Resilience andResource Efficiency
in Cities

Copyright © United Nations Environment Programme, 2017
This publication may be reproduced in whole or in part and in any form for educational or non-profit purposes without
special permission from the copyright holder, provided acknowledgement of the source is made. UN Environment would
appreciate receiving a copy of any publication that uses this publication as a source.
No use of this publication may be made for resale or for any other commercial purpose whatsoever without prior permission
in writing from the United Nations Environment Programme.
Design/layout: Anna Mortreux
Printing: xxx
Cover photos: New York City High Line ©US Department of Agriculture, 2015
ISBN No: 978-92-807-3648-9
Job No: DTI/2102/PA
Disclaimer
The designations employed and the presentation of the material in thispublication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoeveron the part of the United Nations Environment Programme
concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area
or of its authorities, or concerning delimitation of its frontiers orboundaries. Moreover, the views expressed do not necessarily
represent the decision or the stated policy of the United
Nations Environment Programme, nor does citing of trade
names or commercial processes constitute endorsement.

UN Environment promotes
environmentally sound practices
globally and in its own activities. Thispublication is printed on 100% recycled paper,using vegetable - based inks and other ecofriendly practices. Our distribution policy aims to
reduce UNEP’s carbon footprint.

Resilience and Resource Efficiency
in Cities

Acknowledgements
Lead Authors: David Dodman, Loan Diep, and Sarah Colenbrander of the International Institute forEnvironment and Development.
Editorial supervision and coordination: UN Environment, Economy Division with special thanks to Arab
Hoballah, Martina Otto, and Sharon Gil who provided content input and conceptual direction at various
stages of this report.
Peer review: This report went through several rounds of peer review coordinated in an efficient and constructive
way by Sharon Gil, Nicola Da Schio, and André Confiado of UN Environment all of whom also reviewed the
document. Our gratitude to the external reviewers: Ghislaine Guiran, Ecosystems Division external expert;
Jacob Halcomb, International Initiative for a Sustainable Built Environment, Darryn McEvoy, RMIT University,
Blake Robinson, Sustainability Institute, Andrew Rudd, UN-Habitat, Omar Siddique, Cities Alliance.
The report also benefited from the inputs of the expert group discussions which was part of the Habitat
III process and was recently updated to include elements of the New Urban Agenda and the Sustainable
Development Goals. This was possible through the support of the Rockefeller Foundation. Special thanks to
RF colleagues, Anna Brown, Carey Myers, and Sundaa Bridgett-Jones, for their thoughts and inputs during
the Habitat III process which strengthened the link between resilience and environmental sustainability.

2

Resilience and Resource Efficiency in Cities

Foreword
Improving resilience was at the heart of the Third United Nations Conference on Housing and Sustainable
Urban Development (Habitat III) held 17 - 20 October 2016 in Quito; and this was reflected in its outcome
document, the New Urban Agenda. The New Urban Agenda recognized ‘’environmentally sustainable andresilient urban development’’ as one of three transformative commitments to make the vision of a resource
efficient city a reality. In paragraph 71 of the New Urban Agenda, world leaders outlined their commitment
to, “strengthening the sustainable management of resources – including land, water (oceans, seas, andfreshwater), energy, materials, forests, and food, with particular attention to the environmentally soundmanagement and minimization of all waste, hazardous chemicals…in a way that considers urban-rural
linkages and functional supply and value chains…” This report responds directly to Paragraph 71, theconcepts behind it, and its implication in improving overall city resilience.
As a technical contribution to the Habitat III process, UN Environment and The Rockefeller Foundation co-led
a series of meetings involving experts from around the globe to define and refine ‘resilience’. What came fromthis process is a ‘marriage’ of the concepts of resilience and resource efficiency. The two have traditionally
had different audiences and consequently different narratives, metaphors, and tools for understanding andshaping urban development. Resilience is often linked with the climate change adaptation perspective while
resource efficiency – often looking into sustainable transport and mobility, energy, and resource efficiency –is seen more from a mitigation perspective.
The expert discussions highlighted that while there are differences, and at times tensions, between thetwo concepts, they are complementary. For example, latent stresses such as flaws in the food system andwater supply, are not always prioritized within short political timelines, but are essential to city resilience.
Integrating the resilience and resource efficiency agendas into the planning of a city can therefore help it
withstand shocks and stresses, and enhance the safety, security, and survival of its citizens.
UN Environment believes that understanding the connections between resilience and resource efficiency
helps cities in developing integrated solutions towards sustainable urbanization. It reinforces the need forhorizontal (across sectors) integration and vertical (across different levels of governance) collaboration
to harness benefits for people and the planet. Linking both concepts also supports countries in achieving
the different milestone agreements that were recently concluded: the Sustainable Development Goals, theSendai Framework, the Paris Agreement and the New Urban Agenda, all of which recognized the critical roleof urbanization and action at the city-level.
Our hope is that this report contributes to a positive trend towards successful implementation of the New
Urban Agenda and other international agreements while supporting urban practitioners in building andmanaging low carbon, resilient, and resource efficient cities.

Ligia Noronha
Director, Economy Division, UN Environment

3

Executive Summary
Rationale for the Report
Urban areas accounted for 54% of the total global population in 2014. Yet activities incities account for 70-75% of natural resource consumption, with significant impacts forresource availability and ecosystems in areas far beyond urban boundaries. Cities are also
disproportionately susceptible to a range of environmental hazards due to their concentration ofpeople, infrastructure and economic activity; their exposure to risk is likely to further increase withclimate change. The resource efficiency and resilience of cities will become even more significant
as urban population and economic growth continues: the global urban population is projected
to increase by approximately 1.84% every year between 2015 and 2020, with 90% of this growthoccurring in Asia and Africa.
The major global challenges of the 21st century – urbanisation, climate change, resource scarcity
and poverty – therefore have huge implications for urban planners and policymakers. This report
looks at the relationship between building the resilience of cities in the face of global environmental
change, and increasing the resource efficiency of cities to reduce their harmful impacts on theenvironment. It provides examples of effective ways to address these agendas, as well as thepotential and challenges for integration. This speaks strongly to global policy agendas, including
the Sustainable Development Goals, the Paris Agreement and the New Urban Agenda.

A focus on cities
Although cities are home to just over half the world’s population, they generate more than 80%
of global GDP. Cities require substantial inputs to support this level of economic activity. Local
resource scarcity can require cities to import resources from far beyond their boundaries,
constructing complex infrastructure systems to transport essentials such as water, food andenergy. The social and ecological impacts of urban areas therefore stretch far beyond cityboundaries.
Cities can also be hotspots of vulnerability, as illustrated by the growing number of urban
dwellers in hazard-prone areas such as deltas and coastlines. Their exposure and susceptibility
to risk is mediated by urban forms and functions, which often give greater access to resources
to certain parts of the population at the expense of others. Low-income and other vulnerable
urban residents (for example, women, children, elderly, migrants and people living withdisabilities) are therefore likely to be particularly vulnerable.
In the face of both resource scarcity and environmental hazards, cities are strategically positioned
to be leaders of change. Placed at an intermediary scale between individuals and nation-states,
cities can take actions which affect other scales through a ripple effect. City governments often
have relevant powers over (for instance) spatial planning, solid waste management and building
standards; although their institutional, technical and financial capacity to address these varies
greatly. The density and proximity of urban areas reduce the economic and environmental costsof providing most infrastructure and services. As hubs where people and economic activities areconcentrated, they are important sites for knowledge sharing and policy experimentation.

4

Resilience and Resource Efficiency in Cities

Key Messages
 A resilience agenda can help cities become more resource efficient by being more flexible andby being better able to learn and respond to changed circumstances. The process of building
resilience can therefore simultaneously offer opportunities to build resource efficiency.
 A resource efficiency agenda can help cities to become more resilient by reducing exposure to
the risk of shortfalls in essential inputs. Various inputs addressed in a resource efficiency agenda(materials, products, water, energy, food) are all essential for urban functioning. The outcome ofachieving greater resource efficiency can contribute to a city becoming more resilient, because it
will rely less heavily on the systems that provide resources.
 A number of areas of action are common to both concepts, therefore providing ground formutual reinforcement. City leaders aiming to achieve both resilience and resource efficiency canadopt measures for each with the potential to contribute to the achievement of both objectives.
 Possible tensions between resource efficiency and resilience may also exist. Redundancy andmodularity may help cities to be more resilient to shocks and stresses, but could also be framed
as representing inefficient use of resources. Overcoming these potential conflicts will require more
integrated and responsive urban planning and governance.
 Achieving resilience and resource efficiency at city-level can help meet broader sustainability
objectives. The urban resilience and resource efficiency concepts have overlapping objectives
and both aim at addressing major challenges such as climate change and pressure on natural
resources. They are concerned not only with short-term achievements, but also with providing key
tools for the long-term sustainable development of cities.

Structure of the Report
The report has three main sections: on resilience, on resource efficiency, and on the nexus between
the two. For each concept, it explores the state-of-the-art in understanding and implementation– looking at definitions, characteristics, benefits, limitations and practical applications. It thenexplores the links between the principles, objectives, and initiatives associated with urban resilienceand resource efficiency.
This report draws on theoretical and grey literature. More importantly, however, it is informed by
the inputs of city officials from Africa, Asia and Latin America at a series of workshops on resource
efficient cities held in 2013 and 2014. The case studies presented here – largely initiated by city
officials – show how urban areas around the world are grappling with the different ecologicaland social challenges, and indicate potential avenues for other towns and cities to achieve thetransformative commitments of the New Urban Agenda.
The report concludes that resource efficiency is an essential element to urban resilience, and that
resource efficiency can be accomplished more effectively when it is built in the context of a resilientsystem. The conceptual analysis and case studies make it clear that considering these issues
together can help planners to address global challenges, such as climate change and poverty.

5

Table of Contents
Acknowledgements2

Foreword

3

Executive Summary

4

Glossary

8

Figures and Tables

11

Acronyms

12

1

2

INTRODUCTION _________________________________________________________________________ 13
1.1 The global urban context

13

1.2 Resilience and resource efficiency in cities

15

1.3 Introduction to the report

15

FRAMING URBAN RESILIENCE __________________________________________________________ 16
2.1 What is resilience?
2.1.1

Definition and principles

16

2.1.2

Linking resilience and climate change responses

18

2.2 Building resilience at city level: why and how

3

18

2.2.1

Resilience at the city level

18

2.2.2

Characteristics of a resilient city19

2.3 Co-benefits from building urban resilience20

2.4 Critiques and challenges to resilience22

2.5 Case Studies

22

2.6 Conclusions

28

FRAMING RESOURCE EFFICIENCY ______________________________________________________ 29
3.1 Resource efficiency in context

29

3.1.1

Introduction

29

3.1.2

Definition and principles

29

Related concepts

30

3.2 Resource efficiency at the scale of the city: implications and trends
3.2.1
3.2.2

30

Why resource efficiency at city-level?

30

Urban metabolism: a way of looking at resources flowing through cities

32

A sectoral analysis of resource efficiency in cities

32

Energy

32

Water

34

Food

34

Waste

35

3.3 Benefits of building resource efficient cities

35

3.3.1

Higher productivity at a lower cost

35

3.3.2

Job creation and local economies

37

3.3.3

GHG emissions, ecological conservation and integration

38

3.4 Challenges, limits and debates

6

16

38

3.4.1

Does resource efficiency resolve problems of dependence?

38

3.4.2

Tension between resource efficiency and cross-sectoral thinking

38

3.5 Case studies38

3.6 Conclusions

44

Resilience and Resource Efficiency in Cities

4

EXPLORING THE NEXUS BETWEEN RESILIENCE AND RESOURCE EFFICIENCY _______ 44
4.1 Introduction: linking the concepts

44

4.2 Shared principles and objectives

44

4.2.1

New thinking on approaches to and preparedness for challenges

44

4.2.2

Making use of learning to deal with uncertainty

45

4.2.3

Understanding risks

45

4.2.4

Optimising and preserving resource flows

45

4.2.5

Maintaining diversity

46

4.2.6

Minimising impacts on environmental assets and conserving ecological functions

46

4.2.7

Saving costs

46

4.2.8

What boundaries and scale for action?

46

4.3 Distinct and common characteristics between resilient cities and resource efficient cities
4.3.1

4.3.2

47

Characteristics of a resilient city and its sub-systems

48

Infrastructure and services

48

Individuals, institutions and governance networks

48

Natural ecosystems

48

Characteristics of a resource efficient city and its sub-systems

48

Infrastructure and services

48

Individuals, institutions and governance networks

48

Natural ecosystems

49

4.4 Towards an integrated agenda

49

4.4.1

Complementary activities vs conflicting activities

49

4.4.2

Identifying and addressing trade-offs

51

4.5 Case studies

51

4.6 Conclusion: co-benefits from achieving resilience and resource efficiency

55

7

Glossary

8

Biodiversity

Biodiversity means the variability among living organisms from all sources including terrestrial,
marine and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are part; thisincludes diversity within species, between species and of ecosystems. (Convention on Biological
Diversity, 1993)

City

Cities are places where large numbers of people live and work; they are hubs of government,commerce and transportation. But how best to define the geographical limits of a city is amatter of some debate. So far, no standardized international criteria exist for determining theboundaries of a city and often multiple different boundary definitions are available for any given
city. (United Nations Department of Economic & Social Affairs, 2016)

Climate change

A change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters thecomposition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability
observed over comparable time periods. (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change, 2011)

Climate change
adaptation

Adjustments in ecological, social, or economic systems in response to actual or expectedclimatic stimuli and their effects or impacts. It refers to changes in processes, practices, andstructures to moderate potential damages or to benefit from opportunities associated withclimate change. (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, n.d.)

Climate change
mitigation

Efforts to reduce the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, either by reducing
emissions or by removing these gases from the atmosphere. Mitigation can be achieved byusing new technologies and renewable energies, making older equipment more energy efficient,or changing management practices or consumer behavior.

Decoupling

Relative decoupling: a lower rate in growth of a type of environmental pressure in relation to therate of growth of a related economic activity. Absolute decoupling: an environmental pressure
either remaining stable or decreasing while the related economic activity increases.

Disaster Risk
Reduction

The concept and practice of reducing disaster risks through systematic efforts to analyse andreduce the causal factors of disasters. Reducing exposure to hazards, lessening vulnerabilityof people and property, wise management of land and the environment, and improving
preparedness and early warning for adverse events are all examples of disaster risk reduction.
(United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, n.d.)

Ecosystems

A dynamic complex of plant, animal and microorganism communities and their nonliving
environment interacting as a functional unit. (United Nations Environment Programme, n.d.)Environmental
Footprint

The environmental footprint is a means of measuring the impacts of a person, company,
activity, product, etc. on the environment. The framework has been applied specifically to cities.
(Wackernagel et al. 2006)

Governance

The exercise of economic, political and administrative authority to manage a country’s affairs at
all levels. It comprises the mechanisms, processes and institutions through which citizens andgroups articulate their interests, exercise their legal rights, meet their obligations and mediate
their differences. (United Nations Economic and Social Council, 2006)

Green Economy

A green economy is one that results in improved human well-being and social equity, while
significantly reducing environmental risks and ecological scarcities. In its simplest expression, agreen economy is low-carbon, resource-efficient, and socially inclusive. (UNEP 2011)

Green Infrastructure

Green Infrastructure refers to natural or seminatural ecosystems that provide utility services
that complement, augment or replace those provided by grey infrastructure. (United Nations
Environment Programme, 2014)

Resilience and Resource Efficiency in Cities

Greenhouse Gases

The atmospheric gases responsible for causing global warming and climate change. The major
GHGs are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N20). Less prevalent --butvery powerful -- greenhouse gases are hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs) andsulphur hexafluoride (SF6). (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, n.d.)

Infrastructure

The system of public works in a country, state or region, including roads, utility lines and publicbuildings. (United Nations Department of Economic & Social Affairs, 2000)

Institutions

institutions are rules and norms held in common by social actors that guide, constrain, andshape human interaction. Institutions can be formal, such as laws and policies, or informal, suchas norms and conventions. Organizations – such as parliaments, regulatory agencies, private
firms, and community bodies – develop and act in response to institutional frameworks and the
incentives they frame. Institutions can guide, constrain, and shape human interaction throughdirect control, through incentives, and through processes of socialization. (IPCC 2014)

Local food systems

A system that embraces all the elements (environment, people, inputs, processes, infrastructure,
institutions, markets and trade) and activities that relate to the production, processing,
distribution and marketing, preparation and consumption of food and the outputs of these
activities, including socio-economic and environmental outcomes. (United Nations Secretary
General’s High-Level Task Force on Global Food and Nutrition Security, 2015)

Metropolitan regions

Highly urbanized, city-regional areas that are characterized by a high population density as well
as a concentration of economic, political and cultural activities. Metropolitan regions form partof the global city-network and exhibit a specific governance structure that provides mechanisms
of inter-jurisdictional cooperation between core cities and their hinterland. (GIZ, 2014)

New Urban Agenda

An action-oriented document adopted at the United Nations Conference on Housing andSustainable Urban Development, known as Habitat III, held in Quito, Ecuador from 17-20 October
2016. It sets global standards of achievement in sustainable urban development, and redefines
the way in which cities are built, managed and lived in through drawing together cooperation
with committed partners, relevant stakeholders, and urban actors at all levels of government aswell as the private sector. (Habitat 3 Secretariat, 2016)

Planetary Boundaries

A planetary boundaries framework defines a safe operating space for humanity to develop andthrive, according to nine defined biophysical processes that regulate the earth’s system. It provides
a science-based analysis of the risks caused by human activities interfering with the earth’s naturalfunctions (although is less directly relevant at the scale of cities). (Rockström et al., 2009; Steffen
et al., 2015).

Rainwater harvesting

Involves collecting and storing rainwater in reservoirs or tanks, or facilitating the infiltration of
rainwater into subsurface aquifers before it is lost as surface runoff. Rainwater harvesting canreduce water deficits by increasing the supply available to prospective users.

