The conceptual framework of this study is Arup’s City Resilience Framework and Index. Various approaches have been taken to framing or assessing resilience. They either focus on urban assets or systems and to varying degree, consider man-made infrastructure, the natural environment, urban management and human behaviour. The City Resilience Framework and Index is unique in the sense that it provides a lens through which the complexity of cities and the numerous factors that contribute to city resilience can be understood (Arup, 2014). The framework can also help cities to assess the extent of their resilience, to identify critical areas of weakness and to identify actions and programs to improve the city’s resilience. The framework consists of four main variables namely:
People’s health and wellbeing;
Organisation of the economy and society; Place of urban systems and services; and Knowledge inherent in leadership and strategy.
38 | P a g e
These four categories of systems are broken down further into twelve indicators that each contribute to a richer articulation of resilience. Figure 2.3 below illustrates the City Resilience Framework and Index adopted for this study.
Figure 2-3: City Resilience Framework and Index adapted from Arup (2014)
Figure 2-3 above illustrates the main and sub variables of the conceptual framework. Below, the researcher discusses how the different variables of the framework can be adopted to enhance a city’s resilience.
39 | P a g e
2.5.1.1 People’s health and wellbeing
Ensuring the health and well-being of residents is a very important criterion for city resilience. The high concentration of people in cities puts enormous pressure on basic utilities (Turok, 2012). Thus ensuring residents have access to basic utilities such as adequate housing, food, energy, sanitation, water and medicine plays a significant role in enabling resilience of the city (Arup, 2014).
Studies on urban resilience have suggested that pressure on basic utilities in urban centres due to the high concentration of people very often leads to fluctuations in the supply of basic utilities which may have serious negative impacts on the health and wellbeing of the population (Godschalk, 2003; Ledesma 2014). Arup (2014) suggests that cities should have multiple sources of supply of basic utilities such as water, food and energy to enable life to go on as normal in the city in case a source is compromised during a disaster.
The focus on ensuring city resilience in the context of health and wellbeing of residents extends beyond providing adequate basic facilities. Studies show that most cities are vulnerable to threats such as fire, flood, pollution, crime, terror attacks and unemployment. The bulk of city residents (particularly the poor) do not always have the means to react to such threats at an individual level (Godschalk, 2005; Revi, 2008; Etingoff et al., 2015). Arup (2014) maintains that cities need the sufficient resources and capacities to protect their inhabitants from threats. Thus facilities such as emergency evacuation services, effective planning mechanisms, adequate communication systems, efficient and effective medical facilities and trained and skilled personnel are some of the preventive measures that cities should undertake to mitigate vulnerability of their residents to disasters. Thus according to Arup (2014), resilient cities keep their citizens safe by having special measures to enhance their wealth and wellbeing.
40 | P a g e
Figure 2-4: Resilience dimension of People’s health and wellbeing (Arup,2014)
2.5.1.2 Organisation of the economy and society
Minimising human vulnerabilities in the context of a flourishing economy and society relates to a city that strives to ensure that individuals and households achieve a standard of living which goes beyond mere survival (Norris et al., 2008). It refers to a city which puts at the disposal of its citizens diverse livelihood opportunities and support mechanisms that allow citizens to proactively respond to changing conditions within their city without undermining their wellbeing. It stresses the fact that city management needs to operationalise measures that provide diverse employment opportunities to its residents such as effective training and skills development programs (Arup, 2014).
Cities also need to ensure that residents are exposed to and have access to financial resources for business development and incentives for innovation that may enable individuals to seek diverse employment options during times of economic constraint or change. In addition, city management should ensure that residents have access to contingency financial resources such as insurance and social welfare which may contribute to supporting households during challenging circumstances (Arup et al.,
41 | P a g e
2013). In addition, policies and measures to promote a collective identity and mutual support illustrated in active community engagement, strong social networks, social integration and trust and support relationships between individuals, communities and the city government contribute significantly to enabling resilience in a city (Arup, 2014).
In their study on designing, planning and managing resilient cities, a conceptual framework, Flanery and Desouza (2013) emphasised the importance of social interaction to city resilience. Flanery and Desouza argue that measures that enforce active community participation, social networks community organizations, artistic expression and the preservation of cultural heritage, including religion, language and traditions build very strong relationships in a city thereby reinforcing the collective ability of a city’s social capital to improve the environmental conditions of where they live, work and play.
In their characteristics of a safe and resilient community in Latin America and the Carribean, Arup and IFRC (2013) argued that enabling a resilient city equally entails creating an atmosphere of social stability and security. According to the study, cities should institute a comprehensive approach to law enforcement, crime prevention, justice and emergency management. Not only do such measures uphold the rule of law and promote citizenship in cities, they may also facilitate peaceful recovery processes, reduce crime related injury and stress in the event of a disaster.
