, allowing them to extract groundwater to cope with severe drought problems. However, for those who cannot afford drilling costs, they can only rely on limited municipal water supply. Although private drilling can to some extent alleviate the pressure on municipal water supply, the exploitation of groundwater by the elite has an undeniable impact on the fairness of urban drought response. Similarly, from the allocation of groundwater resources, we can also glimpse similar controversies and challenges faced by other water resources such as reservoirs and surface water in terms of fairness in allocation.
The case of Cape Town demonstrates the collective power of individual actions in enabling hazard-resilient cities, particularly when working towards a shared goal. Yet, it also reveals the potential of individual actions to establish new adaptive pathways with unintended consequences. Achieving a balance between household resilience and urban resilience requires unified goals and collaborative efforts from all stakeholders. This is crucial in navigating the complexities of water management and ensuring sustainable water provision amid future challenges. Recognizing the agentic role of households in actively shaping resilience outcomes highlights the significance of robust governance structures and regulatory frameworks in choreographing the iterative, power-laden dance between the state, residents, and other actors as each tries to secure a resilient future of their own imagination.
5.2 Local Practices in Greater Manchester
The Greater Manchester government explores appropriate frameworks for flood risk management by promoting cooperation among a wide range of departments and stakeholders interested in the future of related fields. The governance of water systems involves a complex network of private water firms (e.g., United Utilities), national agencies (e.g., Environment Agency of the UK), municipalities, together with a mix of other private and civic partnerships
[54]. Although the current governance structures are fragmented both spatially and administratively, promising practices are emerging, including 1) informal partnerships with a mandate and role within larger institutional arrangements (e.g., River Catchment Partnerships), 2) independent third sector formal organizations actively participating in informal partnerships (e.g., Wildlife Trusts), 3) formal governance partnerships uniting different levels and units of government (e.g., local authority-based Technical Flood Risk Officers Group), and 4) innovative publicprivate-civic partnerships aimed at cross-jurisdictional, integrated planning (e.g., Pennine Prospects).
However, there are also gaps or conflicts between these local measures and top-down policies. For example, the Moors partnership
⑤ recognized that extreme flooding in small towns in steep sided valleys, such as Hebden Bridge, was partly due to upland land management by distant landowners only interested in profit from shooting activities. According to a long-running investigation by the government’s conservation agency, Natural England, there was little legal basis for taking action against such landowners, but some analysts report that the agency itself was instructed by the national government to conceal the evidence
[55]. At a more local scale, there are frequent conflicts between developers, infrastructure providers, and visitors/tourists regarding local community space, nature conservation, and flood defence or resilience works
[54]. Such conflicts are compounded by structural disparities, such as the correlation between the lowest-income households in substandard housing conditions and high flood risk areas, coupled with prohibitive insurance costs
[56], and the systematic de-funding of local government since 2010, where the poorest areas have lost around 50% of their previous funding
[57].
⑤ Moors for the Future, established in 2003, is one of the local partnership projects aimed at bringing together stakeholders from a wide range of landscape fields to protect damaged blanket bog habitats across the Peak District and South Pennines. It is led by the Peak District National Park Authority and has received support and advice from multiple agencies.
5.3 Local Practices in Changsha
Communities and organizations in Changsha are actively engaging in efforts to bolster urban resilience. For instance, in 2021, the Yuhua District of the city issued guidelines to enhance urban flood control and drainage capabilities in anticipation of heavy rains
[58]. These guidelines included assigning flood control community personnel for underground inspections and flood management. Additionally, subdistrict offices and property management companies proactively participated in flood prevention activities, identifying vulnerabilities promptly, and providing support to affected residents.
Furthermore, residents of Changsha, particularly those directly impacted by disasters, have played a crucial role in disaster response. Acting as primary actors at the micro-level of the urban system, they collaborated to transport sandbags, reinforce embankments, and conduct emergency drills in preparation for rainstorms and floods, as well as participate in post-disaster activities such as clean-up, disinfection, sterilization, and epidemic prevention
[59][60].