Resilience

The ability of a system, community or society exposed to hazards to resist, absorb,
accommodate, adapt to, transform and recover from the effects of a hazard in a timely andefficient manner, including through the preservation and restoration of its essential basic
structures and functions through risk management. (United Nations Office for Disaster Risk
Reduction, 2009)

Resource Efficiency

Resource efficiency refers to a means of achieving more productive use of resources. By taking
the whole lifecycle of resources into account – from the extraction of raw materials to final use
and waste disposal – and considering them from a value chain perspective, practitioners canidentify opportunities to reduce waste. Analysing value chains can help to identify potential
externalities that might not be immediately perceptible over the long-term or within certain
geographical boundaries. (UNEP 2010).

Risk

The combination of the probability of an event and its negative consequences. (United Nations
Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, 2009)9

10

Spatial Planning

A method used largely by the public sector to influence the future distribution of activities in space.
Spatial planning is undertaken with the aims of creating a more rational territorial organization ofland uses and the linkages between them, to balance demands for development with the need toprotect the environment and to achieve social and economic development objectives. (European
Commission, 28) – year??

Sustainable
Development

Development which meets the needs of current generations without compromising the ability of
future generations to meet their own needs. (United Nations, 1987)

Sustainable
Development Goals

A set of goals to end poverty, protect the planet, and ensure prosperity for all as part of a newsustainable development agenda. Each goal has specific targets to be achieved over the next
15 years. Adopted on 25th September 2015. (United Nations, 2015)

Transformation

A change in the fundamental attributes of a system, often based on altered paradigms, goals, orvalues. Transformations can occur in technological or biological systems, financial structures,and regulatory, legislative, or administrative regimes. (IPCC 2014)

Urban Heat Island

An effect whereby urban areas have higher temperatures than those of the rural areas at their
peripheries.

Urban Metabolism

A way of looking at cities and all the resources that flow within their complex networks(“material flows”) of interlocked social and physical infrastructure. It conceptualizes the city
as a living super-organism in which there are continuous flows of inputs and outputs helps inthe study of the patterns of movements of matter and energy. This helps identify opportunities
for sustainable resource management and can be linked with infrastructure in order to findalternative ways of using resources sustainably.

Urbanisation

Increase in the proportion of a population living in urban areas; the process by which a large
number of people becomes permanently concentrated in relatively small areas, forming cities.
(OECD, 2003)

Value Chain

The entire sequence of activities or parties that provide or receive value in the form of products
or services (e.g. suppliers, outsourced workers, contractors, investors, R&D, customers,
consumers, members) (ISO 14001 CD2, 2013). (United Nations Environment Programme, 2014)

Vulnerability

The conditions determined by physical, social, economic and environmental factors or processes
which increase the susceptibility of an individual, a community, assets or systems to the impactsof hazards. (United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, 2009)

Waste to Energy

The treatment of waste to generate energy in the form of electricity, heat or transport fuels.
These can use different types of waste – solid, liquid and gaseous – although municipal solid
waste remains the most common source. Methodologies include thermo-chemical conversion(e.g. incineration), bio-chemical (biogas production) and esterification (Eurostat, 2013; World
Energy Council, 2013).

Sustainable Urban
Development*

Sustainable urban development refers to the normative outcome of policies and actions related
to the urban ecology, where “sustainable” is defined as the state wherein natural systems
function, remain diverse and enable the ecosystem to remain in balance.

Resilience and Resource Efficiency in Cities

Figures and Tables
Figure 1

Percentage urban and urban agglomerations by size class; Source: UN-DESA 2014 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Figure 2

The proportion of the population living in informal settlements by region
between 1990 and 2014; Source: UN-HABITAT 2016 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Figure 3

The 3D resilience framework proposed by Béné et al., 2012 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Figure 4

New York City High Line; Source: US Department of Agriculture, 2015 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Figure 5

Coastal flooding in Semarang; Source: Wicaksono: 2014 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Figure 6

Rainwater harvesting as a way of building urban resilience to climate impacts on water resources;
Sources: Brown, 2011 (left); ACCCRN, 2013 (right) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Figure 7

Lusaka, Zambia at Night; Source: Lighton Phiri, 2013 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Figure 8:

Opening of the new green roof on the podium of City Hall during Doors Open 2010,
Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Source: Tabercil, 2010. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Figure 9:

Green roof at Mountain Equipment Coop, Toronto, Canada; Source: sookie, 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Figure 10

Mitigation activities being undertaken by cities; Source: Figure 12.22 in Seto and Dhakal, 2014 . . . . 37

Figure 11

The Pearl River Tower in Guangzhou makes use of wind pushing turbines to produce
energy for the building; Sources: 21st Century Architecture, 2012 (sketch)and GuoZhongHua / Shutterstock, 2011 (picture) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Figure 12

Example of a porch designed according to the principles of traditional Lingnan
vernacular architecture; Source: Linortner, 2012 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Figure 13

Lingnan-style Qilou buildings in Guangzhou;
Source: Guangzhou Daily in Wang and Keyton, 2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Figure 14

San Juan de Lurigancho desde Cerro San Cristóbal (Lima, Perú);Source: KaMpEr, 2012 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Figure 15

Wastewater rejected in the Rimac River without treatment;
Source: Loan Diep . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Figure 16

Industrial wastewater directly rejected into the ocean in Metropolitan Lima;
Source: Jan Hoffmann . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Figure 17

Constructed wetland for wastewater treatment in Metropolitan Lima;
Source: ILPÖ, 2013; cited in Eisenberg et al., 2014 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Figure 18

Accumulated garbage in Kohn Kaen city;
Source: Wannapreuk in Nathanri, 2014 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Figure 19

Pyrolysis plant processing plastic garbage into oil; Source: Hongyon, 2013 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Figure 20

Areas of action to build resilience and resource efficiency; Source: authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Figure 21

Examples of mutually reinforcing activities meeting both the resilience and resource
efficiency agendas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Figure 22

Energy is a vital part in the daily life of the citizens of New York City; Source: Jan Hoffmann . . . . . . 52

Table 1Sub-characteristics and goals of a resilient system;
Source: adapted from Walker et al. (2004), Martin-Breen and Andries (2011);
Barthel and Idendahl (2014), Béné et al. (2014) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Table 2Concepts related to resource efficiency; Source: Authors

Table 3

Example of threshold definition for a system exposed to water and food unavailability;
Source: Guiran, 2014; adapted from Walker et al., 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

11

Acronyms

12

ACCCRN

Asian Cities Climate Change Resilience Network

ADB

Asian Development Bank

C40

Cities Climate Leadership GroupCRI

Climate Resilience Index

GFDRR

Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery

GHG

Greenhouse Gas

GI-REC

Global Initiative for Resource Efficient Cities

GIZ

Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (German Federal Enterprise forInternational Cooperation)ICLEIInternational Council for Local Environmental Initiatives

IDB

Inter-American Development Bank

IIEDInternational Institute for Environment and Development

IPCC

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

MFA

Material Flow Analysis

TAMD

Tracking Adaptation and Measuring Development

UNEP

United Nations Environment Programme

UN-Habitat

United Nations Human Settlements Programme

UNISDR

United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction

WB

World Bank

Resilience and Resource Efficiency in Cities

1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 The global urban context
The major challenges of the 21st century –urbanisation, climate change, resource scarcity
and poverty – have huge implications for urban
planners and policymakers. According to the
Global Health Observatory, the urban populationaccounted for 54% of the total global populationin 2014, which represented a significant jumpin comparison to 34% in 1960 (WHO, 2014). It isestimated that the global urban population willgrow by approximately 1.84% every year between
2015 and 2020. Although the rate of urban
population growth will subsequently slow, theworld will still see 2.5 billion people added to theglobal urban population by 2050. Nearly 90% of
this growth is occurring in Asia and Africa (UNDESA, 2014).

Decision-makers must also grapple with climatechange, with its range of short- and long-term risks.
More frequent and intense droughts and floods,
sea-level rise and storm surges add stress topeople, infrastructure and ecological systems (IPCC,
2014). The growing number of urban dwellers inhazard-prone areas – such as coastlines – clearly
illustrates the dangers to which cities are exposed.
In low- and middle-income countries, hundreds ofmillions of urban residents are at risk from the direct
and indirect impacts of climate change (Dodman
et al., 2009). Low-income and other marginalised
groups are typically the most vulnerable. For
example, 881 million urban dwellers live in informal
settlements and lack access to at least one of thefollowing amenities: durable housing, improved
water, improved sanitation and sufficient living
space (UN Habitat, 2016). The lack of risk-reducing
infrastructure means that these people have lowlevels of adaptive capacity.

FIGURE 1: Urban areas with more than 1,000,000 inhabitants in 2014
Source: UN-DESA 2014.

Introduction

13

FIGURE 2: The proportion of the population living in informal settlements by region between 1990 and 2014
Source of data: UN Habitat, 2016.

Proportion of urban population living in slums

80%
70%
60%
Northern Africa
50%

Sub-Saharan Africa
Latin America and the
Caribbean
Eastern Asia

40%
30%

Southern Asia
South-eastern Asia

20%

Western Asia

10%
0%
1990

1995

2000

2005

Cities occupy 2-3% of the planet’s land surface,but as much as 70-75% of natural resources are
consumed within them (GI-REC, n d; Fang, 2014).
Local resource scarcity can require cities to importresources from far beyond their boundaries,
requiring complex infrastructure systems totransport them. These systems often supply urban
residents with water and food over large distances,
especially in the Global North. The social andecological impacts of urban areas and urbanisation
therefore stretch far beyond city boundaries,
with towns and cities re-shaping nature in theirhinterlands through the extraction of water, theproduction of food, and the generation of waste
and pollution. Major inequalities also exist withincities whereby urban forms and functions may give
greater access to resources to certain parts of the
population, at the expense of others. For example,
in many cases low-income urban residents must
rely on providers with high tariffs for their waterand electricity supply because municipal systems
do no serve the areas in which they live. Thishighlights how resource scarcity may be a productof social and economic processes, rather thanmerely ecological or geophysical context. A shift toa different kind of urban growth has the potential
to dramatically reduce resource consumption
compared to the current development path of many
cities across the globe (Global Commission on the
Economy and Climate, 2014). This understanding
has encouraged the rethinking of urban development
options and pathways.
There is also increasing recognition that cities
must become resilient in order to manage hazards

14

Resilience and Resource Efficiency in Cities

2010

2014

and threats. With their concentrations of people,
infrastructure and economic activity, cities are sitesof particular dynamism and productivity. However,they can also be viewed as hotspots of vulnerability– especially those with large proportions of the
population living in poverty. Over time, “city structures
have been subjected to tremendous shocks andreconfigurations, and have collapsed and been
reshaped by wards, technological innovations,
economics, shocks and environmental changes”(Chelleri et al., 2015: 13). Low-income and othervulnerable urban residents such as women, children,
elderly, migrants and people living with disabilities
face particularly high exposure to risk, and are also
more sensitive to shocks and stressors. Today,
many decision-makers emphasise the importanceof building resilient cities in order to transformthem from hotspots of vulnerability into sources ofopportunity. Urban areas have particular opportunities
to enhance resilience (Satterthwaite and Dodman,2013): high population density means that local
governments can provide critical infrastructure,such as water and energy supply, at lower per capita
cost than in rural areas. Moreover, institutions andresources are typically concentrated in cities, even if it
can be difficult to harness these for adaptation.
Indeed, cities are strategically positioned to beleaders of change. Placed at an intermediary scale
between individuals and nation-states, cities cantake actions which affect other scales through aripple effect. As hubs where people and economic
activities are concentrated, they allow creativity andinnovation to germinate, and knowledge to expand.
They can open opportunities such as technicalchange with the implementation of climate-friendly
technologies as part of low-carbon development
strategies. Cities have therefore been described as
being part of the problem and of the solution at thesame time (UNEP, 2013):
 Cities are part of the problem. Expanding urban
areas are often associated with increases inresource consumption and waste production,
which puts pressure on ecosystems and supply
chains. Additionally as the number of people
living in urban areas grows, so too may theconcentration of people in vulnerable areas(Dodman and Satterthwaite, 2009). Cities
and towns thus expose social and ecologicalsystems to harm, and the impacts are likely to
be exacerbated with urbanisation and climatechange (Revi et al., 2014).
 Cities are part of the solution. The density andproximity of urban areas reduce the economicand environmental costs of providing mostinfrastructure and services. Cities also havesignificant institutional and technical capacity.
They are therefore strategic sites for engaging
with environmental issues, offering proven
opportunities to reduce risk and achievesustainability as well as significant scope toinnovate and experiment.

1.2

esilience and resource efficiency
in cities

In light of the challenges and opportunities facing
cities, it is little surprise that international agendas
emphasise the critical role that cities can playin ameliorating risk and reducing environmentalpressures. The eleventh Sustainable Development
Goal explicitly commits to making cities andhuman settlements more resilient and sustainable.
Resilient” and resilience” feature 29 times in the
New Urban Agenda, while efficiency” and efficient”
feature 27 times.
Resilience represents a set of ideas that explore
persistence, recovery, transitions and transformationof social and ecological systems and sub-systems.
By pursuing increased resilience, cities can not
only deal with climate uncertainty, but also tackle
resource limitations. In this report, the conceptof resilience is explored in parallel with resource
efficiency, building on the fact that cities canmanage resources in a way that helps them not
only overcome shocks and threats, but also tosurvive and thrive. Although this report adopts anurban focus, it is important to recognise that cities
function within complex regional metropolitan

networks, catchments and hinterlands. For thisreason, it is useful to conceive of issues of resilienceand resource efficiency in ways that take these
relationships into account.
Resources like water, energy, food and otherproducts enter cities (inputs), are distributed andconsumed within city systems, and generally
leave the systems, in the form of waste (outputs).
Understanding resource flows and undertaking
resource assessments are ways of evaluating cities’
resource base (i.e. what resources are available
to them), mapping which resources are entering
the system and from where, understanding what
processes they go through, and where they areexported. These analyses also enable decisionmakers to identify opportunities to transition toa more circular economy, whereby resources are
extracted, transformed, recycled and re-used within
the city as much as possible. Eventually, they
help to define indicators and share strategies forsustainable production and consumption (Gi-REC,n d; Guibrunet, 2013).
Resilience and resource efficiency both havea role to play in sustainable development, as
acknowledged throughout the New Urban Agenda
and in the Sustainable Development Goals. The
complementarities and tensions between these
two agendas are therefore important to consider.
The core argument of this report is that recognisingand engaging with the nexus between resilienceand resource efficiency may open important
opportunities for sustainable development in cities –and by extension, for the world as a whole.

1.3 Introduction to the report
This report explores the links between the principles,
objectives, and initiatives associated with urban
resilience and resource efficiency. It concludes
that resource efficiency is an essential element tourban resilience, and that resource efficiency canbe accomplished more effectively when it is built in
the context of a resilient system. The conceptual
analysis and case studies make it clear thatconsidering these issues together can help planners
to address global challenges, such as climatechange and poverty.
Although they have potential for mutual
reinforcement, it is also apparent that there are risksof tension and conflict between the two concepts.
For instance, redundancy is a core characteristicof resilient systems, but is not compatible withminimising resource consumption. Similarly, efforts
to reduce total levels of resource consumption

Introduction

15

may lead to distributional issues, jeopardisingaccess to energy and water. This is particularly
likely to impact the resilience of low-income andmarginalised groups, for example by increasing theamount of time women need to spend collecting
these resources. However, building preparedness toshocks and stresses while analysing the resources
available to a system and planning accordingly is a
way of reconciling this dichotomy.
The report draws on theoretical and applied
literature that explores urban resilience andresource efficiency in order to provide a basis forunderstanding these concepts. More importantly,
however, it draws on the inputs of city officials
from Africa, Asia and Latin America at a series ofworkshops on resource efficient cities held in 2013
and 2014. The case studies presented here – largely
initiated by city officials – show how urban areas
around the world are grappling with the different
ecological and social challenges, and indicate
potential avenues for other towns and cities toachieve the third transformative commitment of the
New Urban Agenda.

2 FRAMING URBAN RESILIENCE
2.1 What is resilience?
2.1.1

e nition and principles

Resilience is an increasingly widespread concept
to frame risk reduction and sustainability. In recent
years, it has been particularly adopted in relation
to climate change, with climate resilience used todescribe adaptation at different scales: from specificinvestments in infrastructure or individual behaviouralchanges, to entire societies and economies(Dodman et al., 2009, Béné et al., 2014). However,the notion of resilience goes beyond the climatechange and disaster risk reduction contexts (Rodin2014) – societies can build resilience to a rangeof disturbances, such as energy crises and foodscarcity. It is therefore a multi-faceted concept that is
adaptable to different contexts in various ways.
Resilience is usually used to describe the propertiesof a system (Elmqvist, 2014). The concept isoriginally associated with ecosystems’ capacity“to tolerate disturbance without collapsing into aqualitatively different state that is controlled bya different set of processes” (Resilience Alliance,
2014; see also Folke, 2006). Resilient ecologicalsystems are recognised as being able to rebuild
themselves and return to a state of equilibrium
after experiencing shocks. In social sciences,resilient communities have been described asable to build ‘buffering capacity’ into society anddevelop resistance to pressure (Timmerman,
1981). The further use of the concept for ‘social-

16

Resilience and Resource Efficiency in Cities

ecological resilient systems’ is based on the ideathat humans and nature co-exist and co-evolve.
Linking ecological and social resilience highlights thefact that ecological resilience depends on whether
human consumption patterns are sustainable, while
communities are resilient if the resources they rely
on are capable of buffering against, recover from,and adapt to shocks and stresses (Walker et al.,
2004; Folke, 2006; Ostrom, 2009; Elmqvist, 2013).
Although the meaning of resilience remains widely
debated, it is typically associated with positive
characteristics such as preparedness, collective
action and flexibility (Torrens Resilience Institute,2009). Three main criteria can be identified tocharacterise a resilient system (Resilience Alliance,
2014; Carpenter et al., 2001):
1. The amount of disturbance it can undergo toresist change whilst retaining on the samestructure and function;
2. The degree to which it is capable of selforganisation;
3. The ability to build and increase capacity forlearning and adaptation.
There are also several key sub-characteristics andoutcomes of resilience, shown in Table 1.

TABLE 1:

Sub-characteristics and goals of a resilient system

Source: adapted from Walker et al. (2004), Martin-Breen and Andries (2011); Barthel and Idendahl (2014), Béné et al. (2014).