42 | P a g e
Figure 2-5: Resilience dimension of Organisation of economy and society (Arup,2014)
2.5.1.3 Place of urban systems and services
This category, the Arup (2014) argues that urban vulnerabilities can be mitigated by conserving the environment and protecting urban infrastructure. According to Arup (2014), ecosystems such as river basins, forests, drains and sewers and built infrastructure designed as integrated urban systems can effectively contribute to reducing exposure and vulnerability to hazards in urban areas.
The growth and urbanisation of the global human population has resulted in the construction of cities of unprecedented size and form (Decker et al., 2000). According to Colding et al. (2006), the human species has come to dominate the ecology of urban settlements which during times of stress may contribute significantly in mitigating vulnerability. During times of stress, some ecosystem services and infrastructure become central to the city functioning (Arup, 2014). For instance in coastal areas, as part of an integrated approach to coastal flooding, robustness can be better achieved by using natural wetlands and man-made dykes. Thereby, making it imperative for city management to proactively manage these assets in order to maintain their quality and
43 | P a g e
performance. Similarly, in their study of applying a resilience systems framework to urban environmental education, Krasny and Tidball (2009) suggest that city management should institute measures such as educating communities on the importance of ecosystems to human and animal wellbeing as this may prevent careless or unwise actions, such as natural resource extraction or destruction of coastal dunes and mangroves that may lead to destruction of urban ecosystem.
Arup et al. (2013) argue that managing the urban ecosystem goes alongside management of man-made infrastructure requiring frequent monitoring together with regular plans for upgrade and renewal and continuity plans in order to manage demand of critical services. A continuity plan ensures that infrastructure managers are ready to maintain service provision and avoid disruption during extreme events. According to ARUP et al. well-maintained systems are better able to accommodate abnormal demand, withstand unusual pressures and continue functioning.
According to Arup (2014), in addition to creating plans for upgrade and continuity, it is equally important for a city to establish reliable communications and mobility systems such as affordable multi-modal transport systems and information and communication technology networks and contingency planning. They further argue that during a disaster, a multi-modal transport system may enable redundancy and flexibility by providing alternative options in the event of failure or surges in demand while a robust and redundant ICT services many enable safe communication and access to information, including coordination of emergency services. Thus, a reliable communications and mobility system fosters a positive environment for every day working and living and builds social cohesion and also supports rapid mass evacuation and widespread communication during emergencies.
44 | P a g e
Figure 2-6: Resilience dimension: Place of urban systems and services (Arup,2014)
2.5.1.4 Knowledge inherent in leadership and strategy
Leadership is a key ingredient in enabling a resilient city. It encourages individuals and communities to take action during challenging times. According to Arup (2014) clear and purposeful city leadership promotes trust, unity, and a shared understanding of a city’s trajectory. Arup stresses the significant role of empowered stakeholders in enabling city resilience. It maintains that city governments (communities and the private sector) should be inclusive in decision the making processes of the city’s management. Research (Barry and Osmond, 2001) suggests that an inclusive city government maximizes and leverages the diverse backgrounds, perspectives and talents of all stakeholders. It includes having a deeper understanding of culture and cultural differences of individuals, teams, functions and organisations within the city. It promotes the role of grassroots knowledge and research and innovation by universities in understanding challenges faced by the city and their contribution to solving city problems.
Arup et al. (2013) have also argued city governments should encourage education and information dissemination. This will provide early warnings and access to education and
45 | P a g e
information on matters of disaster management. Resilient researchers (Godschalk, 2003, Campanella, 2006; Arup, 2014) maintain that resilient city management understands the power of knowledge and can harness it to their advantage to increase understanding of shock or stress events and to learn from past experiences. According to Lempert and Grove (2010) knowledge plays a crucial role in a city’s ability to absorb shocks and stresses and also assist in the city’s quick recovery, hence cities constantly need to raise their levels of awareness. Arup et al. add that such initiatives provide citizens with the tools to take appropriate decisions in the face of shocks and stresses as well as protect themselves in emergency situations.
In their characteristics of a safe and resilient community in Latin America and the Caribbean, Arup and IFRC (2013) have stressed the need for city leadership to be visionary in order to enhance resilience. This involves developing integrated planning mechanisms that regularly review and update the degree of the city’s resilience. Arup and IFRC also argue that visionary city leadership demonstrates understanding of and alignment between the motivations of different stakeholders involved in designing and implementing projects in the city.
Figure 2-7 below illustrates the attributes of the dimension Knowledge.
46 | P a g e