Interpreting sustainability and resilience in the built environment

Abstract

Purpose Conceptual interpretations of sustainability and resilience are widening with discursive use and altering the relationship and understanding of both concepts. By using three city case studies in the USA, this paper aims to consider which conceptual interpretations are operational and what is being measured in the context of city policy, municipal planning and built environment practice. With increasing pressures of urbanisation, it is imperative to consider which conceptual interpretations of resilience and sustainability are being measured in frameworks for the built environment if Risk-Informed Sustainable Development across multiple sectors is to be delivered. Design/methodology/approach Three case studies with semi-structured interviews have been thematically analysed to explore how sustainability and resilience have been operationalised at policy, planning and practice levels. Findings City policies, municipal planning and practitioners are working with different interpretations. Collectively Risk Informed Sustainable Development is not formally recognised. Policies recognise GHG reductions and natural hazard events; planning guidance stipulates Environmental Impact Assessments based on legal requirements; and practitioners consider passive-survivability and systematic thinking. Across the sectors, the Leadership in Environmental and Energy Assessment Method provides a common foundation but is used with varying requirements. Practical implications Decision-makers should incorporate risk-informed sustainable development, update codes of practice and legal requirements leading to exemplary practice becoming normalised. Social implications Passive-survivability should be affordable and adopt risk-informed sustainable development principles. Originality/value Three US city case studies with data collected from interviews have been analysed simultaneously at policy, planning and practice levels. Interrelated implications have been outlined on how to improve decision-making of sustainability and resilience across sectors.

Standardised indicators for “resilient cities”: the folly of devising a technical solution to a political problem

“…To understand the extent to which the root causes of urban risks are being addressed in the urban resilience agenda, we first carried out a content analysis of the ISO37123:2019 'Sustainable cities and communities -Indicators for resilient cities' (from herein, the Standard). Whilst several frameworks measuring urban resilience exist (see Marlow et al, 2022), our focus on the Standard was determined by the fact that ISO standards are widely known and recognised and have an undeniable impact on decision making and practice.…”

“…These two concepts are seen by some as two sides of the same coin (Rees, 2014), and by others as fundamentally in opposition (Benson and Craig, 2013). Many argue that the two concepts could and should be merged -yet several tensions emerge when trying to adopt both approaches simultaneously (Lizarralde et al, 2015;Elmqvist et al, 2019;Marlow et al, 2022). In policy, there has been a gradual change towards acknowledging the relationship between urban resilience and sustainability (e.g., Sendai Framework for DRR explicitly mentions sustainability, and the SDGs explicitly mention resilience).…”

“…Funding and political will are often absent. There is also a gap between the actual activities that effectively take place and both the messages of urgency (characteristic of UN agencies and other international organisations) and frameworks to guide governments and municipalities on what should be done (Kelman, 2020; Marlow et al , 2022; Cheek and Chmutina, 2022). Most international organisations have consistently argued that to promote and mainstream urban resilience, it is necessary to monitor the effectiveness of adaptive measures – and this can be best done through the implementation of standardised indicators (Figueiredo et al , 2018).…”

Measuring Resilience in the Assumed City

“…All three outlined themes are important-but to what extent do they reflect the notion of a resilient city? Carpenter et al (2001), Levine (2014), and Marlow et al (2022) among others have raised the question of whether resilience can and should be measured. Few, however, have asked whether what is measured is actually useful for understanding and enhancing the city.…”

The Role of Built Heritage for Sustainable Development Goals: From Statement to Action

“…This point is rather intuitive; but in some respects it rests on the interesting work of [74], that also proposes a conceptual comparison between 'ancient' and 'modern' resilience of buildings, i.e., between resilience as long-term design principle and as functional engineered feature. Built heritage resilience is a focus in many works [75][76][77]; its close link to the concept of innovation suggests a possible contribution of it to SDG9 with respect to actions on ancient as well as modern assets.…”