Sub-characteristic

Desired outcome

Flexibility

Continuous interplay of evolution and adaptation

Bio- and social diversity

Multi-functionality and increased opportunities

Redundancy

Availability of extra resources and capacity in case of failure with othermechanisms

Modularity

Self-organisation

Safe failure

Minimum damage, key service delivery are maintained even under failure

Uncertainty and learning

Comprehension and anticipation, drawing from lessons

Resourcefulness and responsivenessRapid and adapted actions

For resilience theories to be practically useful, it
is important to recognise the dynamic nature ofsystems. Béné et al. (2012: 23) propose a resilience
framework focusing on three main components:“resistance in a period of small disturbance,
adaptation in a time of greater disturbance, andtransformability when conditions are becoming
unviable or unsustainable” (Figure 3). This
framework suggests three dimensions or stages ofresilience depending on the nature and scale of the
problem.

FIGURE 3: The resilience framework
proposed by Béné et al. (2012).

INTENSITY OF CHANGE / TRANSACTION COSTS
stability

flexibilitychangeAbsorptive coping
capacity

Adaptive
Capacity

Transformative
Capacity(persistence)(incremental adjustment)(transformational responses)

RESILIENCE
The response of a system (i.e. absorbing, adapting
or transforming) depends not only on the severityof the impact, but also on whether the system issubject to single shocks (more sudden, turbulent,and hard to predict) or to ongoing stresses (usuallycausing gradual and continuous pressure on thesystem which can experience hardship on a daily
basis). While societies tend to try and cope withshocks when these take place, longer-term stresses
are by their nature less immediately apparent – anddealing with them may require transformation: thecreation of “a fundamentally new system when
ecological, economic or social (including political)

conditions make the existing system untenable”(Walker et al.; 2004: 57).
A resilience approach also prompts decisionmakers to consider the interaction between periodsof sudden shocks and gradual stresses, and how
systems can respond to disruption and change(Torrens Resilience Institute, 2009). It does notassume a unique equilibrium state for each system,
but rather different states that the system can moveamong (Guiran, 2014).

Framing Urban Resilience17A further way of understanding resilience is to lookat the four following issues (Walker et al. 2004: n d): Latitude: the maximum amount a system can bechanged before losing its ability to recover (i.e.
before crossing a threshold which, if breached,makes recovery difficult or impossible); Resistance: the ease or difficulty of changing thesystem; Precariousness: how close the current state of
the system is to a limit or ‘threshold’; Panarchy: because of cross-scale interactions,the resilience of a system at a particular focal
scale will depend on the influences from statesand dynamics at scales above and below.
The New Urban Agenda explicitly identifies the
pursuit of ‘resilient cities and human settlements’as part of the third transformative commitment,
encouraging signatories to seek to increase urban
systems’ resilience to physical, economic and social
shocks and stresses”.

2.1.2 Linking resilience and climate change
responses
In the context of climate change, resilience is often
used alongside the concepts of vulnerability andadaptation. Adaptation specifically refers to theprocess of adjustments made in natural or humansystems in response to actual or expected threats
and their effects (IPCC, 2014). However, resilience
goes beyond simply reducing risks, and aims atenhancing a system’s performance in the face ofmultiple hazards, rather than preventing or reducing
the loss of assets caused by specific events” (Arup,
2014a: 3). Vulnerability can be defined as thestate of susceptibility to harm from exposure to
stresses associated with environmental and socialchange and from the absence of capacity to adapt”(Adger, 2006: 268), and in this regard, resilienceand vulnerability can be seen as concepts existingat opposite ends of a continuum (Bahadur et al.,2010). This lens implies that certain actions orinterventions can strengthen resilience throughreducing vulnerability (Osbahr, 2007; Tanner et al.,2009). However, the concept of resilience can also
be used provide insights into broader capacities forsustainable development rather than merely as acounter to vulnerability (Chelleri et al., 2015). In thissense, resilience paradigms may offer opportunities
to engage more fully with the ecosystems andsupply chains on which communities rely, and thus
generate insights into how these resources aremanaged to reduce, respond to and recover fromdisturbance.

18

Resilience and Resource Efficiency in Cities

2.2 Building resilience at city level:
why and how
2.2.1 Resilience at the city level
Natural and human-induced disasters, climatechange and ecological stresses such as loss of
biodiversity, pressure on ecosystems and pollution
are undermining efforts to end poverty and achievesustainable development. The New Urban Agenda
therefore commits to Adopt and implement disasterrisk reduction and management, reduce vulnerability,
build resilience and responsiveness to natural andhuman-made hazards, and foster mitigation of andadaptation to climate change”. Urban resilience canbe defined as:“The ability of a city or urban system to withstandshocks and threats, to survive stresses, utilise them,reorganise, develop whilst retaining the essential samefunctions and identity, and to adapt to social, political,
economic and environmental change” (adapted from
Carpenter and Folke (2006), Monteiro et al. (2012)).
Infrastructure endowments, legislative and policy
frameworks, social norms, economic and politicalconditions and other factors shape urban residents’
exposure to risks and their capacity to prepare for,respond to and recover from them. Different groups
within a city will also face different levels and typesof risk (Revi et al., 2014). A resilience framing gives
insight into the way complex systems respondto change, with feedback loops across time andspace that may compound or ameliorate risk. Urban
resilience strategies must directly engage with thesefactors and variations if they are to increase a city’scapacity to absorb, adapt and transform.
Elmqvist (2014) argues that resilience is an attributeof a system, not a locality”. Addressing the question‘resilience of what?’ makes it necessary to consider
multiple scales (Martin-Breen and Andries, 2011).
Urban planners and decision-makers must take into
account the diverse systems within cities, as well as
the wider systems within which they operate (suchas river basins and regional electricity grids). Fromsuch understandings, integrative solutions for urban
planning, policy and design can be elaborated toaddress interrelated issues in a coherent manner(Newman and Jennings, 2008; Rapoport, 2011;
Elmqvist, 2013).
Closely related to this, it is necessary to consider‘resilience for whom?’ In their report on future cities,
Moir et al. (2014) review trends in urban development
approaches and the characteristics of interest forcity governments, businesses, institutions andcitizens. These authors recognise that resiliencemay involve trade-offs against environmental, socialand economic issues. To illustrate, programmes toconserve wetlands, mangroves or river banks may
be intended to enhance the resilience of the city
as a whole, leveraging these ecosystems’ capacity
to absorb tsunamis, storm surges and flooding.
However, curtailing access to these spaces could
also threaten the livelihoods of the urban poor,
who may depend on these environments for food,transport or water. Resilience strategies therefore
need to particularly safeguard those who are mostvulnerable if they are not to compound risk andperpetuate injustices and inequalities within the city.
From this, it is finally relevant to ask ‘resilient towhat?’. Just as there are many different ways ofunderstanding and approaching resilience, there

LEADERSHIP AND STRATEGY(KNOWLEDGE)
 Integrated development planning Effective leadership and management
 Broad range of stakeholders empowered

are many different types of shocks and stresses towhich systems can be resilient. Although the term
resilience is usually used in relation to climate change
related shocks (e.g. hurricanes, floods, storm surge)
and stresses (e.g. changes in rainfall patterns, sealevel rise, erosion) (Arup and EWB-UK, 2012), it isalso relevant for non-climate related hazards such as
financial shocks, disease pandemics or earthquakes.

2.2.2

haracteristics o a resilient city

There are many characteristics that can indicatethat a city is resilient. Although cities may build
resilience through a diversity of ways, specificattributes that are common to resilient cities canbe identified. Organised under four categories, thetwelve following factors are considered useful urban
resilience indicators (Arup, 2014a; 2014b):

HEALTH AND WELLBEING OF INDIVIDUALS (PEOPLE)
 Minimal human vulnerability
 Diverse livelihoods and employment
 Safeguards to human life and health

INFRASTRUCTURE AND ENVIRONMENT(PLACE)ECONOMY AND SOCIETY(ORGANISATION)

 Reliable communications and mobility
 Continuity of critical services
 Reduced physical exposure of natural and manmade
assets Economic prosperity and availability of financial
resources and contingency funds
 Social stability, security and justice Collective identity and mutual support withincommunities

These elements underpin the characteristics of beingreflective, robust, redundant, flexible, resourceful,inclusive and integrated.
A complementary approach is offered by Brown
et al. (2012), who identify a range of action areas
where the characteristics detailed above could
help to achieve urban resilience: water demand andconservation systems; emergency management
and early warning systems; responsive healthsystems; resilient housing and transport systems;
ecosystems services strengthening; educationand capacity building of citizens; diversificationand protection of climate affected livelihoods; anddrainage, flood and solid waste management.
Understanding resilience as Arup and Brown
et al. suggest provides a holistic perspective ofwhat the outcomes from building resilience canbring to urban areas. Cities and towns with highlevels of poverty and social conflict, poor quality

infrastructure, degraded environments and weakor exclusionary governance arrangements will find
it difficult to prepare for or respond to shocks andstresses. Instead, their potential remain bound by
problems related to lack of economic opportunity,
land insecurity, violence and insecurity, scarcity ofcritical resources such as water, food and energy,
and pronounced inequalities in access to services
and infrastructure.
The New Urban Agenda commits its signatories toenhance urban resilience through “the developmentof quality infrastructure and spatial planning,by adopting and implementing integrated, ageand gender-responsive policies and plans andecosystem-based approaches in line with the
Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction forthe period 2015–2030”. It additionally highlights
the sectoral opportunities to prepare for andrecover from hazards, including retrofitting andupgrading housing stock (including in informal

Framing Urban Resilience19settlements) and to protecting urban deltas,
coastal areas and other environmentally sensitive
areas that are important for resilience. The relevant
section of the New Urban Agenda therefore clearlyrecognises the importance of leadership strategy
and infrastructure environment in enhancing
resilience. Referring back to the four categories
identified by Arup above, it becomes clear that
the New Urban Agenda places less emphasis
on health wellbeing and economy society in its
framing of urban resilience.

2.3

o-bene ts rom building urban
resilience

Although primarily understood in contexts ofclimate change and disasters, building resilience
opens opportunities for more inclusive andsustainable urban development at many otherlevels. For example, a focus on resilience canprovide the political impetus to address inequalities
that constrain lives and livelihoods. Cities in which
residents have adequate and affordable accessto food, water, energy and other materials are
better prepared to face a variety of shocks andstresses. One of the reasons why low-income
urban residents in the Global South tend to bedisproportionally vulnerable to disturbances isthat they do not have access to basic services andinfrastructure, such as drains, sanitation, healthcare and emergency services (UNISDR, 2009; Mitlin
and Satterthwaite, 2013; Revi et al., 2014). Meetingthe needs of low-income and other marginalised
residents, and establishing more responsive andinclusive decision-making processes, contributes togood urban governance.
Increasing resilience is often considered an
economic necessity as a means to reduce or
eliminate the financial costs of loss and damage(Dodman et al., 2009). This framing means thatthe costs of increasing resilience can be offset
against the economic savings due to the reductionof maintenance and repair costs in the event ofdisaster. There are many challenges involved in
making judgements about the return on investment
from disaster risk reduction activities, particularly
concerning the current value of avoided future costs.
However, both direct and indirect economic benefits
can be identified, including extended benefits
from activities such as building flood protection
structures and shelters, improving civil society
networks and linkages, and undertaking proper
planning processes (Vorhies 2012).

20

Resilience and Resource Efficiency in Cities

A broader perspective suggests that many of
the characteristics associated with resilient
cities also increase the economic productivity ofurban residents (Turok and McGranahan, 2013;
Colenbrander, 2016). To illustrate, the constructionof affordable mass transit systems can enhance
resilience in multiple ways. It can improve publichealth by reducing air pollution and road accidents
associated with high dependence on private
vehicles. It can reduce average travel times andexpenditure on transport, freeing up time and money
for risk reduction or other productive uses. In thelonger-term, it can also encourage densification of
cities as people choose to live near public transport
hubs: this density in turn reduces the investment
needs of other trunk infrastructure, as well as theextent of land use change (and therefore habitatloss) around the periphery of the city (Duranton,
2008; Floater et al., 2014; Gouldson et al., 2015a),thereby enhancing the economic and ecologicalresilience of the city.
Similarly, the ecological wellbeing that so often
underpins urban resilience also generates significant
co-benefits for a city. For example, conserving andrestoring urban forests constitutes a strategy forclimate change mitigation through absorption ofcarbon dioxide and by reducing the urban heatisland effect, and thereby reducing consumptionof energy for cooling purposes. Urban forests also
reduce the impacts of extreme weather events(through reducing windspeeds, increasing rainwater
absorption, and slowing run-off), provide recreational
opportunities, and can offer resources such as foodand energy.
These examples illustrate the co-benefits ofmainstreaming resilience considerations at multiple
scales, from specific infrastructure investments tocity and regional development plans. Considering
the resilience ‘of what’, ‘to what’ and ‘for whom’(Elmqvist, 2014) can help urban decision-makers
to identify hotspots of vulnerability, as well as
the drivers of that vulnerability. Redressing thesecan deliver immense social and political returns,
empowering low-income and other marginalised
groups to contribute fully to urban societies andeconomies and enabling cities to help achieve theSustainable Development Goals.
FIGURE 4: New York City High Line
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture (20150915-OSEC-LSC-0294),
CC BY 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons

Framing Urban Resilience21

2.4 Critiques and challenges to resilience
Resilience has become an increasingly influential
concept in many fields including disaster risk
reduction, climate change and the humanitarian
sector. Its application is now a central theme formany international institutions and organisations
such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) and the United Nations International
Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR). However,many still perceive resilience as too broad a concept,
and one that rests on contradictory principles(Carpenter and Brock, 2008; Alexander, 2013).
Embracing the idea of resilience as ‘transformation’is essential to move away from the idea of ‘bouncing
back’. In its early use in environmental science,
resilience was understood to mean the capacity
to return to equilibrium after disturbance (Walker
et al., 2004; Folke, 2006). Yet in many cities,
particularly in low- and middle-income countries,
citizens face problems such as inadequate foodand water supplies, institutions lack the capacities
to effectively stimulate economic development,
and ecological problems are overlooked. Resiliencestrategies that seek to simply return to this samestate of poverty or inequality are not desirable. In
response to this ambiguous aspect of resilience, it
is argued that vulnerable cities, instead of ‘bouncing
back’, must seek to ‘bounce forward’ (Dodman et al.,2009; Linnerooth-Bayer, 2014).
Various efforts have been made to develop
approaches to assess the extent to which cities are –or are becoming – resilient. This is important becauseof the need to evaluate progress, and to understandwhether activities and projects are generating the
anticipated outcomes. At the same time, “giventhat resilience is primarily a theoretical construct, it
is difficult to translate it into practice, therefore to
implement it, measure it and evaluate it concretely”(Martin-Breen and Andries, 2011). The issue is further
complicated by the range of interpretations andapplications of the concept that are used by different
stakeholders, meaning that a common evaluation
framework is not likely to be applicable. Despite this,a wide range of approaches have been developed andstarted to be tested to enable practical application
and assessment of resilience, some of which aredescribed in the Appendices.

22

Resilience and Resource Efficiency in Cities

Resilience is often treated as an apolitical conceptthat is applicable to any system. Hornborg (2009)
particularly points out that too often researchersand practitioners considering resilience do not
engage with questions of agency and power, andargues that the processes of resilience exercised
within a system risks ignoring the individuals within
this same system. This means that resilienceinterventions can cause further distributional issues
and externalities, exacerbating injustice faced by thepoor. Notable urban examples include gentrification,
eviction or territorial stigmatisation (Schilderman
and Lyons, 2011; Slater, 2014; Chelleri et al., 2015).
Khalil et al. (2013) argue that it is crucial that
resilience does not reproduce the urban injustices
already existing in a city. If it is to meaningfully
address vulnerability, resilience needs to tackle
issues of inequality, exclusion and marginalisation(Béné et al., 2014; Friend and Moench, 2013).
Analysing the resilience of a socio-ecologicalsystem should therefore not be limited to the mostgeneral level, but should also consider possible
asymmetries between different groups andindividuals within a system (Béné et al., 2012). To
illustrate, the role of the urban informal economy
in enhancing or detracting from resilience receives
little attention and or remains unclear. If thestrategies deployed and promoted in the name ofresilience marginalise the informal economy, thiswill not only jeopardise those who depend on it
for their livelihoods, but will also omit its potential
contribution to urban resilience (Brown et al., 2014).
A commitment to urban resilience must therefore
be understood as a concerted effort to amplify thevoice and increase the capabilities of those whoare most vulnerable. To borrow the conceptual
framework of the SDGs, resilience is contingent on“leaving no-one behind”.

2.5 Case Studies

SEMARANG, INDONESIA
lood

arning ystems and ustainableater- se Patterns

RESILIENCE TO

RESILIENCE MECHANISMSRESOURCE EFFICIENCY ACHIEVEMENTS

 Climate change related shocks:
floods, droughts Climate change related stresses:
water scarcity, sea-level rise
 Non-climate change related
stresses: poverty, watercontamination

 Use of vegetation (mangroves,forest plantation)
 Construction of wells andbiopores Rainwater harvesting Limited environmental impacts
 Water savings
 Biodiversity and land conservation

Semarang was selected by the Rockefeller
In common with many other coastal cities,
Foundation’s 100 Resilient Cities challenge in
Semarang is at severe risk of climate-induced sea2013 as one of the hundred cities worldwide
level rise, and associated coastal erosion, landdemonstrating capacity-building and preparedness.
subsidence, regular floods and landslides. Climate
Located in Indonesia, Semarang City is the capitalprojections indicate these issues will be magnified
city of the Central Java Province. It is a major
by more frequent extreme weather events, withport city with a population of over 1.5 million
increased precipitation during wet seasons and2002-2012:
RECLAIM
95 areHanotof supplied
196 Ha FishpondLossin the
west
area
City
inhabitants,of whichalmost halfa decreasein rainfall
days
duringdry seasonsby the municipal water system (ACCCRN, 2011;(Mulyana et al., 2013). This means that floods
Sutarto and Jarvie, 2012; Mulyana et al., 2013).
and droughts will be more severe, exacerbating
Based on the current practices of water supply
existing pressures on water resources, including
and the population growth, it is projected that the
groundwater on which the population heavily
city’s water demand will exceed its supply by 2025
relies. Without strategic planning, the growth of(ACCCRN, 2013).
Semarang’s population and the anticipated changes
in hydrological patterns will increase the risk ofwater scarcity and flooding.

