15
City resilience paper V.1.1 May 2016 Page 1 of 15 City resilience The bones of a white paper Version 1.1 Date: 10 May 2016
City resilience paper
V.1.1 May 2016
Page 1 of 15
City resilience The bones of a white paper
Version 1.1
Date: 10 May 2016
City resilience paper
V.1.1 May 2016
Page 2 of 15
Contents
1 Context and purpose of this paper...................................................................................... 0
2 Resilience ......................................................................................................................... 0
3 Cities as a Framework to think about Resilience ................................................................. 1
4 Standards.......................................................................................................................... 3
5 Why pursue a Standard in City Resilience? ......................................................................... 3
6 Structure: three levels ........................................................................................................ 4
7 Key Issues in City Resilience ............................................................................................. 7
8 Principles, Qualities and Attributes for City Resilience ...................................................... 10
8.1 Relationship with Established frameworks for City Resilience ............................................. 10
8.2 Guiding Principles for City Resilience ................................................................................ 11
9 What next? ...................................................................................................................... 11
10 Contact ........................................................................................................................ 12
1 Context and purpose of this paper
These notes were compiled by Rob MacFarlane, CCS, following a meeting of:
Alistair Brown, Glasgow City Council
Cathy Oldham, Association of Greater Manchester Authorities
Peter Joyce, Emergency Planning Society, City Resilience Working Group
Peter Cooper, ARUP
Graham Colclough, Urban DNA
Hamish Cameron, London Resilience Team
The objective of that meeting (held on 31st March 2016) was to share experience and attempt to distil what leading UK practitioners in the field agree is fundamental and should be included in a guidance standard on city resilience. It has been written up here as a draft white paper to inform the next stage of the process.
2 Resilience
Resilience has emerged as a central issue for professions, organisations, networks and communities in recent years. There is a general consensus that resilience is essentially a coming-together of an ability to continue through disruption in the short-to-medium term, combined with a capacity to adapt to longer term changes, risks and opportunities. Resilience therefore demands not just an ability to deal with acute shocks, but also with chronic stresses as well, summarised in figure 1.
<<<<< Resilience spans >>>>>
Timescale Acute Chronic
Nature of disturbance* Shocks Stresses
Response to disturbance Continuity Adaptability
Figure 1: the essence of resilience (* disturbance describes
episodes or periods of risk, disruption, change or opportunity)
It is also generally accepted that resilience is relative and not absolute; like agility, flexibility, reliability and safety, organisations, systems and other entities can be more or less resilient, but they can never be absolutely resilient, against all risks and at all times.
Resilience is relevant to many different aspects of society, economy and environment. In particular resilience has been explored and advocated in the context of organisations, communities, infrastructure and the wider built environment, ecosystems, energy and transport systems and individuals’ physical and mental
City resilience paper
V.1.1 May 2016
1
state. There is a danger that resilience could become a ‘catch all’ good idea or framework, but without a clear rationale and relationship with other themes, frameworks and objectives what is distinctive and valuable about resilience may be lost in the noise.
The field of resilience is a rather crowded landscape: there are dozens of definitions in circulation, different disciplines disagree on matters of concept and emphasis, and there is a degree of ‘competition’ between researchers and practitioners about how different ideas nest together. In particular there is no established position on how ‘safe’, ‘secure’, ‘smart’, ‘sustainable’ and ‘resilient’ fit together. It is argued here that this matters because each of these is a framework for activities to effect positive change, but if they are in conflict, competing with other activities or being approached in disconnected silos then the scope for reinforcement and mutual benefit is lost.
3 Cities as a Framework to think about Resilience
While thresholds of character, magnitude and density can be debated, cities are self-evidently places where large numbers of people live in relatively high concentrations, and where economies and businesses, infrastructure and essential services, public institutions, community networks, social services, amenity spaces and places of environmental value are located in close proximity. These create opportunities and facilitate social and economic interaction, but risks also emerge from this arrangement; people live close to hazardous sites and areas, and failures, accidents or malicious acts can have disproportionately serious effects and cascade in hard-to-predict ways through the various systems that cities are dependent upon.
Cities face a series of challenges that may variously be:
Hard to understand (e.g. critical infrastructure interdependencies) Hard to accept (e.g. the effect of global competition and industrial decline) Hard to manage (e.g. civil contingencies risks such as terrorism and flooding)
Figure 2 illustrates some of these challenges, roughly organised into shocks (acute events) and stresses (chronic changes, which may include risks and opportunities). This is not however a binary distinction: chronic changes may give ride to episodes of sudden disruption and rapid-onset events may indicate or be symptomatic of emergent issues or longer-term change.
