This paper examines whether the Korean New Village Movement (Saemaul Undong, New Rural Community Movement, or the KNVM) driven by the authoritarian regime of President Park, Chung-hee in the 1970s enhanced community resilience of rural villages. As a reaction to rapid Korean urbanization, the KNVM supported rural villages, transformed long-standing human settlements rapidly, and created social-ecological sudden changes of population and resource management. Given the historical context, I assess the community resilience of rural villages supported by the KNVM to rapid urbanization in two dimensions of demography and ecology, addressing the cross-scale and cross-sectoral interaction of the KNVM to population change and resource management change.

The paper takes the following four steps: I clearly identify the mechanism of the KNVM and other central government plans in the 1970s such as the Korean Family Plan for population change and the Korean Reforestation for resource management change. I then create a variety of spatiotemporal patterns of demography and ecology, using a macro overview based on national-scale statistical data, a cross-scale analysis based on multi-scale spatiotemporal data, and a micro survey based on village-scale sample data. Third, I conduct demographic and ecological resilience assessments of community resilience based on three main variables respectively (i.e., total population, age structure, and fertility for demographic assessment; forest growing stock, primary energy type, and foreign energy dependence for ecological assessment). Finally, I discuss short-term efficacy and long-term vulnerability of strong top-down implementations by the Korean Government such as the KNVM, the Korean Family Plan, and the Korean Reforestation, which is associated with a lack of diversity in development strategies including transformation of human settlements, population planning, and reforestation planning.

I begin by identifying five primary discourses of resilience in Scotland in relation to climate policy; city resilience; regeneration; public health; and more recently ‘transformational’ community resilience. These simultaneously operate at national, city and neighbourhood scales, indicating a need for critical reflection on their impact across multiple levels and diverse publics.

As a member of the 100 Resilient Cities Network, Glasgow aspires to use a values-driven approach to address inequality through the lens of resilience and asset-based community empowerment. Drawing on Schlosberg’s (2004:521) ‘trivalent’ conception of environmental justice (consisting of distributional, procedural and recognition dimensions), I explore the intersections between local socio-environmental concerns, environmental justice, the discourses of resilience and socially just climate policy.

Schlosberg reminds us that ‘generalised social injustices are manifest in environmental conditions’ (2013:40), and Glasgow’s story reflects how Scottish urban socio-environmental concerns are inextricably linked with the economic and social legacy of rapid deindustrialisation, the failure of previous regeneration strategies, and the consequent number of isolated buildings and derelict land (Fairburn et al., 2005). Using participatory action research in a neighbourhood of multiple deprivation, I identified the current absence of an environmental justice discourse to challenge the health inequalities of living in proximity to vacant and derelict land and poor local environmental quality (Maantay 2013). This was reflected in a disconnect between community development initiatives and a range of fragmented environmental interventions which, if better coordinated, could facilitate an inclusive well & green narrative.

By introducing an environmental justice frame at a neighbourhood and city level, I subtly shift the focus from assets to rights, sustainable consumption and inequality for low-income neighbourhoods. I conclude by proposing an integrated social, environmental and climate justice framework to crystallise and navigate the discourses of resilience towards ‘transformational’ community resilience.

Mexico City is one of the world largest megacities, with a metropolitan area of 22 million inhabitants and located in an area exposed to multiple risks including geological and hydrological shocks, as well as political, economic and social stresses. In 2013, the city was selected to be part of 100 Resilient Cities. This initiative brought an opportunity to build capacities for urban resilience and the implementation of actions to improve adaptive capacity, disaster response and infrastructure with a resilience design for the city. Three years later, the Resilience Office published Mexico City Resilience Strategy, aimed to “… guide the government, the private sector, the civil society and the scientific community to respond to the main shocks and stresses in the city through an integrated cross-sectoral, multilevel approach …”. The Strategy identifies key pillars and goals in order to build resilience at the community and city levels; however, after applying the National Council for the Evaluation of Social Development Policy (CONEVAL, Consejo Nacional de Evaluación de la Política de Desarrollo Social) methodology to assess policy design it has been identified the lack of indicators to evaluate it, in terms of adaptive transformation. The development of urban resilience in Mexico City requires specific criteria to achieve success. This paper looks at different assessment frameworks developed for similar initiatives around the world (ARUP, Global X-Network, Resilience Alliance). Additionally analyses different assessment methods and frameworks and discusses insights from experts, researchers, consultants and government officials by carrying out a workshop, and identifying key elements as redundancy, resourcefulness, diversity and robustness to build adaptive capacity for resilience at the urban system level. Note the this paper identifies key criteria, and transformation indicators to assess the Strategy´s pillars. Finally, it recommends a road map to create a monitoring and evaluation system.

In the recent context of global development, the social and economic structures of cities are expected to have dramatic changes. A city with strong socioeconomic resilience capacity will be better transforming in these changes. For socioeconomic resilience, this study will focus on socioeconomic inclusiveness for building public good, which refers to the diversity of economic activities and the facilitation of social relationship.