MANGROVE & SEA WALL

FIGURE 5: Coastal flooding in Semarang
Source: Wicaksono: 2014.

Framing Urban Resilience23Semarang has recently started to engage actively
with resilience-building initiatives and became
part of the ACCCRN (Asian Cities Climate Change
Resilience Network) programme in 2008. As
a pioneer in urban climate change resilience,
Semarang carried out a vulnerability assessment,
before developing City Resilience Strategy (CRS) thatprioritises actions to reduce vulnerability to climatechange and integrate climate resilience into city
planning. Cooperation between government, nongovernment organisations, international agencies
and urban residents enabled the construction offlood early warning systems at community-level,
starting with a pilot project completed in December
2014 (Basnayake et al., 2015). To address therisks of landslides and droughts, water and landconservation measures have been implemented
including reforestation and mangrove planting, plotterracing, and the installation of recharge wells andbiopores (organic holes increasing the soil’s water
absorption capacity) (Saroso, 2014).
Furthermore, the city is currently in the process ofscaling-up its rainwater harvesting pilot project inorder to develop a city-wide system. The project
aims to build climate resilience by increasingclean water accessibility, reducing run-off during
flood events, reducing communities’ reliance ongroundwater extraction and increasing the quantityof groundwater reserve while addressing land
subsidence problems. Such initiatives demonstrate
the possibility of building resilience through a
supply-driven strategy for resources at the city level(Sutarto and Jarvie, 2012).

24

Resilience and Resource Efficiency in Citiesl

FIGURE 6: Rainwater harvesting as a way of building urban
resilience to climate impacts on water resources
Sources: ACCCRN, 2013.

LUSAKA, ZAMBIACHANGING URBAN AGRICULTURE METHODSRESILIENCE TO
 Climate change related shocks: flash floods,
droughts
 Climate change related stresses: soil erosion
 Non-climate change related stresses: poverty, urban
population growth, food insecurity and malnutrition

RESILIENCEMECHANISMS
 Crop switching Aquaculture Erosion control

CHANGES IN FARMING METHODSResource efficiency achievements
Secured food production
Water efficiency
Energy savings

FIGURE 7: Lusaka, Zambia at Night
Source: Lighton Phiri — Flickr.com, CC BY 2.0

Lusaka, the capital of Zambia, accounts for
32 percent of the country’s total urban population(UN-HABITAT, 2007). It is facing myriad urban
challenges, including inadequate service availability,
unemployment and land tenure insecurity (Lusaka
City Council, 2008). Climate change is exacerbatingembedded issues through the higher occurrence andintensity of extreme weather events, such as floods,
cold spells, heavy rainfall and heat waves (Thurlow
et al., 2009; Simatele, 2010).
Resilience depends on achieving better food security,
sustainable livelihoods and poverty reduction.
There is much potential in Lusaka’s old traditionof urban agriculture (Rakodi, 1988). In addition
to the significant amount of food it provides tothe population, urban agriculture is important tothe city life for generating income and livelihoods(Simatele et al., 2012; Peter, 2014). According toseveral studies conducted between 2003 and2006, approximately 45% of Lusaka’s households
are involved in urban agriculture (Arku et al., 2012).
Due to the serious effects of climate change on
traditional urban agriculture practices, new methods
have been established. Taking advantage of flooding
events, farmers have started to grow rice, an activity
that came from West Zambia. Aquaculture – andparticularly fish farming – has also been adopted
to take advantage of flood water. In response to

droughts, a gradual shift from exotic to drought
resistant crops (such as sorghum and millet) has
been initiated, alongside different farming practices
such as erosion control and new methods of tillage(Simatele, 2012).
By adapting their practices and crops to changing
weather conditions, urban farmers have turned
climate risks into opportunities. The use of flood
water for fish farming and rice production has
enabled water-use efficiency, while substantial watersavings are being made with the use of droughtresistant seeds. In terms of energy, the need totransport food is decreased when urban agriculture
can provide food that is grown locally. The value ofcrop diversification and aquaculture are recognised
at the national level (Republic of Zambia, 2011).
However, legal recognition of the existing practices
remains lacking at the city level. This means that,
despite their significant contribution to food security
and income generation, informal urban agriculture
activities have not been sufficiently integrated into
urban development and planning (Mbiba, 2001;
Hampwaye et al., 2007; Simatele et al., 2012). Informal
producers and vendors in Lusaka therefore needsupport from municipal government structures. The
effective development of climate-change specificlegislative instruments regarding food security will
represent a major step towards urban resilience.

Framing Urban Resilience

25

TORONTO, CANADAGREEN ROOFS TO COUNTER THE URBAN HEAT ISLAND EFFECTRESILIENCE TO

RESILIENCE MECHANISMS

 Climate-related shock: heat waves, more frequent andintense storms and hurricanes, flash floods
 Climate-related stress: less rainfall, increased freezingthaw cycles, declining lake and stream levels
 Non-climate related stress: urban heat island effect, air
pollution, health risks






With a population of over 2.7 million, Toronto
is Canada’s most populous city and one of thelargest in North America (Toronto City Planning,2014). The city is exposed to significant shocks
and stresses caused by climate change, including
more violent storms, floods, heat waves and lower
lake levels (City of Toronto, 2013a; MacLeod, 2013).
Climate-related issues are leading to substantial
environmental and social change accompanied byeconomic costs leaving the city operating budgets
vulnerable to hazards. For example, a single
rainstorm in 2013 cost $1 billion in insurance claims(City of Toronto, 2014). Health risks due to extreme

temperatures and problems of energy supply
during floods or heat waves are often identified as
major problems interdependent to climate changein Toronto (Birkmann et al., 2010). To tackle these,
the city government has undertaken a number ofstrategies, comprising the creation of an Adaptation
Steering Group which developed a framework
document informing internal and public discussion
about climate change impacts and adaptation(‘Ahead of the Storm: Preparing Toronto for Climate
Change’) (City of Toronto Climate Change Adaptation
Steering Group, 2008; Penney and Dickinson, 2009).

Use of cool/reflexive materials on roofs
Green infrastructure on roofs
Resource efficiency achievements
Energy efficiency

FIGURE 8: Opening of the new green roof on the podium of City Hall during Doors Open 2010, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Source: Tabercil, 2010.

26

Resilience and Resource Efficiency in Citiesl

According to the Grosvenor’s Resilient Cities
Research Report, Toronto is the most resilient cityin the world (Michael, 2014). Toronto’s agenda ofactions includes a range of schemes to upgrade
infrastructures (e.g. sewers and culverts), healthprogrammes (e.g. smog alerts, air quality healthindex), and further support provided to vulnerable
people (e.g. cooling centres) (Toronto City Clerk,2014). To counter the urban heat island effect(whereby urban areas have higher temperatures
than those of the rural areas at their peripheries),
the city is developing an agenda that integrates
green strategies, including the installation of green
roofs, tree planting and care and building codechanges (Rinner and Hussain, 2011). Widespread
implementation of green roof infrastructure is atarget set by the city government for the specificpurposes of reducing local ambient temperatureand saving energy, but also to improve the city’s air
quality and thereby public health.
According to research conducted in 2005 on theenvironmental benefits and costs of green roof
technology in the city, the initiative could cool down
the temperature between 0.5 and 2° C (dependingon the time of the year and the scale of action).

Energy demand and use can also be significantly
reduced as 2.37 kWh can be saved per square
meter of green roof area per year. This represents a
reduction in energy demand in summer by between
0.7-10% (Banting et al., 2005). The ‘Toronto Green
Standard’ and ‘Green Roof Bylaw’ initiatives havebeen launched in accordance with the principlethat the use of green roofs also enables lower GHG
emissions, the control of water run-off and thus,
energy and water conservation (Toronto Financial
District, 2013; Toronto Green Standard, 2013).
Toronto is the first North American city requiring theconstruction of green roofs on new developments
by law. According to Toronto’s Chief Planner, Toronto
will have built the equivalent of 40 football fields infive years (Athlyn, 2014). By explicitly integrating
green strategies in architecture and urban design
through regulation, Toronto is positioning itself at
the forefront of sustainable urban planning. The
effective green roof strategy countering the urban
heat island effect is part of the wide range of green
methods that enable the city to combine resiliencebuilding with mitigation, but also with resourcesaving and improved social well-being.

FIGURE 9: Green roof at Mountain Equipment Coop, Toronto, Canada.
Source: By sookie (Flickr) CC BY 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons

Framing Urban Resilience27

2.6 Conclusions
Cities must move beyond the precarious state ofcontinuously recovering from hazards, and start
foreseeing prospective stresses and shocks.
The case studies demonstrate that cities must
understand the resources available to them andthe hazards to which they are exposed in order todesign and implement successful urban resiliencestrategies. With this information, it is possible todevelop a resilience agenda that allows enoughflexibility to absorb shocks, and that enables
incremental capacity building to prepare for
anticipated disturbances.
The cases of Semarang and Lusaka bothdemonstrate the importance of coordination amongactors to facilitate the implementation and scaling
up of resilience measures. Cooperation between
stakeholders at different scales presents multiple
benefits including the execution of long-term andfar-reaching resilience strategies. In Semarang, amore coherent division of responsibilities between
actors has facilitated a transfer of knowledge
throughout the spectrum of stakeholders. In thisway, city resilience has been built progressively
through small-scale methods reinforced by local
knowledge and public engagement. In Lusaka, thelegal recognition of existing community practices
around urban agriculture ought to enhance resilienceat the scale of the city. In this context, where theurban economy depends on climate-sensitive
resources, an efficient and adequate translation of
the national strategy into local agricultural policies
needs to take into account the informal sector
and integrate marginalised urban dwellers into
the system, thereby boosting climate and poverty
resilience simultaneously.

28

Resilience and Resource Efficiency in Cities

In cities that already have much of the necessary
infrastructure to reduce harm from hazards ofvarious types, the importance of anticipating andplanning over the long-term must be recognised. The
challenge lies in mobilising investment in resilience
to something that is not yet visible or immediately
harmful. The case of Toronto is an example ofsuch preparedness. The city government has beendeveloping measures of resilience to counteract
the urban heat island effect and reduce energy andwater consumption. . It has done this by integrating
green strategies within the law in an incremental andconsistent way, which has effectively disseminatedthe practice of building green infrastructure. Thiscase study demonstrates that there can be shortterm co-benefits to adopting resilience initiatives
beyond reduced exposure to shocks and stresses.
Achieving greater resilience may also require tradeoffs. For example, addressing resilience at one single
scale may lead to an erosion of adaptive capacities atanother. As explained by Chelleri et al. (2015:14), it istherefore important to manage “different coexisting
strategies that frame the corresponding medium- andlong-term terms lock-ins or windows of opportunities
for change”. Resilience thinking involves considering
long-term thresholds to achieve sustainabletransformation. Resource and hazard mapping
enable urban decision-makers to understand possible
trade-offs and make informed decisions about urban
planning, policies and investments.

3 FRAMING RESOURCE EFFICIENCY
3.1

esource efficiency in context

3.1.2

3.1.1 Introduction
Growing awareness of the importance of resource
efficiency is based on evidence that humans are
consuming resources at a greater rate than theplanet can sustain. Human beings depend on natural
resources for their survival. As the global population
grows, so too does the demand for these resources.
However, an even more significant driver is the growthin consumption by individuals and societies that arebecoming more and more affluent.
In 2000, Oceania was extracting the highest amountof resources per capita (approximately 158 kgday), followed by North America (68 kg day), Latin
America (41kg day), Europe (36 kg day) and Africa
and Asia (15kg day) (SERI-Global 2010; Friends ofthe Earth Europe, 2009). Per capita consumption
varies significantly within regions as well, particularly
according to wealth. Rapid economic development
in countries like China and India is creating a large
and growing middle class, which is creating greater
demand for goods and services. Such consumption
and production patterns cannot be sustained, as
continued growth in the extraction of particular
resources and production of particular wastes will
push the planet outside a “safe operating space”(Rockstr m et al., 2009).
There is therefore an urgent need to transition towards
more sustainable development pathways. Resource
efficiency can support this transition by minimisingresource extraction, resource consumption andwaste generation. The purpose of resource efficiency
is to enable the design, production, distribution anddisposal of products and services with minimum
environmental impacts while meeting human needs(UNEP, 2010). A resource efficient system seeks tocreate more with less, and to deliver greater value withless input (European Commission, 2014).
Resource efficiency typically involves technical andor institutional solutions to adjust the componentsof the systems and reduce the amount of resources(water, fuel, minerals and so on) wasted, thereby
delivering more outputs per unit of input (Swilling
et al. 2013). At another level, entirely designing
new systems can be a way of facilitating moreradical changes, such as techniques to make useof renewable resources in order to reduce pressure
on those that are finite. Closing loops by re-using
resources to avoid extracting more resources andproducing additional waste is essential.

e nition and principles
In general terms, resource efficiency involves amore productive use of resources. By taking thewhole lifecycle of resources into account – from theextraction of raw materials to final use and waste
disposal – and considering them from a value chain
perspective, practitioners can identify opportunities toreduce waste (UNEP, 2010). Analysing value chains
can help to identify potential externalities that might
not be immediately perceptible over the long-termor within certain geographical boundaries. This issignificant considering territorial constraints onenvironmental and industrial governance. Many cities
function as gateways for goods, which means thatmunicipal governments have limited opportunities toenhance the efficiency of the value chain (Bancheva,
2014; Dodman, 2009).
Six goals and principles can be directly associatedwith the idea of resource efficiency:
1. Increasing the productivity achieved from thesame amount of resources already used, forexample by reducing the proportion that iswasted by modifying production processes.
2. Producing more with a smaller resource base, forexample by making better use of existing stocks
of materials through recycling.
3. Reducing environmental impacts during thewhole lifecycle of a given resource by minimisingwaste outputs or managing their disposal.
Improving the efficiency of fossil fuel use, forinstance, lowers greenhouse gas emissions, soenergy efficiency is strongly related to climatechange mitigation.
4. Reducing demand for goods and services
in order to encourage lower consumption of
resources. This is particularly relevant in highconsuming societies.
5. Switching to renewable resources (e.g. sunlight,wind) away from the use of finite resources (e.g.
fossil fuels, rare earths) in order to reduce thepressures on limited resource stocks.
6. In line with environmental justice goals, moving
towards more equal distribution of resources isalso a mean of achieving efficiency. Inequalities
in distribution patterns are widening at multiple
scales and allocating resources more equally
could help address high production needs andwaste issues. This is essential for resources likewater and food.

Framing Resource Efficiency

29

Resource efficiency has been defined in multiple
ways. Dawkins et al. (2010: 5) focus on resolving
over-consumption issues and define resource
efficiency as the supply-side measures that tackle
inefficiencies across supply chains; overuse ofresources and waste when products and services
are produced.” This enables producers andconsumers to use less resources to produce thesame level of output”. The European Commission(cited in the Science Communication Unit, 2013: 5)
integrated environmental considerations into its
understanding of resource efficiency, defining thisagenda as allowing “the economy to create morewith less, delivering greater value with less input,
using resources in a sustainable way and minimising
their impacts on the environment”.
The range of resources targeted by resource
efficiency programmes varies from one context toanother. In its ‘vision for 2010-2013’ on resource
efficiency, the United Nations Environment
Programme (UNEP, 2010) focused on water,
biomass, land, energy and materials. The European
Commission defines resources in a broader way andrefers in its framework to “all natural resources thatare inputs to [its] economy, including both physicalresources and ecosystem services” (Jansen, 2013: 3).
Therefore, on top of the resources usually considered,
the European Commission adds soil, fish, timber,biodiversity, clean air and sea to its scope. Minerals
and flow resources such as wind, geothermal, tidal
and solar energy, are also covered in many resource
efficiency agendas. This report approaches resourcesfrom a sector perspective and therefore focuses
specifically on energy, water, food, and waste.
As part of the third transformative commitment,
the New Urban Agenda requests its signatories to“driv[e] sustainable patterns of consumption andproduction”. Among other elements, achieving
this goal will depend on producers enhancing theefficiency of resource use and consumers’ reducing
demand for resources.

Related concepts

The idea of resource efficiency cannot be
understood in isolation from a range of otherconcepts and agendas (Table 2). The concepts
described in this table have been used at different
times and in different contexts, but share somefeatures with resource efficiency, either in terms ofprocess or expected outcome.

30

Resilience and Resource Efficiency in Cities

3.2

esource efficiency at the scale othe city implications and trends

3.2.1

hy resource efficiency at city-level

A resource-efficient city can be defined as a city thatis significantly decoupled from resource exploitationand ecological impact and is socio-economicallyand ecologically sustainable in the long-term” (GIREC, 2012: 2). A resource efficiency approach at thecity-scale aims to reduce the total environmental
impact of the production and consumption of
goods and services – but can also achieve financial
savings and reduce pollution. Resource efficiency incities opens the path to addressing environmental
challenges while simultaneously generating socialand economic opportunities, for example by freeing
up resources for alternative uses or (where costsavings are passed on to consumers) improving theaffordability of goods and services.
Cities are important sites for driving resource
efficiency because such a large share of resource
consumption and waste production can be
attributed to them. For example, urban areas
account for between 67–76% of global energy
use and between 71% and 76% of CO2 emissions
from global final energy use (Seto et al., 2014).
This means that efficiency gains in cities have thepotential to have a larger impact. The proximity,
density and variety intrinsic to cities also has thepotential to enable significant improvements inresource efficiency (Rode and Burnett, 2011). For
example, mass transit and district heating coolingare only cost-effective in contexts of relatively
high population density, but offer much moreenergy-efficient means of moving people aroundand regulating temperature than decentralised
alternatives (such as private vehicles or individual
air conditioners).

TABLE 2:

Concepts related to resource efficiency

Source: Authors.

Conceptey eatureselationship to resource efficiency

Sustainable
development

Defined as “development which meets the needsof current generations without compromising theability of future generations to meet their own
needs” (United Nations, 1987).

Premised on a use of resources by current
generations that does not interfere with the capacityof future generations to reach a similar level of wellbeing. Implies that current generations should pursue
efficient resource management ( ansen, 2013).

Decoupling

Relative decoupling refers to a lower rate in growthof a type of environmental pressure in relation to
the rate of growth of a related economic activity.
Absolute decoupling refers to an environmentalpressure either remaining stable or decreasing
while the related economic activity increases(Watson et al., 201 ).

