On July 31, 100 Resilient Cities (100RC) officially ceased its operations, marking a turning point in the modern urban resiliency movement to create cities that can bounce back from disaster. In six years, the Rockefeller Foundation-funded initiative brought a standardized urban resilience framework to cities across the globe, facilitating the development of more than 80 resilience plans in the process. As a result of its work, urban resiliency planning has become a common practice for city governments, with many institutionalizing the position of a chief resiliency officer.
100RC defined resilience as a city’s capacity to respond and adapt to sudden shocks, such as an earthquake, as well as persistent stresses, such as a housing shortage. However, its model was flexible, providing room for cities to formulate their own interpretation of urban resilience that fit their unique contexts. As the program matured, many cities chose to position social equity as a guiding principle for approaching all aspects of urban resilience—even though the organization itself made no direct mention of social equity in its official documents. Yet, one of the biggest legacies for the urban resilience movement may ultimately be its incorporation of social equity in resilience planning.
Applying a social equity lens to address both shocks and stresses acknowledges that their effects are not shared equally among all residents in a city. Rather, different social identifiers such as class, gender, race, and age can render an individual more vulnerable to the impacts than others due to complex systemic and institutionalize inequalities. In doing so, 100RC and its member cities have demonstrated how concepts such as social equity could enhance our understanding of urban resilience moving forward.
Rotterdam, which has one of 100RC’s first resilience plans, serves as an example of a city that closely adhered to the 100RC’s City Resiliency Framework (CRF), eschewing a social equity approach in favor of broad, agreeable goals. In line with 100RC’s guidelines, Rotterdam’s resilience plan identified social cohesion and education as one of the primary challenges facing the city, and outlined action items that provided skills training, education, and health services as well as tracked social tensions. Although these are the types of services that can help bridge gaps among communities, the plan makes no mention of the particular challenges faced by various vulnerable communities in Rotterdam, and fails to consider that these communities may require more and different resources than others to truly be on equal footing. The plan’s climate adaption measures similarly focus on broad city-wide improvements rather than acknowledging and prioritizing existing gaps in infrastructure and services affecting vulnerable communities, again following the logic that an equal distribution of resources will produce fair outcomes.
Later resilience plans, by contrast, took a much stronger equity approach. In 2017, Boston redefined resilience by adopting a racial equity lens. Given its history of systemic racial inequality, Boston determined goals and objectives by their ability to both challenge and close the wealth gap that exists along racial lines and to not inadvertently exacerbate existing racial disparities. The city recognized that not accounting for this social and political landscape would produce ineffective solutions, wasting time and energy as social inequity persists as a stress and communities continue to lack the capacity to bounce back from shocks. Boston was not alone in its thinking, as many cities, including Vancouver, Buenos Aires, and Santiago, prioritized social equity in their resilience planning.
Despite its absence in their official definitions and frameworks, social equity has now become a subject of discussion not only among member cities but also by 100RC staff. 100RC’s former president, Michael Berkowitz, spoke at length about equity on the Power of Nature panel at the 2019 Pritzker Forum on Global Affairs this past June. Additionally, in their final report, “Resilient Cities, Resilient Lives,” 100RC identified it as an “urban sector” alongside categories such as climate change, economic development, and housing, thus becoming an umbrella term under which to group targeted actions by the city government. This, however, risks reinforcing the false impression that, for instance, infrastructure improvements have no relation to equity initiatives when they are in fact closely linked.
During this time of transition within the urban resilience movement, resilience advocates have a chance to incorporate social equity more fully into the definition and framing of urban resiliency planning. If one looks to the ways in which cities interpret and build off the framework as indications of what is important and necessary, social equity arises as a needed addition. Not only are cities independently identifying it as an essential factor in effective resiliency planning, but current conditions such as the growing wealth disparity in the U.S. and other countries also underscore its necessity. Thus, social equity is not just a fad within the philanthropic community but an imperative tool in solving the challenges of this century. Now is the time to build off the work of 100RC and equip urban resilience planning with a more holistic framework.
The Chicago Council on Global Affairs is an independent, nonpartisan organization that provides insight – and influences the public discourse – on critical global issues. We convene leading global voices and conduct independent research to bring clarity and offer solutions to challenges and opportunities across the globe. The Council is committed to engaging the public and raising global awareness of issues that transcend borders and transform how people, business, and governments engage the world.
The Chicago Council on Global Affairs is an independent, nonpartisan organization. All statements of fact and expressions of opinion in blog posts are the sole responsibility of the individual author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Council.
Michelle Gavin joins Deep Dish to explain why Ethiopia’s fate will affect the stability of the region and African influence on global affairs.
CNN’s Fareed Zakaria joins Deep Dish to explain why today’s crises are the product of the international system and how the quality, not quantity, of government is part of the solution.
Author Rebecca Lissner joins Deep Dish to argue that while there are domestic challenges ahead, President-Elect Biden has a unique opportunity to reimagine the US approach to foreign policy and focus on openness, rather than dominance.
As the world waits to learn who won the 2020 election, American Enterprise Institute’s Kori Schake joins Council President Ivo Daalder and Deep Dish host Brian Hanson to examine how the results – whenever they arrive – will affect US foreign policy, global relationships, and national security.
Political scientist Claudia Heiss joins Deep Dish to explain what to watch for during the two-year drafting process and examine whether wide-spread change is possible for Chile.
Council polling experts Dina Smeltz and Craig Kafura join Deep Dish to examine how public opinion matches up with the candidates’ perspectives and whether issues like China’s rise, global cooperation, climate change, and trade are driving voter decision making.
Author and former White House Middle East advisor and expert Philip Gordon joins Deep Dish to explain that while regime change is a tempting policy option, in the long-term it leads to high costs, unintended consequences, and the spread of instability.
While there is nothing convenient about 2020, the upcoming Pritzker Forum on Global Cities has been helpfully anticipated by a series of publications that speak to the high stakes currently in play in cities around the world and the urgent need - from the perspective of both efficacy and equity - to adapt governance practices.
Stanford University’s Michael Auslin and Teneo Intelligence’s Tobias Harris join Deep Dish to explain how the 2020 election could influence US foreign policy towards Japan and whether Suga has the power to successfully continue former Prime Minister Abe’s legacy.
The New York Times’ Andrew Kramer and Chatham House’s Laurence Broers Join Deep Dish to examine what the conflict could mean for the region and Russia’s broader competition with Turkey for power.
In honor of world podcast day, September 30, here are five of our recent Deep Dish episodes that explain what’s happening in our world and why these issues are so important.
BP’s Trine Mong and McDonald’s Francesca DeBiase join Deep Dish to explain how their companies are making strides towards sustainability to support the SDGs and revolutionize their industries.
USAID’s Jim Barnhart joins Deep Dish to explain why there’s still hope for eradicating hunger within this generation.
Princeton University’s Laurence Ralph and the Council on Criminal Justice’s Thomas Abt join Deep Dish to explain why police brutality is not a uniquely American phenomenon and argue the strongest examples of successful police reform come from outside the United States.