Although these practices commendably focus on disaster preparedness, response, and community engagement, they must also address a significant underlying issue contributing to urban flooding: the conflict between development and safety. Changsha, like many other rapidly urbanized cities in China, faces multifaceted challenges stemming from economic imperatives and urban expansion. In the past decades, the pursuit of development, driven by economic interests, housing scarcity in city and the desire for prime locations, has resulted in the encroachment upon waterfront areas
[61], exacerbating flood vulnerabilities. The current economic slowdown and surplus housing supply prompt critical reassessment of the sustainability of prevailing urban development paradigms and their implications for urban resilience, particularly in the context of escalating flood risks.
5.4 Local Practices in Wenchuan
The aftermath of the 2008 earthquake in Wenchuan has been meticulously examined through long-term research, revealing rich experience in post-disaster response and emergency governance. The Earthquake Relief Headquarter of China effectively coordinated information and command across military personnel, local government, and communities, demonstrating a robust and wellorganized response to disasters
[62]. The extensive involvement of officers, soldiers, NGOs, foundations, and volunteers in relief efforts reflected the scale and complexity of these efforts.
However, local practices in Wenchuan also uncovered certain gaps, particularly in the technology/infrastructure and economic/livelihood dimensions. Despite substantial investments in critical infrastructure such as water supply, electricity, educational institutions, and transport networks, the regional susceptibility to frequent geological disasters necessitates a cautious approach to engineering disaster mitigation measures. The utilization of check dams to control debris flows has exhibited limitations
[63], such as the inability to manage peak flow discharges and the inadvertent exacerbation of debris flow, highlighting the complexities and challenges in post-disaster infrastructure rehabilitation.
Furthermore, examining the economic resilience of Wenchuan 15 years after the earthquake offers insights into the concept of economic resilience. While resilience is often associated with maintaining the status quo and bouncing back, different impacts on individual households within a state-led resilience-building context require further attention and research
[64][65]. The observed disparity in economic recovery and development among households in different areas, influenced by economic capacity, accessibility of transportation, and geographic features, underscores the need for a sophisticated understanding of economic resilience at both city and household scales. Wenchuan’s experience once again emphasizes a focus on post-disaster response and reconstruction, while indicating less attention to long-term resilience.
5.5 Local Practices in San Juan City
The approach taken by San Juan City to bolster local resilience against disasters underscores the importance of financial assistance and community participation. However, for an island with a large population of minority ethnic groups and relatively lower levels of education, success hinges on adapting strategies to the local cultural and social context.
For instance, the state government of the USA has allocated funds to local communities to improve infrastructure and mitigate disaster risks through programs like the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, and Flood Mitigation Assistance administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Moreover, communities are constantly advocating for inclusion in the recovery process by actively pressing the government’s involvement. Public consultations, local labour engagement, collaboration with community leaders, and educational campaigns have been promoted to foster community participation and enhance hazardresilience
[66]. In the aftermath of the hurricanes, communities in San Juan City sought recovery funds from FEMA, facing obstacles such as limited publicity of FEMA funds and cumbersome procedures, which hindered local communitieso access to financial assistance
[67]. Notably, the damages from these events were exacerbated by the fact that 60% of aid applicants were denied by FEMA due to residentso lack of land ownership documentation
[68]. This reveals federal agencieso lack of cultural competence and failure to understand that the absence of land ownership in Puerto Rico is rooted in historical, political, and economic contexts
[68].
