From Policy Challenge to Implementation Strategy: Enabling Strategies for Network Governance of Urban Resilience

Abstract

What transformations do municipal administrations implement to enact a resilience policy? This article responds to this question from a comparative perspective by analyzing enabling and impeding mechanisms developed in the cities of Montreal (Canada) and London (UK) as they establish their strategies. Collaborative network governance and institutional work mechanisms used in Montreal and London are analyzed in connection with the influence of macro‐ and micro‐contextual elements under which a network can resiliently manage risk and crises. In both cases, the development of resilience emerges from their emergency management structures, as units in charge try to animate their new area of responsibility through collaborative governance. As a siloed approach this is embedded in daily routines, organizations with limited resources focused on shared motivation and values, collaboration across organizational boundaries and creation of joint capacity to implement resilience. This transformative process concerns the organization in charge of resilience in the municipal administration and the wider network that they build and animate.

A systematic review of 20 years of crisis and disaster research: Trends and progress

“…Since 2009, a growing number of studies began to focus on the response phase. This shift is visible in the research on incident command (Barton et al, 2015;Curnin et al, 2015;Wolbers & Boersma, 2013), collaborative networks (Larsson, 2017;Oscarsson, 2019, Therrien & Normandin, 2020, crisis communication (Olsson, 2014;Palttala et al, 2012), and, most recently, social media research (Reuter & Kaufhold, 2018;Wukich, 2019) (Figure 5).…”

A Connected Community Approach: Citizens and Formal Institutions Working Together to Build Community-Centred Resilience

“…This process is largely dependent on whether communities’ lived experience, local expertise, and context are the focal point for inclusive planning, response, and recovery efforts, or whether communities are seen simply as the beneficiary of institutionally led planning and action. At issue are forms of urban governance that emphasize co-production with a wide range of stakeholders (especially affected communities) [ 102 , 103 , 104 , 105 , 106 ] the nature of relational networks that facilitate participatory governance [ 47 , 51 , 107 ], and the broader local socio-political cultures in which particular arrangements are shaped and embedded [ 73 ]. In order for a community to truly be resilient, it is often the formal systems and responses that need to adapt to local contexts.…”

Local governance of critical infrastructure resilience: Types of coordination in German cities

“…In addition, regulation as a source of governmental power is limited in the area of critical infrastructure governance at the local level. Challenges to critical infrastructure resilience cannot be solved by traditional hierarchical forms of public administration but require alternative forms of governance (Therrien & Normandin, 2020, p. 3). Thus, hierarchical governance can only be expected to a very limited extent, mostly in providing prevention measures or top‐down crisis responses (Boin & McConnell, 2007b, p. 54).…”

“…Measures to increase resilience are expected primarily at the local level, as in Germany, and many other countries, executive and political responsibility for the provision of civil security is mainly delegated to local and regional governments (Bossong & Hegemann, 2013, p. 361). This includes the physical critical infrastructure but in consequence also the local community as such (Monstadt & Schmidt, 2019; Therrien & Normandin, 2020).…”

“…Governance processes, that is, the type of coordination involving independent actors to achieve critical infrastructure resilience, have barely been specified. They are mainly described as collaborative governance approaches without detailed specification (Boin & McConnell, 2007b, p. 55; Head & Alford, 2015, p. 722; Labaka et al, 2016, p. 24; Pursiainen, 2018, p. 635; Therrien & Normandin, 2020, p. 3). Since there is little research on the governance of critical infrastructure resilience at the local level, we do not pursue an explanatory approach here, but first want to explore the field empirically.…”