No abstract

No abstract

Critical infrastructures are increasingly recognized to be playing important roles in urban resilience theory and practice. However, little is known about which governance challenges result from making them an integral part of urban resilience policies and what role city administrations play or could play in the resulting governance arrangements. We address these shortcomings in the scholarly literature by analysing the case of the Dutch city of Rotterdam, which has positioned itself as a front runner with regard to urban resilience. We find that the city administration is limited in its authority and depends on decisions made by other public and private actors, particularly those relating to the integrated management of interconnected infrastructure networks such as those for water and energy provision. We therefore argue that institutionalizing resilience will strongly depend on city administrations’ institutional capacity to manage networks more effectively. For this, we derive key conditions for institutional adjustments in current governance arrangements. Necessary adjustments include redefining roles and responsibilities for cross‐territorial risk management, cross‐sectoral and cross‐departmental budgeting of resilience measures, and integrating local actions and measures with those at regional and national levels of government. Our conclusions call for national and supranational legal reforms to establish uniform procedural rules for urban risk management and contingency planning to provide guidance for municipalities on how to enhance the resilience of their cities and infrastructures.