While the USA government struggles to make funds available to local communities on the island, there is a robust social capital and aid network by the residents who develop their own methods of resilience
[69]. These pathways are built through informal planning practices and sometimes illegible for scholars
[70]. For instance, the singing and dancing of
bomba, a local Afro-descendent music genre, have played a significant role in supporting community recovery processes, both in San Juan City and across the island. The vocal aspect of
bomba introduces a dynamic platform for grassroots participation, as activists and stage organizers, to convey planning and recovery messages. Meanwhile, residents gather in the batey (the dancing area), dancing to express their aspirations and response to the planning messages. The interplay of these elements creates a mutually influential grassroots engagement, which serves to promote bottom-up community recovery efforts
⑥[70].
⑥ Singing and dancing to convey disaster response information is a simple and efficient communication method for local residents in San Juan City, which helps compensate for their lack of resilience expertise in conveying disaster response actions.
5.6 Summary of Local Practices of the Case Study Cities
In the analysis of the five case study cities, on the one hand, local practices to some extent supplemented areas that may have been overlooked in the formal policy framework. In Changsha, extensive participation and innovative practices among residents and communities have yielded valuable insights into building resilience across social/community and economic/livelihood dimensions. On the other hand, local experience has strengthened the key dimensions of policy review. Notably, Cape Town’s groundwater exploration, residential drilling, and greywater reuse have enhanced resilience in the dimensions of social/community and technology/infrastructure. The post-disaster response and emergency management in Wenchuan have enriched the political/governance dimension of measures. In San Juan City, the utilization of FEMAmanaged funding projects has bolstered its ability to tackle disaster threats like hurricanes and storms, strengthening the resilience in economic/livelihood dimension.
These examples also reveal significant differences between centralized and decentralized governance models. Collaborative efforts between government and relevant stakeholder groups, coupled with local cultural measures, form the bedrock of hazard-resilience. Nonetheless, potential conflicts between topdown policies and bottom-up local initiatives may impact the implementation and effectiveness of resilience policies. Moreover, effective post-disaster response and thoughtful, context-specific technological interventions, along with long-term economic/livelihood resilience-building strategies, are crucial. Addressing these challenges will enhance a city’s ability to withstand hazards and minimize the impact on local communities and residents.
6 Conclusions and Discussion
This study has employed a comprehensive methodology, integrating policy analysis and local practice examination, to offer nuanced insights into resilience pathways across diverse urban contexts. An in-depth analysis of five case cities—Cape Town, Greater Manchester, Changsha, Wenchuan, and San Juan City— within a hazard-resilience policy framework, reveals distinct approaches to addressing disaster risk and building resilience. Cape Town’s resilience in water infrastructure adaptation, Greater Manchester’s focus on climate adaptation and multi-sector cooperation, Changsha’s emphasis on government-led planning and community engagement, Wenchuan’s multifaceted postdisaster recovery methods, and San Juan City’s response to various urban disaster risks collectively underscore the significance of government, financial support, and community participation in enhancing resilience.
However, a common trend across most case cities is the relatively little consideration on the cultural/worldviews and urban-ruralspatial dimensions, especially within governmental planning. Bridging this gap is paramount for effectively managing direct technological risks and mitigating the impact of interconnected social risks. Moreover, respect for traditional concepts can foster community participation and enhance cooperation among stakeholders to bolster urban resilience.
Expanding considerations to the urban-rural-spatial dimension is essential for resilient city construction, as rural areas often have less access to resources and services, despite facing similar risks as urban centers. Identifying urban-rural locations of social risks/vulnerabilities can aid in effective disaster recovery planning.
Furthermore, aligning policy formulation with local practices across diverse city sizes and types is essential. Effective coordination between top-down policy-making and bottom-up local practices will facilitate comprehensive regulation of socialenvironmental systems. Cities should formulate recovery plans tailored to their specific risks and leverage urban resilience networks for shared benefits.
In conclusion, the insights derived from this research offer valuable lessons for cities worldwide grappling with climate changes and natural disasters, contributing to the ongoing pursuit of resilient and sustainable urban futures. Further research could explore the theory and practice of multi-level adaptive governance and the concept of “transformative resilience” in the face of uncertainty.
PDF
(902KB)