City resilience paper
V.1.1 May 2016
2
Figure 2: examples of shocks and stresses that bear on cities and urban areas
We are by no means the first to point this out, and a number of major institutions and firms, in some cases working together, have proposed concepts, frameworks and metrics to define, pursue and measure resilience in an urban context. Notably these include the Rockefeller Foundation1, UNISDR2, ICLEI3, Grosvenor4, ARUP5, Buro Happold6, OECD7 and the World Bank8. As stated above, this is a crowded landscape and while these various frameworks and initiatives are effecting positive change in specific urban contexts, they do compete for attention and to some extent they differ on the issue of what is ‘the right way’ to go about city resilience.
Resilience is a quality as much as it is a set of activities. It describes something about a city, organisation, community or other system that enables it to get to where it wants to go. Resilience is therefore pervasive – it cannot be boxed off as ‘to do with risk’, ‘ about emergency planning’ or ‘an extension of business continuity’ – but because of this it can easily become vague and go from being everyone’s business to nobody’s business. A key question is what might interrupt a city’s story? Resilience is a strategic enabler – it supports the attainment of a city’s aspirations and objectives.
One way to look at cities is as a set of different systems, or a system of systems, some of which are illustrated below.
1 http://www.100resilientcities.org
2 https://www.unisdr.org/we/campaign/cities
3 http://resilient-cities.iclei.org
4 http://www.grosvenor.com/news-views-research/research/2014/resilient%20cities%20research%20report/
5 http://www.arup.com/design_book/resilient_cities
6 http://www.burohappold.com/fileadmin/uploads/bh/Documents/Whitepapers/BRE_cities_report_full.pdf
7 http://www.oecd.org/gov/regional-policy/resilient-cities.htm
8 http://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/urbandevelopment/brief/resilient-cities-program
City resilience paper
V.1.1 May 2016
3
Figure 3: cities as systems of systems (note: makes no claim to be complete…)
4 Standards
There are various different types of standards, produced by a range of different organisations. At a very general level, standards can be divided into those which guide people and organisations through how to do things, and performance standards which define how much of something is desired. The former can also be broadly divided into specification standards, which define and prescribe processes, ways of working and expectations in some detail, and good practice or guidance standards which are indicative in nature. In practice standards often combine elements of ‘how’ and ‘how much’ under the broad heading of ‘what good looks like’, articulating both indicators for high performance and guidance on how to achieve those.
It should be emphasised that what is proposed here is a good practice guidance standard, without the intention or ambition to become a specification standard against which cities can undertake detailed measurements or audit.
5 Why pursue a Standard in City Resilience?
Standards produced by British Standards Institution (BSI) or CEN or ISO at the international level are perceived in different ways in different contexts and by different interest groups and individuals. Most standards are not, generally, a highly effective way of communicating with executives, boards and other senior stakeholders. Those individuals charged with processes where compliance with
City resilience paper
V.1.1 May 2016
4
industry norms is significant are generally more used to and enthusiastic about standards (and many of these areas, which relate to the “concepts” as shown in the figure below – such as health and safety, security, “smart”, accessibility – are covered by standards with proven positive effects, and so “buy in” in these areas, from those with responsibility for these aspects, already exists prior to developing a frame for city resilience)) .
A British Standard, as proposed here, would offer the following:
A concise and strategically relevant overview of what resilience is and why it matters, as applied to the city context;
A starting point that enables cities to determine what resilience means to them and what value it has for them;
An overarching framework that is rooted in guiding principles, and signposts users to structure, conduct and integrate specific resilience-building and resilience-relevant activities;
Guidance on how to measure progress towards resilience objectives;
A document that is specific to the UK, and a resource that reflects UK experience.
6 Structure: three levels
What is proposed here is not a ‘conventional’ British Standard. Broadly speaking to inform, stimulate and guide change three questions need to be answered:
why is change needed? what actions are required? how should those actions be conducted?
In this initiative these three sets of considerations will be separated out into a Leadership Guide (addressing why) a Management Framework (addressing what) and a layer of Technical Specifications (addressing how). The proposed city resilience standard will cover leadership and management aspects, and link to (but not directly cover) technical specifications, which is an already well covered field. These tiers are elaborated in Table 1 below.
City resilience paper
V.1.1 May 2016
5
Tier 1: Leadership Guide
Tier 2: Management Framework
Tier 3: Technical Standards
In scope for CR Standard?
Yes Yes No
Audience Primarily city leaders, both political and professional, that guide a city, and those that manage the city and its resources (e.g. CEX, Finance, Policy, ‘Smart’ Director, Police & Crime Commissioner)
Principally City Officials: Heads of Department and Services; Senior cross-cutting roles (e.g. policy, finance, commissioning, ICT) and thematic roles (e.g. heads of planning, emergency services regeneration, environment and transport, directors of public health)
City Technical Staff; Advisory Industry; Service Provider Sectors
Purpose Support change in perspective / paradigm. Inform of return on investment, strategy, roadmap, and decision making.