Decoupling can contribute directly to resource
efficiency. leaner production practices andtechnologies provide opportunities for small businessdevelopment and the creation of green jobs (UNEP,
2010; Swilling et al., 2013).

Green economy

A green economy is one that results in improved
human well-being and social equity, while
significantly reducing environmental risks andecological scarcities. In its simplest expression, agreen economy is low-carbon, resource-efficient,and socially inclusive (UNEP 2011).

The definition of a green economy makes explicit
reference to resource efficiency as one of its key pillars.

Planetaryboundaries

A planetary boundaries framework defines a safe
operating space for humanity to develop and thrive,
according to nine defined biophysical processes
that regulate the earth’s system (Rockström et al.,2009). It provides a science-based analysis of therisks caused by human activities interfering withthe earth’s natural functions (although is lessdirectly relevant at the scale of cities) (Steffen
et al., 2015).

The planetary boundaries framework highlights theconstraints on total levels of resource consumption
or waste production (e.g. greenhouse gas emissions,
phosphates). It therefore informs resource efficiency
targets at a global scale.

Environmental
footprint

The environmental footprint is a means ofmeasuring the impacts of a person, company,
activity, product, etc. on the environment. The
framework has been applied specifically to cities(Wackernagel et al., 2006).

The concept of an environmental footprint is intended
to raise awareness of the total level of natural
resources a particular actor or product uses, andtherefore encourage conservation, restoration or
replacement of those resources ( ensen, 2013).

Carbon budget

The maximum amount of carbon that can beemitted to the atmosphere in order to avoid
dangerous climate change with a translation interms of a maximum of fossil fuels we can extractfrom the ground (IP , 201 )Staying with a carbon budget will require actors tomanage the total level of fossil fuels they consume,in order to minimise associated emissions. Assuming
constant levels of consumption, this requires actors
to use less energy to achieve the same output, tocapture and store the resulting emissions or to switch
to low-carbon generation options.

Poverty alleviationand equity

Current patterns of production and consumption
lead to a wasteful use of resources – but also toinequality and poverty (Rode and Burnett, 2011;
UNEP, 2011).

Resource efficiency can lead to investment in thecreation of jobs and the enhancement of humanwell-being.

The 1.5-2 target in the Paris Agreement, for example,
reflects a ‘safe operating space’ for humanity, which inturn sets an upper limit on the level of greenhouse gas
emissions that can be produced.

Framing Resource Efficiency31

As cities grow in size, connect to the global
economy with globalisation, and facetransboundary issues, complexity increases.
There is considerable scope to improve resource
efficiency within individual sectors, but the largest
opportunities are arguably at the intersectionof different systems. In particular, resource
efficiency at city-level depends on urban planningand design aspects, which shape characteristics
such as densification and mobility (Suh, 20015).
Achieving these gains depends on integrating
spatial planning, transport projects and building
regulations to promote compact, connected urban
form (Floater et al., 2014). Yet cities often takeaction in different urban sub-systems as they wereisolate entities concerned with different plans,
policies, budgets and even timelines (Moffat etal., 2013). This underscores the importance offocusing on cities as a unit, and of adopting a value
chain approach: an increase in the efficiency ofactivities within a particular place means very little
if the residents and industries located there rely
on goods and services produced in a less efficientmanner elsewhere. The need for an cross-sectoral,city-scale approach is echoed in the New Urban
Agenda, which states that “We recognize thaturban form, infrastructure and building design areamong the greatest drivers of cost and resource
efficiencies, through the benefits of economy ofscale and agglomeration, and by fostering energy
efficiency, renewable energy, resilience, productivity,
environmental protection and sustainable growth in
the urban economy.”rban metabolism a way o loo ing at resources
flowing through cities

The concept of ‘urban metabolism’ offers a helpful
way of looking at cities and all the resources thatflow within their complex networks of interlockedsocial and physical infrastructure. Conceptualising
the city as a living super-organism in which there
are continuous flows of inputs and outputs helps
studying the patterns of movements of matter andenergy (Ravetz, 2000). Girardet (2004) metaphoricallydescribes railways and watercourses as the veinsof cities, food markets as stomachs, and waste
dumps as part of the digestion system. Analysing themetabolism of a city helps to identify opportunities forsustainable resource management. Linking material
flows with infrastructure through such analysis canhelp to identify alternative ways in which infrastructure
could be organised to use resources sustainably.
It is not enough to consider solely the physicalform of infrastructure: cultural, social, political andethical aspects of urban metabolism must also be
considered. Between 20% and 80% urban dwellers
of low-income countries are not directly connected

32

Resilience and Resource Efficiency in Cities

to formal infrastructure systems, but often rely on
informal services (e.g. from informal vendors ofwater or energy). These systems are not necessarily
as efficient as trunk infrastructure: Swilling etal. (2013) argue that an increasing number ofpeople without direct connections to networked
infrastructure increases in unmanaged quantity ofmaterial flows by service delivery systems. This
waste can result in harmful environmental andhealth impacts. Yet these informal systems may
also allow marginalised urban residents to accessservices and find alternative livelihoods where thestate is not able or willing to meet their basic needs(Dodman et al., 2016). Solutions to this problem do
not necessarily lie in the replication of technologies
with conventional networked infrastructure,
but rather could be achieved by communityled projects and the recognition of the informal
sector. At the same time, it should be rememberedthat low-income urban residents have small
environmental footprints because of their low levelsof consumption, and their frequent involvement in
re-use or (informal) recycling activities.

3.2.2 A sectoral analysis o resource efficiency
in cities
Climate change, economic development, pressure
on natural resources, and rapid technological andsocial change are challenges to urban sustainability(Peter and Swilling, 2012). These challenges
directly affect urban sectors such as transport,
buildings and water and sanitation, on whichcities depend for their functioning. This section
therefore considers resource efficiency at the citylevel from the perspective of sectors rather thanfrom the perspective of a single resource. Methods
to improve resource efficiency in these sectors
encompass a wide range of technical complexities
and scales that depend on many factors, including
the type of resource used.

nergy

Today’s development choices are crucial for avoiding
urban dwellers being locked in patterns of highenergy demand over the future decades. The largest
opportunities are arguably in small and medium cities
in developing countries, which are making significant
investments in new infrastructure (Seto et al., 2014).
Decisions that are taken now will therefore create
path dependencies, shaping urban form and function
in ways that will determine the energy intensity ofsocial and economic activity for decades (Bulkeley etal., 2011). Recognising the importance of immediate
action, many cities have already made significant
progress in increasing energy efficiency by changing
their behaviour, choosing more efficient technologies
and pursuing more sustainable urban forms.

EXAMPLES OF ENERGY EFFICIENCYINITIATIVES IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICAN
CITIES
Energy supply is discontinuous in many cities of
Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), a constraint that affects
productivity and exacerbates poverty. As a result, urban
dwellers, particularly those who are not connected tothe energy infrastructure network, tend to be reliant
on bottled gas, liquid fuel, paraffin, charcoal and diesel(Peter, 201 ). Urban sprawl – the spatial expansionof cities at a rate that outstrips population growth –also leads to higher use of fuel for transportation andhigher prices for travellers (especially for households
living in peripheral areas, who are likely to be drawn
from low-income or other marginalised groups). The
low economic productivity of most sub-Saharan cities
can be partially attributed to the unreliability andhigh costs of fuel supplies, and to inadequate energy
distribution infrastructure. Urban populations therefore
either live in energy poverty or rely on back-up options(such as diesel generation systems) to meet theirneeds. Biomass – especially from waste – continues toconstitute an important portion of energy supply, andparticularly in informal settlements (UNE A, 2009).
Many countries are seeking to improve and modernise
small-scale biomass energy, for example with the useof bio-digesters (Peter, 201 ), while other countries
including Kenya are producing growing amountsof electricity from solar power (N eru, 201 ). In the
coastal city of Mombasa, the second-largest cityof Kenya, solar energy is increasingly used for salt
processing plants (Awuor et al., 200 ), and for street
lighting, schools and houses ( I , 2011; wita, 201 ).
The low-income settlement of Khayelitsha in Cape
Town is also using solar energy to heat householdwater (with ‘solar-water-heaters’), with the help of a
local N O (Peter, 201 ).
Strategic planning to improve public transportation
is taking place in many Sub-Saharan cities such as
Kigali (Rwanda) and Kampala (Uganda). Although
the primary motives here are enhanced mobility,
safety and affordability, investments in mass transit
and pedestrianisation are likely to enhance transport
efficiency in the long run. As part of its 2020 goal of
becoming a dynamic, liveable and environmentally
sustainable city, as well as a centre for national
economic growth, Kigali is combining transportation
strategies and green initiatives ( ames, 2013). Its
plan includes the expansion of the Bus Rapid Transit(BRT) and Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) networks aswell as cycling and walking paths (Kigali Municipality,2013). The overall ob ective is to develop a 0 public
transit modal share, and 10 of non-motorised trips.
Similarly, the Kampala City Authority (KCCA) has a2022 transport plan that aims to enable 50 of trips by
non-motorised modes and 0 of trips by sustainable
modes. At least 200 km of cycle lanes are underdevelopment (Dodman, 201 ).

A range of approaches and initiatives can be
identified that are currently adopted by cities in thebuilding, industry and transport sectors and for theuse of renewable energy resources: Buildings: Buildings account for more than onethird of all final energy consumption and half of global
electricity use. In addition, buildings generate around
one-third of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions(Layke and Perera, 2014). Current trends in energy
efficiency in buildings address both the energy
required to extract, transport, process and installmaterials for buildings, and the energy to provide
services for lighting, appliances, heating cooling,
ventilation, water heating and so on. Programmes
and technologies have been developed to reduceenergy consumption and demands: the New Urban
Agenda identifies building performance codesand standards, renewable portfolio targets, energyefficiency labelling, retrofitting of existing buildings,
and public procurement policies on energy, among
other modalities”. Insulation, gazing and proofing,
and the use of heat waste are particularly significant
measures. Current trends also encourage focusing
on cost-effective solutions to reduce buildings’
environmental impacts, mainly by cutting greenhousegas emissions whilst making energy savings (Yi-bin
and Yong-shi, 2006; Swilling et al., 2013).
 Transport: Cities have been adopting measuresin the transport sector to reduce fossil fuelconsumption, as well as to improve access andmobility. These have included improving mass transit,
providing walking and cycling paths and improving
freight planning and logistics. The New Urban
Agenda recognises that more efficient transport
infrastructure and services offers a range of benefits,
including reducing the financial, environmental andpublic health costs of inefficient mobility, congestion,
air pollution, urban heat island effects, and noise”.
Initiatives for energy efficiency in transport can
extend from retrofitting existing areas to new zoningof an entire city network to reduce commuting
distances (Moffat et al., 2013; EECi, 2014). Energy
efficiency for transport is closely linked to spatialplanning, as population density will define the viabilityof these transport systems. Investing in green
transport can also produce major impacts in termsof sustainability and climate change mitigation. As
stated in the GER report on transport (2011; cited
in Peter and Swilling, 2012: 35), “(s)everal scenarios
show that a green, low carbon, transport sector can
reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 70 per cent
without major additional investment”.
 Renewable energy: Renewable energy –produced from wind power, hydropower, solar
energy, biomass and geothermal energy – offers one

Framing Resource Efficiency

33

means to reduce fossil fuel consumption without
necessarily improving energy efficiency. The climate
imperatives combined with improving rates of returnmean that renewable energy technologies are now
attracting large-scale investment. A growing numberof cities worldwide has demonstrated the possibilityof moving towards energy autonomy through theuse of decentralised renewables, such as the caseof Seville (Spain) where solar towers are supplying
considerable amounts of electricity (Droege, 2010).
In other cases, the composition of electricity supply
is largely outside the control of municipal authorities,
as the city is served by a regional grid. In either case,coordination across different levels of government isnecessary to create the enabling policy environment
and financing mechanisms necessary to adopt lowcarbon energy options at scale (Betsil and Bulkeley,2006; Gouldson et al., 2016).

before it is lost as surface runoff. Rainwater
harvesting can reduce water deficits by increasing
the supply available to prospective users.

Water

 Water and sewage treatment: Many cities
experiencing water supply issues like Beijing havemade considerable efforts to encourage recyclingof water resources by promoting the installationof both offsite and on-site water treatment
systems (Mels et al., 2006). This can also leadto substantial reductions in the environmental
impacts of wastewater. A range of ‘natural’
methods are now being used to treat wastewater
more efficiently. Blue and green infrastructure (i.e.
natural and semi-natural ecological features that
can treat wastewater) have gained considerable
popularity because of the wide range of benefits
and ecosystem services they present (Gill et al.,2007). For example, green infrastructure such asurban woodlands can reduce surface runoff whileproviding a source of biomass for fuel, while blue
infrastructure such as ponds and wetlands canboth filter wastewater while reducing environmental
shocks such as floods and heatwaves.
Unfortunately, often “physical and institutional
mismatch inhibits recognition of ecosystem services
benefits” (Keys et al., 2012: 47).

Water is not only essential for human survival,
but also for many different activities ranging fromagriculture to industrial processes. Water efficiency
in cities can involve reducing the amount of waterused in municipal or industrial settings, andalso ensuring that different types of wastewater(depending on the level of pollution) are redistributed to meet demand for non-potable water.
The New Urban Agenda pledges “to [promote]the conservation and sustainable use of water by
rehabilitating water resources within the urban,
peri-urban and rural areas, reducing and treating
wastewater, minimizing water losses, promoting
water reuse and increasing water storage, retention
and recharge, taking into consideration the water
cycle.” There are opportunities to improve efficiency
in the storage, distribution and use of water itself,
but also in the energy required for treating andpumping it. Strategies to increase water efficiency
need to address both the supply side (water
extraction and reticulation) and demand side (water
consumption and disposal). For this reason, thesustainable management of water resources canrarely be resolved through a single intervention or
technology: it requires action at different scales.
Adopting a landscape or watershed approach canhelp in understanding the linkages between waterflows for multiple users in urban contexts (Moriarty
et al., 2001). Once levels of water availability, use
and latent demand have been mapped, appropriate
measures can be deployed at different points. The
following examples present a range of activities thatcan be undertaken to enhance water efficiency: Rainwater harvesting involves collecting andstoring rainwater in reservoirs or tanks, or facilitating
the infiltration of rainwater into subsurface aquifers

34

Resilience and Resource Efficiency in Cities Infrastructure maintenance: An increased
demand for water can be met by reducing losses
rather than necessarily increasing supply, forinstance by repairing and or maintaining aging water
infrastructure (Banovec et al., 2014). Losses can beapparent (i.e. not accounted for due to the absence ofproper metering or pirating) or real (i.e. leakages frompipes or connections) (Delgado, 2008). Non-Revenue
Water levels (NRW) of many water systems in Asia
and Africa range from 20 to 70% due to leakage
and poor water meter management (Sharma and
Vairamoorthy, 2008). Reducing water losses canhelp to expand service provision without requiring
additional extraction or storage.

Methods of anaerobic digestion are also becoming
more effective, and offer different benefits to cities.
For example, some processes produce biogas andfertilisers, which can displace fossil fuel alternatives
and help communities to become self-sufficient(Elmitwalli et al., 2006; Garoma and Williams, 2013).

Food

Food demand in cities is increasing with the growthof urban populations and rising per capita incomes.
This trend is occurring in parallel with changes in thecost and availability of food; as well as of fertile land,
water, and the energy and oil which are required
for food production. More than 1 billion people
currently live with food insecurity (OECD and FAO,

2010). In 2011, the GER (2011: 14; cited in Peter andSwilling, 2012) pointed out there was no existing
international consensus on the problem of global
food security or on possible solutions for how tonourish a population of 9 billion by 2050. Achieving
food security in cities requires not only addressing
food production (as it is the case in many current
policy prescriptions), but also engaging with abroader approach that encompasses all aspects offood production, storage, distribution, consumption,
and waste generation. All of these stages of the
supply chain will be affected by climate change, andespecially by the growing frequency and severity of
extreme weather events (Tacoli 2013).
 Local food systems: As strengthening theefficiency of food systems is a key prerequisite to
reduce food insecurity (particularly for the more
vulnerable), boosting local food production andconsumption can generate significant advantages
for cities and their inhabitants. Urban and peri-urban
agriculture can enhance security in food supply,
boost local economies, and reduce cities’ carbon
footprint by cutting the energy required to transport
food (Peter and Swilling, 2012; FAO, 2014). Cityregion food systems also help to move beyond thedichotomy of rural producers and urban consumers
by strengthening urban-rural linkages (Okpala, 2003;
Lucatelli and de Matteis, 2011; Dubbeling, 2013).
Local production of food also offers opportunities
to improve agricultural efficiency by promoting
good practice. Examples include the adoption ofagro-ecological practices that seek to enhance
ecosystem services, such as nutrient cycling andcarbon sequestration, or rainfed crop production
to reduce demand for surface and groundwater(an approach that can be coupled with rainwater
harvesting).
 Reducing food waste: Food waste can beunderstood as wholesome edible material intended
for human consumption that is instead discarded,
lost, degraded or consumed by pests (FAO, 1981).
The distribution of food waste varies between highand low-income countries, and between high- andlow-income consumers (Hodges et al., 2010). Thishas significant economic and environmental
implications. There are opportunities to reducefood waste through technological and policy
interventions, for example around refrigerationand expiry dates. However, Papargyropoulou et al.
(2016) highlight that food waste is often a functionof social and cultural practices associated with foodpreparation and consumption. There is therefore aneed to engage with producers and consumers toensure that edible food is made available for humanconsumption, and that inedible food is distributed toanimals or composted to reduce landfill waste andrecirculate nutrients in the city.