In the field of planning and design, studying relationship between public space and public life is a popular approach to understand urban space and socioeconomic activities for enhancing urban capacity and improving quality of living. After the prevalence of rational urban planning, some researches and designers believe that physical environment is the chief culprit of lifeless public life. Consequently, they considered that small scale traditional urban fabric is more resilient than large scale modern urban fabric.

However, the study in Singapore reveals that physical environment may not principally determine socioeconomic life. In the observations of shopping malls, shopping streets and shopping complexes, even if sites share similar urban fabric, different modes of governance of capital, plots and buildings significantly affect the socioeconomic activities taking place on these sites. In this discourse, governance refers to ownership, operation and management of real estate properties. It could be conducted by owners such as individual, family, company, Real Estate Investment Trust, cooperative, government and so on. It is believed that the owners are determining the mode of governance and shaping urban fabric.

The paper will reveal, except for physical environment, how governance of real estate properties impacts the socioeconomic resilience of city. This will shed light on policy decision making and urban planning for governing and building a more socioeconomic resilient city.

Many cities around the world are undertaking climate change adaptation planning processes in contexts of considerable uncertainty due to climate risks. Understanding if and how these plans are aligned with future risks becomes crucial to assess whether they will effectively contribute to reduce vulnerability. Conversely, failing to account for uncertainty and risk can lead to underestimate climate shocks and hinder resilience.

In this paper, we develop an analytical framework built on the four priorities for action of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction: (i) Understanding risk, (ii) Strengthening governance, (iii) DRR for resilience and (iv) Enhancing disaster preparedness, for each of which we defined a set of indicators to examine the degree of alignment of urban climate adaptation policies to future climate risks. We then test this approach in four cities that are considered early adapters or pioneers in climate change adaptation planning: Copenhagen (Denmark), Durban (South Africa), Quito (Ecuador) and Vancouver (Canada). Cities show the highest score in relation to governance, followed by disaster preparedness, while understanding risk and planning for resilience present the lower scores. We suggest that this result is at least partly explained by the lack of follow-up processes within the adaptation plans. In other words, it is uncommon to find monitoring systems that track the actual effectiveness of the adaptation policies and measures to reduce vulnerability or increase resilience. The first wave of urban adaptation plans should evolve beyond a battery of measures, to focus on a final goal: building long-term resilience.

The Prairie View A&M University School of Architecture is educating students to redefine what resilience means through a public interest design studio. Applying living systems thinking and regenerative design processes, the role of designer is reconstituted and applied. Step one sets the framework for what resilience is, moving beyond a “gaming the system” approach to reinserting humanity into a value-adding role in the social-ecological system at the local level. Step two infiltrates the social-ecological system at the local scale in order to discover the potential of Place. Step three is to understand what role the designer must play in order to catalyze regenerative processes, primarily understood as community agency. Finally, the students and faculty together engage community members in designing for resilience at various scales ranging from the single family house to civic structures up to community wide infrastructure.

Houston has experienced a 500 year flood in each of the past three years, with Hurricane Harvey surpassing a 1,000 year event. The most vulnerable communities are hit the hardest. Independence Heights is a historically black, low-income community north of downtown Houston. It is bordered by Little White Oak Bayou with the areas closest to it falling within the 100-year flood plain, and half of the neighborhood in the 500-year flood plain. Without the resources to recover from repeated hits dating back to Tropical Storm Allison, much of the community has been left vacant. Economic strains such as gentrification, freeway construction, and historic redlining practices have also played a major role. The result of vacancy is a loss of the strong, interdependent social fabric that the community was founded on during the Reconstruction. For the past four years the studio has worked intensely with Independence Heights to imagine a regenerative future for the community.

Any initiative for building resilience is only as successful as the underlying governance; hence, resilience policies should not be characterised de-facto as beneficial but rather aim at restructuring urban governance and breaking operational silos in advance of physical planning implementation.

In 2014, Thessaloniki became a member of the 100 Resilient Cities network. This project was the first manifestation of resilience policies in Greece signifying a new era in the national local governance. The Resilience Office has transformed the way city is operating, particularly by representing a point of reference for several public authorities and private stakeholders not adequately communicating in the past.

Changes in the delivery of urban governance go along with the principles of urban resilience, thus transforming communication methods and facilitating decision-making through the wide participation of local communities. Along these lines, local authorities in Thessaloniki have started to consider the local community not only as a recipient but also as a designer of urban policies. Thessaloniki’s Resilience Strategy is attempting to move away from traditional top-down nationally-driven policy-making towards integrated local place-making, by encouraging citizens and local communities to actively participate in co-designing place-based projects. This fundamental shift in conceptualising urban governance as a holistic process not exclusively delivered by the local government, but rather administered by it, emphasises on ‘responsibilising’ a wider spectrum of individuals and organisations and is currently transforming the way the city is operating.