Improve quality of cross-domain integrated city management in pursuit of greater levels of resilience
More deterministic / instructional. Lengthier and more formal and looking to define practical solutions to defined challenges.
Style short (4 page target), crisp, clear and simple to consume (a “train read”)
Crisp. Modest in length (20 page target). Figures to help dialogue within and across different functions.
There are presently
multiple technical
standards of
relevance to CR.
They rarely deal
with
interdependencies
across city
systems.
Content Key issue guides that inform about the nature and advantage of the approach, and highlight leadership issues associated with them
Organising frameworks that help in sense-making. Principles. Options. Tools. Templates. Case Studies (practices). Key issues and means of resolution.
Various, but out of scope
Messages Why does this matter?
What are the
How to cascade / connect from city
Various, but out of scope
City resilience paper
V.1.1 May 2016
6
implications of action
and inaction?
What will this deliver in
various value terms?
How should or could
cities progress with the
topic?
What risks, costs and
other resource
implications result?
strategy?
How to integrate the disparate components
How to assess the forms and level of value that will be delivered.
What options exist? What trade-offs should be considered?
What are some of the cross sector/domain challenges that will be faced, and how best to address them?
What tools and templates can support delivery?
Table 1: tiers of Standards
City resilience paper
V.1.1 May 2016
7
7 Key Issues in City Resilience
The following is an early stage, roughly categorised list of the dimensions, considerations and key issues that bear on City Resilience in the UK.
Dimensions and ways of thinking about city resilience:
Multi-scalar approach to systems / risks
Understand the city: people, process, place, supplies, economy, health, society, environment
Coherence: more than integrated? Collective effort
Chains of different types Boundaries, roles and relationships The shift left From short to long term Spatial relationships Russian dolls Networks and hubs Networks of Networks Systems of Systems Interconnections: the wider city
context
Balancing control and influence Hard systems and soft systems Beyond acute shocks Continuity and Adaptability The place of digital
Information, not just data Community How to leverage youth Culture Quality places Opportunity Bespoke to context Distinctiveness Reflective learning processes Engagement across citizens,
academia and business Cost and opportunity cost Sustainable funding Performance (KPIs) and
comparability
Beyond it being done for you
Benefits associated with city resilience:
Survive and thrive Realisation of purpose (function) Preservation of life
Equity of opportunity Competitiveness Sustainability (of advantage)
Activities and capabilities to build city resilience:
Need a wide understanding of risk Courageous leadership Distributed champions Bridging between disciplines /
territories
Eliminate redundancy Plan, Do, Check and Act Predict and prevent; protect;
prepare; respond and recover
Communication Resilience focused business models Governance and leadership Partnerships Engagement of all communities Stakeholder management Political engagement Indicators and measurement Compare and track
Not about regulating
Qualities & contents of a useful standard:
Simple, but not simplistic Clear concept and definition A simple, generic layered model Focus on characteristics and levers Guiding principles Relevant – demonstrates value Evidence based Roles and responsibilities matrix
City resilience paper
V.1.1 May 2016
8
Requirements for external support to enable city resilience:
Clarity on political priorities Roadmap? Acknowledgement of small/med
cities
Support to local initiatives Sharing of good practice Sharing of tools (incl software tools) Relate CR to the Sendai framework Build towards a national framework
Tools to prevent the creation of risk Tools to reduce the impact of risk Tools to support leaders Tools to support professions Tools to support communities Tools to support partnerships Tools / indicators to track progress Dashboards – current state of
resilience
Advice on simulations People have to buy-in to it Sidebars – make it readable,
interesting
Annex > relevant technical specifications
There are various ideas ‘in this space’ that compete for attention, priority and resources. Proponents of each may claim ‘their’ idea or framework is superordinate and subsumes or displaces others, and arguably resilience is just another idea that is attempting to ‘steal the sandwiches’ of established themes in urban areas. The figure below identifies the main themes, ideas or frameworks that we propose here to be closely related to resilience.
Figure 4: resilience as a concept interlocks with other concepts
It could be argued that categories, labels and terms matter less than the substance, and the coherence, of what is done. Table 2 sets out definitions (noting however that these are much-argued-over and many fields lack an authoritative, much less a universally agreed definition) and the key themes associated with each of these concepts.
Concept Definition Key themes Relationship to resilience
Resilience The ability of communities, services, Continuity n/a
City resilience paper
V.1.1 May 2016
9
areas, infrastructure, businesses, markets and institutions, acting individually and collectively, to identify, prevent, manage and recover from disruptive challenges, and to adapt to longer-term changes, risks and opportunities [Source: ISO ad hoc group on defining resilience]
through disruption, ability to adapt to longer term changes. A quality that enables a city to realise its strategic objectives.