Waste

From megacities to small towns and villages,
waste management, and especially solid waste
management, represents one of the biggest
concerns for city leaders (UN-HABITAT, 2010).
Global municipal solid waste generation is currently
approximatively 1.3 billion tonnes per year, a numberthat is estimated to reach 2.2 billion tonnes by 2025
(Hoornweg and Bhada-Tata, 2012). In cities andtowns of the Global South, waste management is arecurrent issue that often reflects low institutional
capacity and causes serious hygiene problems andenvironmental pollution, thereby adding further
burdens to city governments (Awomeso et al., 2010).
Only 25 to 55% of the waste generated in large cities
in developing countries is collected by municipal
authorities – although municipalities may spend 20
to 50% of their budgets on solid waste management(World Bank, 2014). Urban waste management in
the Global North is generally more comprehensive,
but is also problematic, largely due to increased
affluence and consumption: according to the GRDC(n d), over half of the world’s municipal waste is
generated in high-income countries. This suggeststhat these countries have greater opportunities toimprove resource efficiency by reducing, re-using
and recycling waste.
In order to avoid the hazardous impacts caused bypoor waste management, waste must be collected,
disposed and treated responsibly by municipalities.
Linear visions tend to perceive solid waste as an
unwanted resource output which must cleared, forexample, through waste disposal or incineration,with landfills remaining the most common method
in use. Landfill sites that are well-designed andappropriately managed enable to prevent wastefrom contaminating the environment, in opposition
to open dumps. Nevertheless, they require rigorous
management that can be costly, and necessitate
significant amounts of land. In contrast, waste canbe valuable if it is considered in terms of circularity,
i.e. as a resource input itself. Re-using waste
presents the advantage of closing resource loops
and enhancing self-sufficiency (Bancheva, 2014).
Current trends in waste management that cancontribute to resource efficiency include: Waste-to-energy: Waste can be treated togenerate energy in the form of electricity, heator transport fuels. These can use different types
of waste – solid, liquid and gaseous – althoughmunicipal solid waste remains the most common
source (Eurostat, 2013). Methodologies include

Framing Resource Efficiency

35

thermo-chemical conversion (e.g. incineration),bio-chemical (biogas production) and esterification(World Energy Council, 2013). These are particularly
popular in the Asia-Pacific region which has thefastest growing waste-to-energy market. Waste-toenergy systems can also be attractive to decisionmakers because they create a product which canbe sold, generating a revenue stream to offset
the costs of capital equipment and collection(Papargyropoulou et al., 2015).
However, some of these technology-based measures
can have significant environmental and social
implications. Some combustion systems have beenfound to emit trace organic compounds where thesystems are poorly designed and or operated (Ruth,
1998). In other cases, waste-to-energy approaches
can jeopardise the livelihoods of waste pickers,
who comprise a significant and highly vulnerable
component of the urban population in low- and lower
middle-income countries: for example, covering
landfills to facilitate methane capture can reduce
access for waste pickers, who might otherwise
recover and re-use waste (Colenbrander et al., 2016).
This underscores the importance of a circular
economy approach to waste management, which
recognises different uses and users throughout the
lifecycle of a product or products.
 Bio-utilisation: Various waste streams such as
human and organic household waste can be renderedharmless by natural systems that neutralise pollution.
Many conventional pollution control systems arecapital-intensive and expensive to operate, whereas
natural systems tend to be much cheaper tomaintain (Heal, 2004). By making use of regulating
ecosystem services, bio-utilisation methods (i.e.
the domestication of natural organisms) are moreresource efficient than technological approaches, andoften offer aesthetic benefits and or architecturalfeatures (Barlest, 2010). In Dhaka (Bangladesh),nearly 80% of the waste is organic and used ascompost for agriculture through community-based
initiatives (Rahman, 2011). Marsh plants can also be
used in waste treatment for the ecosystem services
they provide in filtering nutrients and pollutants(Swilling et al., 2013; Keys et al., 2012; Todd andJosephson, 1996).
 Building deconstruction and material reuse:
40% of waste in landfills comes from building
materials. Evaluating the volumes of solid waste
generated from construction and demolition,
determining recycle potential, evaluating options for
disposal, and matching these disposal options to
the volume and composition of wastes are crucial
steps in the elaboration of construction-wastemanagement systems (Gavilan and Bernold, 1994).

36

Resilience and Resource Efficiency in Cities

In India, almost 50% of construction and demolition
waste is re-used: for example, bituminous material
is recycled through different cold and hot in-situ
methods in Kolkata to build roads (Gosh and Aich,2014). In cities prone to disasters, waste fromdamaged buildings can be a valuable resource,
either as primary construction material (e.g.
bricks, stone masonry, roof timber, roof tiles) oras secondary material (e.g. rubble for foundation)(ProAct-DWR-Shelter Centre, 2010). However,
local building regulations may restrict the re-use
of materials, or banks may be un-willing to provide
loans for the use of unconventional constructions.
This is a structural issue that can be engaged withto encourage resource efficiency.
Although it significantly affects the quality of lifeof urban residents, municipal waste management
is often neglected. Furthermore, ‘new’ types ofwaste such as electronic and radioactive waste areposing major challenges for transport and disposal.
These hazardous types of waste are produced insignificant quantities, but only a limited proportion isrecycled and a major part is illegally dumped in lowincome countries. From collection to re-use, waste
management is a key element to resource efficiency
because of its potential to minimise impacts andincrease productivity using the same or smaller
resource base.

3.3

ene ts o building resource
efficient cities

3.3.1

igher productivity at a lower cost

Significant economic benefits can be associatedwith improving urban resource efficiency. Thiscan partially be attributed to the growth of green
industries. According to Moloney and Churchward(2015: 1), “a recent study by the Waste andResources Action Programme (WRAP) found thatacross the EU, there could be £330 billion economic
growth potential from resource efficiency in justthe next seven years”. The waste sector is a good
example of the opportunities created for new firms
and industries. In the US, recycling accounted
for more than $236 billion in annual revenue in2001 (date at which the last extended survey was
conducted).
Resource efficiency provides scope to produce
more value with the same or lower resource base,releasing financial benefits and enhancing thecompetitiveness of existing firms. In the case of
infrastructure, investments to renovate or extend
aging urban infrastructure of old cities and address
the infrastructure deficit of burgeoning cities arets of
s for
ts in
80 %
This
. For
ergy
007),
ng 7
Data
temre to% todisel ofandfoundation for municipal engagement in mitigation initiatives whilebuilding momentum for collective action on a global scale.

assessing mitigation potential at the metropolitan scale. This is a particularly important issue for central cities and inner suburbs, where population and emissions may increase within the city boundary if policies
to increase density and compactness are successful (see Section 12.4;
Ganson, 2008; Salon et al., 2010).

12.7.3Many cities, particularly those in developing countries, do not set targets at all. For example, the Delhi Climate Change Agenda only reports
Delhi’s CO
frompower, transport,
and domesticbysectors
2 emissions
FIGURE
10:
Mitigation
activities
being undertaken
citiesas22.49 MtCO2 for 2007 — 2008 (Government of NCT of Delhi, 2010),
Source:Figure12.22 in Seto
al., 2014. sectors and industries comwhile thecontributions
frometcommercial

Limited information is available on the extent to which targets arebeing achieved or emissions reduced. Some cities have alreadyachieved their initial GHG reduction targets, e. g., Seattle (Boswell
et al., 2011), or are on track to do so, e. g. Stockholm (City of Stock-

Planned and implemented mitigation
measures11

Building Energy Demand

47

Efficiency / Retrofit Measures
Building Codes
On-Site Renewables
Building Performance Rating
Financing Mechanisms for Retrofit
Fuel Switching
11

Transport

44

Non-Motorized Transport
Accessibility to Public Transit
Vehicle Fuel Economy
Transport Demand Management
Bus / Light Rail Fuel Economy
Improve Bus Transit Times
Freight System Efficiency
9

Waste

34

Energy Supply

3

Urban Land Use

3

34

33

Absolute Number of Cities

Greenspace and/or Bio-Diversity
Compact Cities
Urban Agriculture
Brownfield Redevelopment
Transit-Oriented Development
Eco-District Development Strategy
Limiting Urban Sprawl

Education

8

15

Non-Annex I

2

Water

13

Outdoor Lighting

Annex I
5

12

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Cities Undertaking this Mitigation Activity [%]Figure 12.22 | Mitigation measures in climate action plans. Sources: Compiled for this assessment from self-reported data submitted to Carbon Disclosure Project (2013).

a major financial opportunity for the future. One
estimate suggests that investments in retrofitting,upgrading and expanding urban transport, buildings
and waste management could have a net present
value of $16.6 trillion to 2050 through avoided
energy costs (Sudmant et al., 2016).
Current market systems and policies frequently work
against the goal of resource efficiency. For example,
direct and indirect subsidies for fossil fuels were
estimated to be $5.3 trillion or 6.5 per cent of global
GDP in 2015 (Coady et al., 2015). These subsidies leadto low fossil fuel prices, which reduce the financial
incentives to conserve energy. Phasing out fossil fuelssubsidies could release fiscal resources, which canbe reallocated in ways that primarily benefits lowincome groups, therefore leading to economic andsocial benefits as well as reducing greenhouse gas
emissions. By comparison, carbon pricing – achieved
through nationally appropriate taxes or emissions
trading schemes – can raise new revenues while
discouraging the use of fossil fuel energy (Global
Commission on the Economy and Climate, 2014).
These are often but not always set at the national
level: a number of Chinese and Japanese cities haveestablished municipal carbon pricing schemes
973in theabsence of national frameworks.

3.3.2 Job creation and local economies
The process of making the urban fabric greener ina sustainable way can lead to major employment
opportunities. Firstly, upgrading to greener
infrastructure can create either temporary or
permanent jobs in many sectors: for example,
labour is required to improve roads, retrofit buildings,
construct or repair drainage and sewerage systems,
and manage recycling services. These jobs
necessitate knowledge of new technologies andworking practices, and involve training and support
within local authorities, private companies and small
enterprises (Rode and Burnett, 2011).
Some sectors and firms are likely to combine
remote or off-shore production with highly urbanised
consumer service support markets (Chapple,
2008). This means that there is potential for cities
to grow both green ‘tradable’ activity (high value,exportable) and develop greener ‘non-tradable’
activities (lower value, goods and services for local

Framing Resource Efficiency

37

consumption). However, job creation must evolvein parallel with improvements in workers’ rights,
their social protection and social dialogue. Attention
must be given to engaging effectively with informal
labour markets in order to eliminate inappropriate
working conditions while creating opportunities fordecent employment. The informal sector provides amajor source of livelihoods in many cities and cancontribute to the generation of a green economy(Brown et al. 2014).

3.3.3

emissions ecological conservationand integration

Reducing greenhouse gas emissions is one of themost important environmental benefits of resource
efficiency. This is by reducing emissions fromfossil fuel consumption (by buildings, transport andindustry) and the decomposition of waste.
There are large opportunities for cities to reducegreenhouse gas emissions through the adoption ofrenewable energy, energy efficiency measures andbetter waste management. Many of these generate
a significant economic return by reducing energy
expenditure: looking across a range of cities, one
estimate finds that investments in cost-effective
options – defined as generating an annual returnof at least 5 per cent – could reduce urban carbon
emissions by 15-24% (relative to business-as-usual
trends) within a decade (Gouldson et al., 2015b).
Many low-carbon measures generate wider social,economic and environmental benefits as well, suchas improved air quality, road safety and mobility.
As recognised in the IPCC Fifth Assessment
Report, cities are already undertaking a range ofactivities that contribute both to resource efficiency
and climate change mitigation, ranging frommanaging energy demand in buildings, to upgradingtransportation infrastructure and considering urban
land use (Seto et al., 2014) (Figure 10).

3.4 Challenges, limits and debates
3.4.1

oes resource efficiency resolve problemsof dependence?

While resource efficiency can be described as a
strategy of using fewer resources to achieve thesame goals, this does not necessarily remove
dependence on limited resources, and runs therisk of being pursued without understanding the
problem of resource depletion. This is particularly
relevant in the context of non-renewable resources:
where efficiency gains deliver economic savings,
the resulting consumption increases can cancel out
environmental benefits . This phenomenon is known
as the ‘rebound effect’ and – while variable – canreduce the environmental benefits associated withthe efficiency gains by up to 30% (Hertwich, 2005;
Sorrell et al., 2009).
Particularly when coupled with rising per capita
incomes, this means that improvements in resource
efficiency do not necessarily offset the growing
demand for resources. This suggests that resource
efficiency strategies alone will not be sufficient tostay within planetary boundaries. Rather, efficiency
measures need to be adopted alongside a switchfrom high consumption of finite resources, tothe widespread use of renewable resources,
lower consumption patterns and reduced waste
production.

3.4.2

ension between resource efficiency andcross-sectoral thinking

Interdependencies between resources can cause
issues if interactions are not understood andproperly managed. Indeed, increasing efficiency
for one type of resource might impede themanagement of another. There are many examples
of such tensions with respect to the water-energy
nexus. Large amounts of energy are sometimes
required to transport water from remote distances,or large quantities of water can be required to
produce energy (e.g. hydropower). Desalination isan increasingly common example, as new plants
are constructed in some water-scarce contexts to
produce more freshwater. Yet desalination is anenergy-intensive process and one that produces
significant amounts of wastewater: almost two
litres of wastewater are generated for every litre of
freshwater produced (Xevgenos et al., 2014). Cities
have to recognise these trade-offs, particularly when
they face both water and energy shortfalls.
Cross-sectoral thinking and coordination are
essential to resolve these types of issues.
Certain resource efficiency methods, such as theconstruction of green infrastructure or rainwater
harvesting, can address multiple challenges
simultaneously or generate diverse co-benefits
beyond the obvious sectoral applications.

3.5 Case studies1
138

Many of the examples and case studies draw on information presented at a series of workshops on Resource Efficient Cities hosted by IIED,UNEP and the Sustainability Institute in 2013 and 2014.

Resilience and Resource Efficiency in Cities

GUANGZHOU, CHINAENERGY-EFFICIENT ARCHITECTURE AND TRADITIONAL TECHNIQUESISSUES WITH RESOURCES
 High energy demands
 Limited energy resources High greenhouse gas emissions

RESOURCE EFFICIENCYINITIATIVESSIMULTANEOUS ACHIEVEMENTS
IN BUILDING RESILIENCE TO

 Adoption of green
construction standards
 Architecture centred onenergy savings
 Green transport

 Local climate constraints
 Energy resource shortages

Conflicts between economic growth andenvironmental sustainability are particularly
relevant in countries like China. The country’s
per capita GDP has increased by more than 92
times between 1978 – the year it adopted its
open door policy – and 2011 (World Economic
Outlook database, 2013; cited in Law et al., 2013).
Its national population has expanded considerably
over the same period, and rapid urbanisation has
resulted in more than 690 million people currently
living in Chinese cities (Chan and u, 1985; National
Bureau of Statistics, 2013). Added to this, higher
affluence, industrial expansion, and growing
transportation demands have all led to the fastest
increase in energy demand in the world. China
depends heavily on imported resources (includingoil), and could not meet growing demand fromdomestic sources (Law et al., 2013).
In 2004, China initiated efforts to build a ‘resourceefficient and environmentally-friendly society’.
Since then, important activities to improve resource
management in the country’s development plans
have been initiated, particularly in relation toenergy. According to West et al. (2013), energy
efficiency in China has improved at a compound
rate of more than 3.9% per year between 1970
and 2009. ‘Greening buildings’ is considered as apriority at national level, given that the country’s
building-related energy consumption accounts
for 30% of the total energy use (Law et al., 2013).
Nevertheless, progress at city-level generally
remains slow, and the majority of Chinese cities
do not yet translate and integrate national
environmental regulations into municipal action.

Guangzhou, capital of Guangdong Province andthird largest city in China, is located along the south
coastline of the country. According to the AsianGreen City Index, Guangzhou – alongside Beijing,
Shanghai, Nanjing and Wuhan – was in the top
five of the cities consuming the highest amountof energy per $US of GDP in 2011. Today, the city
has growing awareness of energy consumption
issues and Guangzhou municipality has adopted
a series of measures to promote the constructionof environmentally-friendly buildings. Among otherpolicies, consumption of clay bricks has beenbanned, while the use of innovative wall materials
is widely encouraged (Legislative Affairs Officeof Guangzhou Municipal Government, 2014). Alllarge infrastructure projects are now required to
be designed according to ‘green standards’, ofwhich the gigantic Pearl River Tower based onclean technology, is a flagship example (Figure 11)(Dodman, 2013; Frechette and Gilchrist, 2008).
For other types of buildings such as houses,
the Lingnan culture has been promoted for its
energy-efficient design (Figure 12 and Figure 13).
Lingnan architecture responds to the hot andhumid subtropical climate of the region in many
ways, including natural cross ventilation systems,
heat insulation performance and natural lighting
methods (Linortner, 2012). Lingnan modern
architects are increasingly combining traditionaland modern structures, including energy-saving
elements inspired by foreign styles that are adapted
to local environmental conditions (Yi-bin and Yongshi, 2006). With the rapid growth of building stocks
in Guangzhou, these policies have the potential toconsiderably improve the energy intensity of socialand economic activities in the city.

Framing Resource Efficiency

39

FIGURE 11: The Pearl River Tower in Guangzhou makes useof wind pushing turbines to produce energy for the building

FIGURE 12: Example of a porch designed according to theprinciples of traditional Lingnan vernacular architecture

Souces: 21th Century Architecture, 2012 (sketch) and GuoZhongHua /Shutterstock.com (picture)

Source: Linortner, 2012.

FIGURE 13: Lingnan-style Qilou buildings in Guangzhou
Source: Guangzhou Daily in Wang and Keyton, 2010.

40

Resilience and Resource Efficiency in Citiesl

LIMA, PERUPAAISSUES WITH RESOURCES
 High demand in water resources Water depletion
 Land contaminationA
RESOURCE EFFICIENCYINITIATIVESSIMULTANEOUS ACHIEVEMENTS IN
BUILDING RESILIENCE TO

 Freshwater conservation
 Re-use of wastewater Green open space generation

 Climate change impacts (higher
temperatures) Water resources shortage

FIGURE 14: San Juan de Lurigancho desde Cerro San Cristόbal (Lima, Perú)
Source: Par KaMpEr, 2012, CC BY 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons.

Metropolitan Lima, the capital of Peru, is located on
the desert coast of the Pacific Ocean. After Cairo, itis the most populous city located in a desert (Kerres,2010). Lima is facing problems of fragmented urban
planning and major water management issues. Highpopulation growth is not supported by appropriate
development strategies, an issue that is particularly
affecting low-income groups in the city who
consequently lack access to basic infrastructureand services. Lack of planning causes enormouspressure on the few open water bodies and on
groundwater supplies. The city is mostly dependent
on water flowing from the Andes mountain range, as
well as from water resources transported from theother side of the range. Freshwater is pumped anddiverted through complex mega-infrastructure thattravels over large distances and supplies the city
through the Rimac River. However, high inequalities
in the city imply that only a certain part of the
population benefits from the distribution system.
Although potable water is used for irrigation, urban
wastewater is not currently recycled in sufficientamounts and is often directly released into theenvironment (Figure 17). Current water management
is thus highly unsustainable and resources are
additionally threatened by climate change thatcauses the rapid melting of the Andes Mountains(Hordijk et al., 2013).