The values of resilience thinking are transforming urban governance by facilitating horizontal coordination of actions and mobilising the local community in the design and implementation of urban projects. The city of Thessaloniki is a notable example of this phenomenon as of resilience has functioned both as a conceptual framework and as an incentive for urban stakeholders to reorganise the traditional governance apparatus and break operational silos.

In the Anthropocene age, human activity will determine the course of the planet, and most of this activity will occur in cities. Public health concerns formed the foundation urban planning. In the 21^st century, the disciplines drifted apart, leaving a legacy of environments and exposures detrimental to people and the planet. Current global urbanization offers an unprecedented opportunity to rethink the way we design and live in cities. Including health transversally to reframe urban resilience is critical to achieve SDG11.

Methods: Health evidence often fails to reach those responsible for planning, and is poorly integrated into many urban platforms. In response, ISGlobal created the Urban Planning, Environment and Health Initiative (UPEH). UPEH offers an organizational model to generate impact in policy and society through research. Using Barcelona as a case study, we explore how evidence can be translated to promote healthy urban environments.

Results: The UPEH strategy works with government agencies in Barcelona to bridge gaps between theory and practice by: building technical capacity, creating transdisciplinary communities, engaging with urban and transport planning sector partners and translational events and media. Over the past two years, UPEH has developed collaborations with five government agencies. We are conducting health impact assessments of interventions such as the Superblock, evaluating local environmental exposures, offering trainings and creating tools to bring health criteria into urban and transport planning processes and policy (i.e. PMUs). Challenges identified include: aligning political and research cycles, breaking down silos, creating value for translational work within academia and understanding governance mechanisms and the influence of acquired rights such as private motorized transport.

Conclusions: Urban and transport planning are fundamental public health interventions. Health evidence can be used to create paradigm shifts and policy change. Novel approaches such as citizen science and health impact assessments are key to addressing challenges.

Many contemporary efforts to address climate change-linked flooding aim to correct the failings of previous heavy-handed infrastructure projects by including a broader range disciplinary expertise, including an increased role for designers. These projects are frequently rooted in concepts of ‘resilient urbanism,’ which prize flexibility and adaptation. Drawing on ecological planning and recent Dutch water planning, these strategies are often labeled with terms like ‘living with water’ and ‘design with nature.’ This paper asks: What are the opportunities, challenges, and dangers of increasing the use of design tools and methods in urban water management and flood infrastructure planning?

The paper presents analysis of recent proposals from two flood prone cities, New Orleans and Dhaka. It supports this analysis with archival research and interviews with participants, experts, and critics involved in these projects.

The paper finds that the tools and methods of design hold promise for improving the process and communication of urban adaptation projects. However, it also finds that the power of design visualization is deeply tied to the specific values and expectations of image producers and consumers, limiting how readily such methods may be transferred between different settings. The research also indicated that design visualization is sometimes used to ignore, obscure, or invoke urgency to bypass conflict, depoliticizing adaptation, evacuating dissent, and silencing non-dominant voices.

This research has critical implications for an emerging area of resilient urban design. To realize the value of urban design in flood adaptation, it is necessary to develop a clearer understanding of how these tools can both enrich and obscure public deliberations. By illuminating the opportunities and challenges of flood infrastructure projects in two cities on the “front lines” of climate adaptation, this paper provides insights regarding the role of urban design in adaptation more broadly.

This paper offers a comparison of two diverse approaches to infrastructure resilience planning and socio-environmental sustainability in two urban rivers in the Tel Aviv Metropolitan Region: the Yarkon and Ayalon. The Yarkon flows from the north-east through relatively high-income areas before transforming into the centerpiece of Tel Aviv’s main metropolitan recreational park. Here, resilience is framed mostly as protecting the metropolis’ ‘green lungs’ and the flow of clean water in the face of recurrent incidences of upstream pollution. By contrast, the Ayalon stream flows from the south-east through more socially-deprived areas and the metropolis’ most dense transportation ‘bottleneck’ (encompassing the Ayalon Freeway and the national railways). Thus, the Ayalon’s resilience is framed as infrastructure-dependent, and involves large plans for water diversion, flooding control, and complex interactions with transportation planning. Consequentially, the persistent north-south socio-environmental divide that has structured the metropolitan region both historically and contemporarily is also manifested in the re-workings of these two urban rivers and their reframing in terms of resilience. We investigate this ecology of unequal resilience along several dimensions, by analysis of a decade of discussions and decision making: the tensions between ‘old’ and ‘new’ functions planned into the two rivers; the contrast between the ‘slow’, recreational water associated with the Yarkon against the ‘fast’ seasonal flows of the Ayalon; the contrast between the ‘green’ sustainability approach of the Yarkon compared to the ‘gray’ infrastructural resilience of the Ayalon; and the planned futures of both rivers, which are entangled in complex calibrations of infrastructural resilience, environmental regulation and social equity. Overall, the paper seeks to narrow the gap between aspects of socio-environmental sustainability and urban resilience in the context of infrastructure planning and design.