Security Condition of being protected against damage, harm or loss, achieved through the management of adverse consequences associated with natural events and the intentional and/or unwanted actions of others by physical, technical, electronic, information technology, or human factors or a combination of those factors [Source: BS16000 Security management ― Strategic and operational guidelines]
Protection against harm, typically arising from malicious acts, applying to people, places and things.
Focused on a specific set of risks; a concern with protection of assets.
Safety Relative freedom from danger, risk, or threat of harm, injury, or loss to personnel and/or property, whether caused deliberately or by accident.
Freedom from harm, typically applying to people.
Focused on people rather than places and things.
City resilience paper
V.1.1 May 2016
10
Sustainability The ability to be maintained at a steady level without exhausting natural resources or causing severe ecological damage.
A trajectory that can be maintained indefinitely.
Focused primarily on environmental resources and services.
Health Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity [Source: WHO]
Well-being, measured across multiple dimensions
Focused on people rather than places and things.
Prosperity Prosperity is the state of flourishing, thriving, good fortune and / or successful social status. Prosperity often encompasses wealth but also includes other factors that can be independent of wealth to varying degrees, such as happiness and health.
Success, measured across multiple dimensions
There is a trade-off relationship between the short and the long-term to be reconciled.
Smart BSI defines a smart city as one where there is “effective integration of physical, digital and human systems in the built environment to deliver a sustainable, prosperous and inclusive future for its citizens” [Source: PAS 180:2014]
Integration of digital into other systems to enable attainment of objectives.
Smart can enable resilience, but also creates new risks and vulnerabilities.
Inclusivity An intention or policy of including people who might otherwise be excluded or marginalized, such as those who are handicapped or learning-disabled, or racial and sexual minorities.
Greater equality of resources and opportunities
Focused on people rather than places and things.
Table 2: defining the key concepts (note: all definitions should be treated as draft)
As an idea resilience does not diminish or challenge the validity or importance of other ideas. To claim resilience is a superordinate idea is probably to invite dissent, but none of the other ideas offer a framework or syntax to reconcile the other themes or frameworks in pursuit of a city’s aspirations and objectives.
8 Principles, Qualities and Attributes for City Resilience
8.1 Relationship with Established frameworks for City Resilience
Existing frameworks, primarily UNISDR and the Rockefeller 100 RCs, differ in how they seek to guide, structure and monitor the resilience of participating cities. These variously describe qualities, dimensions and drivers (100RC) and essentials and phases (UNISDR). Different cities are likely to align with one, the
City resilience paper
V.1.1 May 2016
11
other, or alternative approaches. It is not the intention of this standard to lead individual cities to one option or the other, rather to provide a more strategic entry point and concise point of reference for city leaders. Indeed, these frameworks and other work that has been done are explicitly or implicitly rooted in very similar guiding principles, distilled below.
8.2 Guiding Principles for City Resilience
These are the fundamental points of reference and direction that will enable city leaders and those charged with implementing and integrating relevant activities to interpret issues, allocate resources and make decisions that build and contribute to resilience.
Resilience combines continuity through shocks and stresses and adaptation to longer-term changes, risks and opportunities
Resilience is a means to an end: you need to answer why it matters, as well as what needs to be done and how to do it
Resilience demands coherence: it is an organising framework for activities and interests which contribute (or constrain) resilience in isolation
Resilience is context-specific: why, what and how will be different in different places and at different times
There are ‘hard’ (e.g. physical design) and ‘soft’ (e.g. community engagement) dimensions to resilience. Neither dominates, both matter.
Resilience needs top-down and bottom-up: outcome-focused leadership, at all levels, is vital
Participation and engagement is fundamental: it is everyone’s business
Social and economic needs must be addressed to enable longer term issues of risk and sustainability to be effectively considered
Within participating organisations structure and process are important, but attitude and behaviour are critical
Resilience requires dilemmas to be confronted: there are costs and opportunity costs as well as gains and opportunities
Shift thought and effort to the left9 and balance the short, medium and long terms
Measurement of progress is difficult, but essential to sustain momentum.
9 What next?
This is a very sketchy first draft of what will become a white paper for city resilience. It is incomplete and very weak in places but with input and substantial revision it is intended that this white paper will be the basis for a series of several workshops to further explore city resilience and the place of a standard to support that.
9 This is a reference to bow-tie diagrams as a way of thinking about risk controls. They place an adverse event in the centre (the knot of the bow tie), then work out on the left what causal, contributory and underlying root causes may give rise to this event. Consequences and wider impacts of the disruptive event are mapped out on the right hand side. A shift to the left describes an increased emphasis on prevention, reducing the likelihood of disruption and a greater emphasis on underlying conditions and causes of failure, disruption or loss.
City resilience paper
V.1.1 May 2016
12
10 Contact
Dr Robert MacFarlane
07770 265626
Revision History
Revision No. Date Author Changes
v.1.1 May 2016 Dr Robert MacFarlane