Framing Resource Efficiency

41

FIGURE 15: Wastewater rejected in the Rimac River without
treatment
Source: Loan Diep

FIGURE 16: Industrial wastewater directly rejected into theocean in Metropolitan Lima
Source: Jan Hoffmann.

The ‘Lima Ecological Infrastructure Strategy’ (LEIS)
has been developed as part of a broader initiative
funded by the German Ministry of Education andResearch (BMBF) called the LiWa-project. It aims
at improving spatial planning, land-use efficiency
and urban water management in order to support
sustainable urban development in arid climate
conditions (Eisenberg et al., 2014). Based on theconcepts of Integrated Urban Water Management,
Water-Sensitive Urban Design and GreenInfrastructure, LEIS has developed guidelines andprinciples for the creation of urban water-sensitive
systems. This initiative is directly concerned withthe balance between urban development and water
resources, and seeks to use green spaces to restore
equilibrium (McElhinney, 2012).
The LEIS can be described as a series ofmultifunctional green open spaces. Recognising themultiple values of ecosystem services, this approachseeks to make use of vegetation to purify urban
wastewater, recycle nutrients, protect groundwaterfrom contamination and enable its recharge. It
takes into account the local dry conditions andseasonal variations of the vegetation and rivers. LEIS
promotes theories of integrated urban managementof urban areas, water cycles and open spaces. It isthus a way of promoting land and water efficiency
simultaneously (Poblet et al., 2013; LiWa, n d).

LEIS Tool

Fig. 39. Subsurface, horizontal flow constructedwetland, Cementos Lima, Metropolitan Lima.
(Photo: ILPÖ, 2013)

LEIS Principles

Theoretical Framework

Lima Context

LEIS has recently been developed and its
implementation in Lima is yet to be fully achieved.
The strategy offers potential to significantly improvecity water management, landscape planningand ecological assets. It also serves to create
recreational space (Miranda Sara and Baud, 2014).
Very importantly, it can help reducing dangerous
dependency on dwindling freshwater resources,
and to make use of alternative sources for activities
that do not require water that could otherwise be
used for drinking. In a context of water resources
endangered by both unsustainable practices and the
FIGURE 17: Constructed wetland for wastewater treatment in
Lima Ecological Infrastructure
Strategy
impactsof climate change, restoring and preserving
Metropolitan Lima
the integrity of the hydrological cycle through water
Source: ILPÖ, 2013; cited in Eisenberg et al., 2014.
and land efficiency initiatives is also an opportunity
to enhance the city’s resilience to water shortfallscaused by increasing climate variability. Lima offersa good example to other cities seeking to implement
the New Urban Agenda, with its commitment to“preserving and promoting the ecological and social
function of land… and to fostering ecosystembased solutions to ensure sustainable consumption
and production patterns, so that the ecosystem’s
regenerative capacity is not exceeded.”

Resilience and Resource Efficiency in Citiesl
LEIS Manual

42

KHON KAEN, THAILANDISSUES WITH RESOURCES Waste accumulation
 Land and water contamination

RESOURCE EFFICIENCYINITIATIVES Construction of waste-to-fuelstation Land reconversion

Khon Kaen City is a municipality with about
100,000 inhabitants in northeast Thailand. Solid
waste is a considerable issue for the city and more
broadly, for Khon Kaen Province, which has thelargest waste dump in the north-east region ofThailand and the eighth largest in the country. Thereare currently 800,000 tons of rubbish accumulated
for future disposal at the dump sites of 26 districts.
The province generates about 1,224 tons of new
garbage per day, of which the urban communities
of Khon Kaen city produce 210 tons (Kamthorn
Thavornsathit in Nathanri, 2014). These dumps
create significant public health risks for urban
dwellers, including increased risk of disease andexposure to fire hazards, as seen in Bangkok in 2014
(Jones, 2014).
Khon Kaen municipality is expected to shortly start
the construction of a power plant that will use solid
waste as a resource to produce energy. Working in
partnership with Alliance Clean Power over the 20132033 period on this project, the municipality has
made available a budget of $22 million (GEF, 2011).
The city conducted a pilot project in 2013 which
turned six tons of plastic waste into 5400 litres offuel (Royal Thai Embassy, 2014). Once the approval
from the Ministry of Energy is received, Khon
Kaen will construct the trash-to-fuel station that is
aimed to be finished in early 2015. It is designed totreat 450 tons of garbage on a daily basis, thereby
eliminating the currently accumulated garbage
over a period of seven years. It is envisioned thatthe dumpsite will eventually be transformed into arecreation space for the local community.

SIMULTANEOUS ACHIEVEMENTS IN
BUILDING RESILIENCE TO
 Energy shortage
 Health risks

FIGURE 18: Accumulated garbage in Kohn Kaen city
Source: Wannapreuk in Nathanri, 2014

FIGURE 19: Pyrolysis plant proce ssing plastic garbage into oil
Source: Hongyon , 2013.

The waste-to-energy project is intended to bothuse the waste resources more efficiently, and to
displace prospective fossil fuel consumption. This
helps Khon Kaen tackle two resource constraints
simultaneously, while countering future healthand environmental risks. In this way, a resource
efficiency intervention also has the scope to build
the city’s resilience.

Framing Resource Efficiency

43

3.6 Conclusions

capacities to effectively guide urban development(Seto et al., 2014).

The resource efficiency agenda is increasingly
gaining traction due to a combination of the reduced
environmental impacts, real or perceived scarcities
in supply and – perhaps most importantly – thepotential for economic savings (Moloney andChurchward, 2013). There is scope to improve theefficiency of resource use in key sectors of the city,such as building design and waste management, buteven greater opportunities where urban planners andpolicymakers can shape or re-shape urban form andfunction. The largest opportunities may therefore
be in fast-growing cities that are making large
investments in infrastructure – but most of these
are in low- and lower middle-income countries that
may lack the technical, institutional and financial

Concepts related to resource efficiency, such as‘circular economy’ and ‘closed loops’, are enablingcity governments, firms, civil society organisations
and urban residents to re-imagine the way they
understand and approach resource management,
production and consumption. Such ambitious
initiatives have the potential to deliver significant
economic, social and environmental benefits. For
example, the adoption of more energy-efficienttransport modes (cycling, walking, mass transit andefficient cars) can reduce levels of air pollution withina city, with particular benefits for low-income groups
who tend to live in more polluted areas and to spend
more time outside (Foster, 2011; Garg, 2011).

4
4.1

P
AND RESOURCE EFFICIENCY
ntroduction lin ing the concepts

Resilience and resource efficiency thinking provide
different languages, metaphors and tools forunderstanding and shaping urban change and,
where appropriate, more radical transformation.
Exploring the ideas of resilience and resource
efficiency independently and in association enables
the identification of common features to bothconcepts. At their core, the resilience and resource
efficiency agendas share similar values, objectives
and approaches at city level. However, there arealso tensions that perhaps go unacknowledged inagreements such as the New Urban Agenda.
The critical messages that emerge from the different
city case studies across the world are:
 the process of building resilience offers
opportunities to also build resource efficient
cities; the outcomes of achieving resource efficiency
can contribute to a city becoming more resilient.
Thus, the nexus between resilience and resource
efficiency shows potential for gaining co-benefits
from considering both agendas together. Cityleaders who adopt these concepts jointly todevelop urban planning strategies will be able toachieve greater objectives. Together, they provide
a framework to manage cities in a sustainable
manner.

44

Resilience and Resource Efficiency in Cities

4.2

hared principles and ob ectives

4.2.1 New thinking on approaches to andpreparedness for challenges
Resilience and resource efficiency represent two
sets of principles providing ideas to help individuals,
communities, organisations and ecosystems
cope with the uncertainties and risks they facein a changing world. They both aim to avoid thedecline and eventual collapse of systems. They
provide useful frameworks to make a switch toinnovative thinking to better understand challenges.
Although urban resilience tends to be seen as theway to respond to more sudden impacts, it canalso enhance the adaptive and transformative
capacities of social-ecological systems. Resilienceand resource efficiency together can provide
insights to evaluate a range of short-, mid- andlong-term challenges. They aim to move awayfrom business-as-usual approaches towards
sustainable development and planning. In thecase of transformative initiatives, change can beincremental and continuous, while in other cases it
can be sudden, disorganised and turbulent. While
this might involve whole system design perspectives
for more radical changes (engineering and or
institutional solutions), working on existing systems
can also be substantially easier.

4.2.2 Making use of learning to deal withuncertainty
Both concepts advocate ideas that help systems
to be strengthened in order to overcome predicted
and unpredicted threats and events. It is about
reinforcement built upon lessons learnt from thepast, and framed according to the anticipationof forthcoming disturbances. Strategies may be
informed by experience or by studying lessons fromothers, by gathering data, conducting researchand communicating the findings, conclusions, andrecommendations (Torrens Resilience, 2009). Bothresilience and resource efficiency are essentiallydriven by the anticipation of risks, based onlearning through continuous feedback processes.
Resilience and resource efficiency equally promote
the adoption of measures that can capture thecomplexity of city systems and foster solutions thatare flexible enough for systems to adapt over time
according to different scenarios.
Adaptation to future risks involves dealing
with uncertainty. A focus on flexibility implies
an engagement with experimentation and theconsideration of different levels of uncertainty.
Resilience thinking directly considers uncertainty byhaving as prime objective the creation of systems
that can adapt and maintain an acceptable level offunctioning and structure when facing diverse typesof shocks and stresses (Welsh, 2012). Resource
efficiency advocates the need to return to forms ofcircularity for cities to survive resource limitations
associated with environmental and climate
uncertainties, as well as to multiple and sometimes
unpredictable internal and external limiting factors.
Therefore, both encourage cities to prepare for andmanage risks of various types.

4.2.3 Understanding risks
The notion of risk reflects the probability and themagnitude of an adverse effect. Recent definitions
recognise that individuals take risks to achieve
potential benefits, thereby highlighting the notion of
trade-offs. For example, people living in coastal cities
can be exposed to floods, cyclones, sea-level rise andcoastal erosion. It is often impossible to completely
remove the probability of a disruptive event. However,identifying, evaluating and formally communicating
the risks enable societies to make decisions on
how to reduce the probability and or the impacts ofdisturbance, and sometimes better accept certain
consequences (Torrens Resilience, 2009).
The idea of risks is also directly relevant from aresource perspective. In cities, resource scarcity andsupply chain risks threaten the future of societies.
Risk management is therefore a core principle ofresource efficiency in the way it seeks the reductionof environmental impacts that can lead to further
environmental degradation, economic costs, andsocial issues such as health problems. Restoring
ecosystem services, as promoted by certain aspectsof resource efficiency, is also a manner to avoid
relying on technical solutions which can provoke
the emergence of new risks. Indeed, achieving
sustainability does not necessarily mean relying on
innovation and adopting technocratic approaches,
but to fundamentally re-think urban growth. As
seen in the case of Guanghzou, this can sometimes
require returning to traditional practices or restoring
ecosystems and cycles that have been degraded.
As demonstrated with the case studies, cities
aim towards different levels of transformation.
They build preparedness starting by developing
plans, standards and operational procedures, or bydeveloping economic and or social capital according
to expected and or uncertain scenarios. Building
resilience against risks to prevent crises is about
response, but also for recovery. From a resource
perspective, preparedness can for example takethe form of avoiding ‘resource depletion’ so to
avoid social injustice, economic crisis or further
environmental degradation. The adoption ofrenewable energy technologies is a proactive wayof addressing energy resource shortage, but also to
mitigate climate change risks.

4.2.4

ptimising and preserving resource flows

Adopting urban resilience and resource efficiency
agendas means that societies can survive andideally, that they can thrive sustainably. The link
between cities and resource flows is particularly
important if this is to be achieved. On the one hand,resource flows themselves have underpinned andshaped cities, their development structure andspatial organisations (Atkinson, 2014). On theother hand, cities have impacted the way resources
travel, supply urban activities and support theneeds associated with their growth. Both urban
resilience and resource efficiency find opportunities
from making use of this mutual connection. They
explore the ways in which dependency can be
reduced so cities become more self-reliance, butalso remain open systems.
Combining resilience and resource efficiency
thinking would prioritise optimising resource chainsand flows that make sub-systems run, and thus
preserving the metabolism of the city system
as a whole. Resilience and resource efficiency
principles advocate the benefits of adopting
holistic perspectives that explore the links between
components of a given system, and also understandExploring the Nexus between Resilience and Resource Efficiency

45

how several resources are sometimes interlinked
and mutually dependent on each other. In a joint
agenda, material flows assessments can help todefine actions reflecting the dynamics between
urban socio-economic activities, and considering theenvironmental conditions in which these take place.

4.2.5

aintaining diversity

In addition, preserving diversity is a common
goal for the two concepts and a key condition
for maintaining the identity and stability of urban
systems (Nwachukwu and Robinson, 2011).
Resilience encourages diversity to make a system
redundant and safer in case of failure of a single orseveral components, thereby reducing dependency
on single components and providing alternatives.
As argued by Ahern (2011: 342), “cities with higher
levels of economic and social diversity have amore complex response by which they are better
positioned to adapt to change and socioeconomic
disturbance”. Diversity in resource efficiency isalso a way of conserving resources by reducing
dependence. An integrated approach to resilienceand resource efficiency can therefore help cities tounderstand what range of resources is available tothem and plan accordingly for different time frames.
Resource base analyses offer opportunities to lower
dependence on finite resources and ecosystems,
and to develop more viable alternatives, such as theuse of renewable resources.

4.2.6

inimising impacts on environmental
assets and conserving ecological
functions

Reducing environmental impacts is anotherkey common objective. Resource efficiency
directly aims to minimise negative impacts on
the environment: it attempts to plan according
to ecological limits; encourages climate change
mitigation; and values ecosystem services to restore
natural loop systems. In a more indirect manner,
resilience – and particularly ecological resilience– considers reducing ecological footprints andpreserve ecosystems’ natural ability to respondto disturbance. In disaster risk reduction, it seeks
minimal vulnerability and the minimisation of
hazards impacts by protecting or strengthening
ecological systems which are exposed to damage.
Developing resource efficient and resilient strategies
in parallel will thus ensure the limitation of impacts
at multiple levels, thereby leading to greaterachievements regarding environmental protection.

46

Resilience and Resource Efficiency in Cities

4.2.7

aving costs

Direct financial savings, improved cost efficiency,
and the reduction of externalities are importantcommon economic goals targeted by resilience andresource efficiency. As the costs of socioeconomicand environmental crises are growing, building andmaintaining a solid economic structure to prevent
cities to collapse is one of the most problematicchallenges. As now widely recognised in the context
of climate change, the costs of no-action are
generally greater than early investment, for example
in low-carbon growth (Global Commission on the
Economy and Climate, 2014). Resilience aims
at preventing the diverse costs of impacts fromdisturbance on physical or socio-political systems.
Amongst these, economic costs are addressed byminimising the most threatening risks by attempting
to offer structural change answers, and to eventually
generate long-term savings. Economic resilience
more particularly aims to make economic growthstronger and human development greater, often byconsidering scales of governance as determinantfactors of the making of resilient economies(Bahadur and Tanner, 2014).
From a resource perspective, resilience seeks toderive the economic insurance value of ecosystem
resilience thereby providing incentives forenvironmental protection. Resource efficiency also
directly generates economic savings in multiple
ways. This starts with the goal of producing thesame with less resources or producing more withthe same amount of resources. As more andmore measuring and gauging economic methods
are developed, there is increasing evidence fromboth resilience and resource efficiency resulting in
financial advantages that can attract investment.
Furthermore, if these two cost-effective agendas are
well-designed together, further economic benefits
can be generated.

4.2.8 What boundaries and scale for action?
Shocks and stresses affect societies in complex
and interconnected ways that require understanding
systems in their wider context and adopting multiplescale perspectives. For instance, this is obvious whendisruptive events (e.g. industrial disasters, epidemics,
economic crash) have immediate global impacts,
which in return require collective responses. Cities
depend on ecosystems, resources, and populations
from other places – they are often supplied withresources that originate outside their boundaries

requiring large infrastructure systems to transportand convey them to societies, and also export
resources or transport waste elsewhere. This signifies
cities need to be explored at scales that include periurban and rural areas, sometimes even at the national
or international level.

short- and long-distance connections. From theresilience perspective, being able to travel froma scale to another is crucial to evaluate the way
transformation at small levels can help maintaining
resilience on a larger scale (Elmqvist, 2014).

The resilience and resource efficiency frameworks
both consider the notions of scale and boundaries.
Both concepts approach cities through multiplescale perspectives and recognise the need tomove away from narrow boundaries analyses.
Instead, the urban resilience and resource
efficiency perspective start to increasingly view
cities as large open systems with a range of

4.3 Distinct and common
characteristics between resilient
cities and resource efficient cities
The aim of this section is to compare and contrast
the characteristics of sub-systems of a resilient citywith those of a resource efficient city.

FIGURE 20: Areas of action to build resilience and resource efficiency
Source: authors.

