Community Resilience to Climate Change: Theory, Research and Practice

195 Future Directions At this point, you have read a variety of articles on resilience in general, and urban resilience to climate change in particular. You have perhaps developed an idea of how to characterize it, identify it, study it, and plan for it, based on past and current work in the field. You have likely also noticed some discrepancies between scholars and practitioners; competing themes and goals; and critiques of the resilience concept, all of which are shaping future directions in resilience studies and practice. Critiques & Limitations Despite its popularity among planners, policymakers, and some theorists, the notion of resilience is not above criticism. Many scholars and practitioners - particularly those with an interest in social justice - have noted that resilience goals too often prioritize an economic, ecological, or infrastructural status quo. If social systems are taken into account at all, the emphasis tends toward maintaining an existing regime, rather than improving it; on surviving rather than thriving, in other words. More radical thinkers argue that the ultimate goal should not be about maintaining, but about transforming institutions [1,2]. This is a call to address social justice issues as a key component of broader socio-ecological resilience, including such issues as social vulnerability, demographic inequity, and quality of life. While this mentality is gaining ground in academic circles, the practical reality of achieving transformation may be quite a challenge. However, practitioners can champion incremental changes from within, and urban climate plans increasingly make reference to equity and justice as critical components of a resilient city [see for example 3-5]. Only fairly recently have researchers come to appreciate the unstable nature of social-ecological systems. While planning for resilience has typically been about stability, mitigating risk and avoiding change, we are now somewhat more comfortable with the notion that change is inevitable. This has led to a gradual shift in resilience thinking away from rigidity, toward adaptation; the idea that we must be flexible and willing to adjust our practices, cities, and attitudes as needed. Again, this is easier said than done, but progressive cities have already begun putting this idea into practice, and adaptability will be a key metric of future climate resilience. In this same vein, there is an apparent need for resilience-oriented research and planning methods to acknowledge and account for the uncertainty inherent to climate change. Models and forecasts tell us what we might expect and plan for based on past trends, but future planning efforts are encouraged to explore alternative avenues for data gathering [6]. In this section, you will be presented with several articles on future directions for researchers and planning practitioners; progressive approaches to framing and pursuing resilience; and case studies which illustrate real-world intersections of resilience and social justice. Moving forward, it will be important for you to understand that resilience - how it is defined, framed, and applied - is a concept laden with power and normativity. Often the concept is wielded to maintain a status quo, achieve hegemonic short-term goals, and exclude marginalized populations; though it may just as readily be used in service of environmental justice, equity, and social transformation in the future. Literature Cited 1. Hart, A., Gagnon, E., Eryigit-Madzwamuse, S., Cameron, J., Aranda, K., Rathbone, A., & Heaver, B. (2016). Uniting resilience research and practice with an inequalities approach. SAGE Open, 6(4), 215824401668247. 2. Ziervogel, G., Pelling, M., Cartwright, A., Chu, E., Deshpande, T., Harris, L., … Zweig, P. (2017). Inserting rights and justice into urban resilience: a focus on everyday risk. Environment and Urbanization, 29(1), 123–138. 3. City of Portland, Climate Action Plan. 2015. Retrieved from https:/ www.portlandoregon.gov/bps/article/531984 4. City of Boston, Climate Action Plan. 2019. Retrieved from https:/ www.boston.gov/sites/default/files/imce-uploads/2019-10/city_ of_boston_2019_climate_action_plan_update_4.pdf 5. New York City, 1.5 °C Plan. 2017. Retrieved from https:/www1.nyc.gov/assets/sustainability/downloads/pdf/publications/1point5- AligningNYCwithParisAgrmt-02282018_web.pdf 6. Hill, K. (2016). Climate change: Implications for the assumptions, goals andmethods of urban environmental planning. Urban Planning, 1(4), 103.