City-To-City Learning for Urban Resilience: The Case of Water Squares in Rotterdam and Mexico City

Abstract

Cities worldwide are building ‘resilience’ in the face of water-related challenges. International networks have emerged through which urban communities draw on each other’s experiences and expertise in order to become resilient cities. Learning is a key principle in resilience-building, but thus far little empirical research is available on city-to-city learning and learning for urban resilience. This paper presents an analysis of how policy relevant knowledge on the notion of ‘Water Squares’ is exchanged between Rotterdam and Mexico City. We mobilize a framework composed of four distinct phases: exploration and marketing (phase 1), building pipelines (phase 2), translation and adoption (phase 3), and internalization and reflection (phase 4). Critical in first phase was introspective analysis of one’s own systems, strengths and weaknesses, rather than an outward-looking search for knowledge or mentees. During the second phase, the cities reframed their own narratives to match those of their counterparts as a way to create a mutual understanding of each other’s struggles and histories. This facilitated policy and knowledge exchange as equal partners on a basis of trust. In the third phase, strong local leaders were recruited into the process, which was key to anchor knowledge in the community and to reduce the risks of losing institutional memory in centralized, hierarchical institutions. For the fourth phase it should be stressed that by internalizing such lessons, cities might strengthen not only their own resilience, but also enhance future exchanges with other cities.

Adaptive Capacities for Diversified Flood Risk Management Strategies: Learning from Pilot Projects

“…It acknowledges the development of adaptive capacities as a result of pilot projects and enables to link this with three types of learning. The findings contribute to theories about niche-regime interactions [20] and policy transfer via pilot projects [63]. The ACW within the framework was used as a qualitative approach without scoring the adaptive capacities [22].…”

Flood Risk Governance for More Resilience—Reviewing the Special Issue’s Contribution to Existing Insights

“…Ilgen et al [22] concur with the need to involve a wide range of sectors. They point at mechanisms that can enhance city-to-city learning.…”

“…Similarly to den Boer et al [21], Silvana Ilgen, Frans Sengers and Arjan Wardekker [22] have studied city-to-city learning for urban resilience. They assessed the on the ground implementation of water squares in Rotterdam and Mexico City and therewith provided important insights about the functioning of knowledge-action networks (in Morrison et al's terms [12]).…”

“…In the words of the authors, multi-layered safety was introduced at a time in which flood risk governance was a 'tame' issue, while the issue would have needed 'untaming' first. Regarding context-sensitivity, Ilgen et al [22] identified an interesting mechanism. They showed that city-to-city learning processes can induce processes of international inter-city comparison, in which actors analyze their own systems and deliberately reframe their own narratives.…”

“…Iligen et al [22] note the need to involve private actors in building urban resilience. In addition, Molenveld and Van Buuren [19] have seen increased involvement of other types of actors in flood risk governance.…”