416
Resilience thinking is part of systems thinking in complexity science, and has
two central foci: one is to strengthen the current social-ecological-technological
system to live with change by enhancing the ability to adapt to potential external
pressures, in order to retain its essential functions and identity; the other is the ability to shift development pathways from those that are less desirable or unsustainable
to ones that are more desirable or sustainable –also referred to as transformability
(Walker et al. 2004; Folke et al. 2010).
A distinction is often made between general resilience and specified resilience
(Walker and Salt 2006). General resilience refers to the resilience of a system to all
kinds of shocks, including novel ones, whereas specified resilience refers to the
resilience ‘of what, to what’ – in other words, resilience of some particular part of a
system (related to a particular control variable) to one or more identified kinds of
shocks (Walker and Salt 2006; Folke et al. 2010). While sustainable development is
inherently normative and positive, this is not necessarily true for the resilience concept (Pickett et al. 2013). For example, development may lead to traps that are very
resilient and difficult to break out of. The desirability of specified resilience, in
particular, depends on careful analysis of resilience ‘of what, to what’ (Carpenter
et al. 2001) since many examples can be found of highly resilient systems (e.g.
oppressive political systems) locked into an undesirable system configuration or
state. It also may refer ‘to whom’ as a recognition of environmental inequity (e.g.
Pickett et al. 2011).
In general, both the sustainability and the resilience concepts (particularly general resilience) are not easily applicable to the city scale (Elmqvist et al. 2013a).
Cities are centres of production and consumption, and urban inhabitants are reliant
on resources and ecosystem services – including everything from food, water and
construction materials to waste assimilation – secured from locations outside of cities. Although cities can optimize their resource use, increase their efficiency and
minimize waste, they can never become fully self-sufficient (Grove 2009). For that
reason, it is not sufficient to de-couple cities from resource use (UNEP 2013), rather,
cities need to be re-coupled with the regional and global ecosystems in which they
are contained (Zhu et al. 2017). Therefore, individual cities cannot be considered
“sustainable” without acknowledging and accounting for their teleconnections
(Seto et al. 2012) – in other words, the long-distance dependence and impact on
ecosystems, resources and populations in other regions around the world (Folke
et al. 1997).
Virtually all living systems from the local to the global scale are open and interconnected networks. To achieve resilience for urban health, there is a need to better
understand the health and well-being effects of interventions at multiple scales of
complex urban systems (Brelsford et al. 2017). Further, as Markelova and Mwangi
(2012) point out, referring to Cash and Moser (2000), it is necessary to ascertain the
appropriate scale for evaluating benefits from complex systems, and choosing the
appropriate scale depends on numerous factors such as the specific objectives of a
study, the level of accuracy, and the value system chosen by the evaluator. In addition, interventions will not be effective “when a particular problem issue is managed
T. Elmqvist et al.
Resilience thinking is part of systems thinking in complexity science, and has
two central foci: one is to strengthen the current social-ecological-technological
system to live with change by enhancing the ability to adapt to potential external
pressures, in order to retain its essential functions and identity; the other is the ability to shift development pathways from those that are less desirable or unsustainable
to ones that are more desirable or sustainable –also referred to as transformability
(Walker et al. 2004; Folke et al. 2010).
A distinction is often made between general resilience and specified resilience
(Walker and Salt 2006). General resilience refers to the resilience of a system to all
kinds of shocks, including novel ones, whereas specified resilience refers to the
resilience ‘of what, to what’ – in other words, resilience of some particular part of a
system (related to a particular control variable) to one or more identified kinds of
shocks (Walker and Salt 2006; Folke et al. 2010). While sustainable development is
inherently normative and positive, this is not necessarily true for the resilience concept (Pickett et al. 2013). For example, development may lead to traps that are very
resilient and difficult to break out of. The desirability of specified resilience, in
particular, depends on careful analysis of resilience ‘of what, to what’ (Carpenter
et al. 2001) since many examples can be found of highly resilient systems (e.g.
oppressive political systems) locked into an undesirable system configuration or
state. It also may refer ‘to whom’ as a recognition of environmental inequity (e.g.
Pickett et al. 2011).
In general, both the sustainability and the resilience concepts (particularly general resilience) are not easily applicable to the city scale (Elmqvist et al. 2013a).
Cities are centres of production and consumption, and urban inhabitants are reliant
on resources and ecosystem services – including everything from food, water and
construction materials to waste assimilation – secured from locations outside of cities. Although cities can optimize their resource use, increase their efficiency and
minimize waste, they can never become fully self-sufficient (Grove 2009). For that
reason, it is not sufficient to de-couple cities from resource use (UNEP 2013), rather,
cities need to be re-coupled with the regional and global ecosystems in which they
are contained (Zhu et al. 2017). Therefore, individual cities cannot be considered
“sustainable” without acknowledging and accounting for their teleconnections
(Seto et al. 2012) – in other words, the long-distance dependence and impact on
ecosystems, resources and populations in other regions around the world (Folke
et al. 1997).
Virtually all living systems from the local to the global scale are open and interconnected networks. To achieve resilience for urban health, there is a need to better
understand the health and well-being effects of interventions at multiple scales of
complex urban systems (Brelsford et al. 2017). Further, as Markelova and Mwangi
(2012) point out, referring to Cash and Moser (2000), it is necessary to ascertain the
appropriate scale for evaluating benefits from complex systems, and choosing the
appropriate scale depends on numerous factors such as the specific objectives of a
study, the level of accuracy, and the value system chosen by the evaluator. In addition, interventions will not be effective “when a particular problem issue is managed
T. Elmqvist et al.