INDIVIDUALS, INSTITUTIONSAND GOVERNANCE NETWORKS(Socio-political andeconomic structures)

INFRASTRUCTURESAND SERVICES(Built environment in urban
landscapes and associatedservices)URBAN
RESILIENCE
AND RESOURCEEFFICIENCY

NATURAL ECOSYSTEMS(Living organisms and non-living
components of the environment)

METABOLIC FLOWS(Production, supply,
consumption choices)

Exploring the Nexus between Resilience and Resource Efficiency

47

4.3.1

haracteristics o a resilient city and its
sub-systems

n rastructure and services

Resilient infrastructure and services are able to resist
to shocks so as to keep functioning or to quickly
recover. Additionally, redundancy is a key propertyof resilient services, so they can assure safe failure
by offering alternative ways of functioning (e.g.
extra elements which are not strictly necessary
to functioning are available in the case of failurein crucial elements). If the system does stopfunctioning, it must be able to rapidly rebound inorder to minimise disruption. Engineering resiliencesignifies that infrastructure is robust enough towithstand physical shocks and to provide protection
to human life and health. In the case of a transportsystem, mobility and accessibility is assured. Resilient
communication systems assure reliable connections,for example through continuous power supply
through secondary lines in IT hubs.

ndividuals institutions and governance networks

Social sub-systems in cities include governmental
bodies, civil societies, and businesses. Resilient
individuals and institutions are able to adapt toan uncertain environment, anticipate risks, andorganise themselves in a collaborative manner inthe occurrence of shocks and stresses. Innovation
is sometimes necessary for more resourcefulness
during shocks and stresses and for recovery. In linewith diversity as a core objective, social pluralism
paired with coordination can also be a corerequirement to provide flexibility and be resourcefulfor better response. Social resilience also reflects anability to reflect, learn from and share experience.
Socially resilient governance tends to be associatedwith decentralised systems in which participationand polycentrism is promoted (Béné et al., 2014).
Stability, coordination and effective leadership areimportant resilient characteristics. This is also thecase for economic characteristics and where spareresource capacity is key for responsiveness to risks.
Social resilience is also associated with prosperityof livelihoods. Many associate social resilience
with a social justice approach where stakeholders
are empowered, and support is provided to thedevelopment of marginalised groups (Arup, 2014a;
Khalil et al., 2013, Béné et al., 2014).

atural ecosystems

The resilience of natural ecosystems, directly
associated with ‘urban ecological resilience’, generally
refers to reducing the vulnerability of natural assets.
From this perspective, a resilient city is characterised
by low impacts of urbanisation and human activities
on ecosystems, biodiversity and cycles (Béné et al,

48

Resilience and Resource Efficiency in Cities

2014). Ecosystem resilience is a direct consequenceof the adaptive capacity of social-ecologicalsystems: human activities can cause unexpectedconsequences causing ecosystem collapse. In
a resilient city, pollution is kept at a minimum
for the absorption capacities of ecosystems to
be maintained at reasonable level without being
irreversibly damaged (e.g. avoiding soil degradationfrom land-use change) (Peter and Swilling, 2012).
From a different perspective, resilient ecosystems
have the capacity to buffer the effects of the shocks
they face (i.e. absorb disturbance), or to adapt tothe stresses from which they suffer. This type of
resilience is directly related to the social, economic
and infrastructural value and functions offered byecological processes and natural dynamics.

4.3.2

haracteristics o a resource efficient cityand its sub-systems
n rastructure and services

In resource efficient cities, infrastructure and services
are able to function while meeting the demand of
the population with the use of the lowest amountsof resources possible. This implies that production
is maximised in a way it can meet the needs of the
population while not causing additional environmental
impacts. It also means that waste is produced atminimum rates and or reused as much as possible.
In resource efficient cities, infrastructure and services
are well-connected to ensure that resource flows are
maximised. For example, smart infrastructure andservices promote circularity so inputs are treated for
one use and outputs for another.
A directly related notion is that of ‘urban ecologicalsecurity’ which refers to the protection of resource
flows, services and infrastructure through thereconfiguration of cities and their infrastructures
to enable ecological and material reproduction(Hodson and Marvin; cited in Peter and Swilling,2012). Physical infrastructure is well-integrated so
as to ensure there is a good balance between thebuilt and non-built environment. This includes thepreservation or restoration of the hydrological cycle(e.g. connected rivers and streams) which is often
disturbed by human activities and infrastructure.

ndividuals institutions and governance networks

In resource efficient cities, consumption andproduction patterns are in equilibrium withresource availability, often resulting from changes
in behaviour and thus minimising ecosystemdegradation. Social innovation is often described
as a crucial factor for the improvement of resource
productivity: cities with limited resources areforced to be innovative in order to optimise theopportunities from the use of what little is available.

Resource efficiency in cities can thus be enhancedby knowledge sharing and creativity. Furthermore,
dependency on limited resources is decreased,
while autonomy and self-reliance are enhanced,
thereby increasing flexibility. Resource efficiency
at city-level also entails cross-sector and interinstitutional coordination. This is to make the mostof interactions between resources, and between
resources and the environment in which they flow. At
the institutional level, the environment is integrated
into urban governance, and urban perspectives areembedded into environmental policy-making to
avoid negative impacts between city sub-systems.

atural ecosystems

Cities where resource efficiency is promoted apply
less pressure on the resources that are available
to them. They have better control on resource
flows, and make the most of natural cycles within
and outside city boundaries. This is particularly
true where ecosystem services are restored,
or even where they are imitated (e.g. artificial
wetlands). Therefore, this enables the return to, or
the maintenance of an environmental equilibrium
state. Resource efficiency also enables biodiversity
conservation; while waste reduction means that landdegradation, soil contamination and waterbodies
pollution are minimised.

4.4 Towards an integrated agenda
4.4.1

omplementary activities vs conflicting
activities

What does achieving resilience and resource
efficiency at city-level mean in more practical terms?
Translating goals that are shared by both resilienceand resource efficiency agendas into concrete
actions enhances the potential ways of achieving
common objectives through one set of activities
to implement at city-level, but may also highlightpotential contradictions. Some short-term strategies
to strengthen economic resilience may increasepressure on ecosystems and thus lead to inefficient
resource use: for example land-use change throughintense cultivation and livestock production mightlead to irreversible soil degradation as well as
require large quantities of water. Engineering or
technological solutions that reduce dependence
on non-renewable sources of energy (e.g. dams
and nuclear power plants) may not contribute toresilience (or, indeed, to broader environmental
objectives). However, this does not mean that thetwo agendas are contradictory, but rather that theyneed to be viewed in association with each other,and possible areas of tension reconciled, if mutuallyreinforcing goals are to be achieved.

The use of urban vegetation is a particularly
effective example of a complementary activity.
On the aspect of resource efficiency, some typesof vegetation – such as those of wetlands – canstore water and release it slowly, thereby enabling
the natural continuous recharge of groundwater. In
addition, vegetation can have an important role inabsorbing carbon dioxide and contributing to climatechange mitigation. On the aspect of resilience, it hasa crucial role in increasing groundwater absorption
and slowing surface run-off (hence reducing
flooding), and reducing urban heat island effects(thereby keeping temperatures lower).
In the case of market systems, adjusting subsidies
for fossil fuels in favour of green technologies will
create incentives for making infrastructure andservices more energy efficient, as well as reducing
GHG emissions. In parallel, it could enable resiliencebuilding by decreasing reliance on fossil fuels,
particularly in the context of uncertainty around future
costs and available reserves. Such measures offer
the promise that these outcomes contribute to thetransformation of a system towards sustainability.
As argued by Karlenzig (2010), “growing a green
economy will be a fundamental facet of urban
resilience”. Job growth will particularly take placein sectors such as green building and landscaping,water conservation, low-carbon transportation,
green information, public transport and waste
management. City-scale decoupling can also
support businesses in providing green jobs andmeeting the needs of the new economy with green
technologies and services. A resilient and resource
efficient model of city planning would ideally support
local, national, and global economies in adapting to
new prices, including volatile energy supplies.
Figure 21 schematically illustrates a set of activities
that can be undertaken to help meet the objectivesof resilience and resource efficiency and how these
may reinforce each other, and helps to set the frame
for an integrated agenda.
The definition of policies associated with theresilience-resource efficiency nexus can start bydefining key parameters and related thresholds
based on the understanding of the city-system andof the potential shocks and stresses anticipated.
Guiran (2014), using the four different aspectsof resilience defined by Walker et al. (2004),
applies this approach to different areas ofaction, including natural ecosystems (e.g. foodand hydrological ecosystems, see Table 3) andsocioeconomic structures (e.g. economic income,local employability rate). This approach provides
a starting point to elaborate actions that could
combine resilience and resource efficiency visions.

Exploring the Nexus between Resilience and Resource Efficiency

49

FIGURE 21: Examples of mutually reinforcing activities meeting both the resilience and resource efficiency agendas

A

rainwater harvesting,wastewater recycling

development/use of renewable energies(incl. biomass, solar, wind)green roofs installation,
climate-adaptive architecture
A P
A
non-motorised strips and public transit
infrastructure construction, green transport, development
A
A A
blue and green infrastructure construction,
urban forest conservation, wetland restoration/constructionA

crop switching/rotation, erosion control, minimum
tillage, aquaculture diversificationA

reduce/minimise, re-use, recycle, environmentallysound disposal

IN

TE

GRA
TED AGDEN

RESILIENCEAGENDATABLE 3:A
RESOURCEEFFICIENCYAGENDA

Example of threshold definition for a system exposed to water and food unavailability

Source: Guiran, 2014; adapted from Walker et al., 2004.

Potential direction or action

ater availability

Changing threshold (latitude axis)

Changing the water requirements (e.g. lessthan 60 )Changing the food requirements(e.g. changing family diets)

Move the current state of the system
away from or closer to the thresholds(precariousness axis)

Changing water availability (e.g. improving
water provision from existing wells by
digging deeper)

Changing average food availability(e.g. via improved agricultural
productivity rate, promotion of selfsupporting agriculture)

ake the thresholds more difficult or
easier to reach (resistance axis)

Changing ways of access to water (e.g.
water recycling)

Changing sources of food provision(e.g. via adjusted agricultural mix…)

Manage cross-sale interactions to
avoid or generate loss of resilience at
ad from other scale

Anticipate new water needs (e.g. if
development of new activities);

Interaction with larger scale foodsecurity programmes.

Wide scale raising awareness on theissue and solutions (e.g. dissemination on
information of water scarcity)

Wide-scale raising awareness on theissue and solutions (e.g.

(Panarchy axis)

50

Resilience and Resource Efficiency in Cities

ood availability

dissemination on information ofcrops adaptation

4.4.2 denti ying and addressing trade-o s
As much as understanding common objectives
and features of the two concepts, it is important tounderstand where tensions might exist. For instance,
the resilience agenda may sometimes approach
redundancy of infrastructure without addressing theneed to reduce resource consumption. In the caseof energy services (e.g. services that are specialisedin power production and supply), energy security
is sought through spare capacity. However, thisrequirement can fundamentally be at odds with‘minimum [energy] consumption’, as stipulated inresource efficiency principles which promote theprovision of basic energy services with the least
amount of resources used.
Comparing ‘extreme’ resilient systems and ‘extreme’
resource efficiency systems is a way to understandwhat trade-offs a city might have to address.
Regarding resilience, Elmqvist (2014: n d) explainsthat “many examples can be found of highly
resilient systems (e.g. oppressive political systems)
locked into an undesirable system configuration
or state with high levels of environmental inequity.”
For instance, a system that would prioritise rapid
economic growth (socio-economic resilience)
through trade, and do so at the expense of its
resources, is unlikely to be resource efficient.
On the contrary, too strong an emphasis on resource
efficiency, for example in the objective to maximise
outputs, can decrease resilience. This is illustrated
by Elmqvist (ibid) with a deliberate reduction inredundancy in modes of governance: a systemwith too few actors would have poor predictability
and controllability capacities. A resilience approach
would lead to multiple and alternative connections,perhaps through redundancy in governance at the
local and at the global scale, and thereby engaging
collaboration between cities. City networks canenable the management of resource chains, anelement which can also be overlooked in cases
where very highly resource efficient cities are selfindependent and thus, perhaps isolated. Cities thatare too isolated may lose their position in regional,
national, or global systems, lose their competitive
character, and even collapse.

In particular, possible tensions between resource
efficiency and social resilience need to be reconciled.
A green transport system powered by renewableenergy can be efficient and yet not contribute toequitable access to serve the resilience requirementsof low-income populations in cities. Capital output
ratios for photovoltaic technology and tariff systems
are sometimes not conducive for significant scaleup in low-income contexts. How can these tradeoffs be resolved though different state regulatory
instruments and research and development in ‘green’
technologies? That particular example also raises
the fundamental question of how to integrate humancommunities as integral components of ecosystems(Collins et al., 2000). Furthermore, this also highlights
how particular urban areas and particular social
interests might be selectively privileged over others(Peter and Swilling, 2012).
The nature and importance of trade-offs directly
depend on the context of implementation and thecircumstances in which the system is considered. In
some contexts, resource security is not targeted ina short-term social agenda (e.g. spare resources will
be required to meet social needs in the occurrenceof a hazard). However, it will be a priority in a longterm ecological resilience agenda (Roelich et al.,2013; Roelich et al., 2015). Various scales of action
thus help define objectives and will determine
how these objectives might vary from one scale
to another. This takes us back to the necessityof analysing resilience “of what, to what, and forwhom”, as well as analysing resources “what isavailable, what is under pressure and how dodifferent types of resources interact”.

4.5 Case studies

Exploring the Nexus between Resilience and Resource Efficiency

51

NEW YORK CITY, UNITED STATESNew York City is currently one of the world’s
leading cities in terms of investment for building
resilience. This is in part a response to recent
disasters: in 2012, Hurricane Sandy destroyed entire
neighbourhoods and paralysed utility facilities
and networks. According to Sanders and Milford(2014), more than 400 housing authority buildings
containing around 35,000 housing units lost power,
heat and or hot water during the superstorm. New
York’s exposure to environmental hazards and theprospect of continued population growth have driven
significant public planning and investment in recent
years (Keenan and Chakrabarti, 2013). Six months
after Sandy hit the northeastern coast of the UnitedStates, the city government upgraded its PlaNYC
strategy – initially released under the title ‘A Greener,
Greater New York - and launched ‘A Stronger, More
Resilient New York’ in 2013, a long-term plan totackle issues related to climate change impacts(NYCEDC, 2013).
Amongst its 257 programmes, the new PlaNYC
includes initiatives directed to upgrade infrastructure
and protect critical services to ensure continuity inthe occurrence of hazards (Siemens and C40, 2014).
To protect its energy networks, the city has adopted
a holistic approach to secure ‘grid resilience’,i.e. a system of electricity storage composedof interconnected microgrids acting as single
controllable entities that can operate in island mode
should any individual modules be damaged (Ton,2014). Building grid resilience involves upgrading
power poles and increase energy storage to allow
the reliable and fast reconfiguration of the energy

system when portions of the grid are down. Suchpower grid enables continuity of service provision
by safeguarding energy against power outages
and allowing rapid power restoration in case of
disruption caused by a man-made or climateinduced event (Momoh, 2009).
Although enabling resilience, building such a system
is financially expensive and can be consideredinefficient in multiple ways. Lichter (2014) argues
that “nearly two-thirds of every megawatt US power
plants produce never does a bit of useful work.
Some of it is lost due to the natural resistance ofpower lines. Some is lost as heat during generation.
[…] some is lost by design when utilities deliberately
generate more electricity than they need andshed the access”. As part of New York’s efforts toenhance grid resilience, the system is capable ofproducing much more energy than it is normallyrequired. On top of this, the system’s transmission
lines are buried underground and often prevent
potentially more productive land-use. Alternative or
supplementary initiatives to address these problems
can include the construction of photovoltaic panels
and wind turbines to generate renewable power insufficient amounts for redundancy reserves. These
are also decentralised technologies, so could belinked to separate microgrids to further support
modularity. In order to mainstream this type ofactivities, New York needs to combine visions ofresilience and resource efficiency in its city strategy
and translate it into concrete actions such as the
adoption of regulations.

FIGURE 22: Energy is a vital part in the daily life of the citizens of New York City
Source: Jan Hoffmann.

52

Resilience and Resource Efficiency in Citiesl

JOHANNESBURG, SOUTH AFRICA-P A

A

The City of Johannesburg is South Africa’s economic
powerhouse, as well as the most populous
metropolitan area in the country, with a populationof more than 3 million (Planact, 2014). Although per
capita incomes are high on average, Johannesburg
faces significant poverty and unemployment (above30%), and is grappling with rapid urbanisation(3-4% per annum). The city is also threatened by
the impacts of climate change on already fragile
resources. Securing adequate supplies of freshwaterand energy represent major issues, while increasingly
frequent and intense flooding and heatwaves arelikely to threaten the wellbeing and productivity of
low-income residents in the city.
The city’s development has resulted in thedeterioration of the urban ecological infrastructure,
while its history has also generated stark socialand spatial divisions. Today, Johannesburg is acity of contrasts which provoke tensions between
policy agendas of economic growth and sustainable
development (Parnell and Robinson, 2006).
In 2006, Johannesburg developed long-term
development strategies which align with its vision of
becoming “a World Class African City of the Future”:‘the Growth and Development Strategy 2040’ (GDS2040) (City of Johannesburg, 2011). The GDS 2040
consists of medium-term spatially-oriented plans
for the infrastructure, housing and transportation
sectors. One of the objectives of the strategy is
to: “provide a resilient, liveable, sustainable urban
environment – underpinned by infrastructure
supportive of a low-carbon economy”. This aims to beachieved through the establishment of ecoefficient
infrastructure solutions for housing, water,
waste, sanitation, transport and communications
technology. Initiatives regarding energy efficiency areprogressively evolving and the city plans to develop
grid-connected renewable energy systems.

2

Land-use transformation goes along each ofthese corridors which involve the constructionof social infrastructure, such as schools, offices,
community-facilities, parks, and clinics. The creationand maintenance of an urban green infrastructure
and urban forest network are also included in
the scheme, as is the construction of waterdrainage systems to address flood hazards (Cityof Johannesburg, n d). The Corridors of Freedom
are presented as a comprehensive plan that will
act as a catalyst to drive a long-term spatial andsocial transformation process across Johannesburg(Pieterse, 2014).
In order to assess progress towards its goals of
productivity, good governance, inclusivity andenvironmental sustainability, the city has developed
sets of indicators against which it collected data.
Indicators such as the reduction of waste to landfill
and the percentage of clean energy demonstrateefforts to keep track of achievements made towards
the efficient use of resources.
Johannesburg is tackling embedded challengesof spatial division, poverty and resource scarcity
through a transformative process. The institutional
policies recently developed by the city include
explicit objectives of resilience and sustainable
resource use, as well as goals associated with the
reduction of poverty and spatial division. While it is
too early to evaluate the success of such objectives
given the recent start of implementation of theCorridors of Freedom, this case demonstrates
the possibility of concretely defining policies that
integrate resilience and resource efficiency together.

Since 2012, the city’s agenda has also included
the ‘Corridors of Freedom’ initiative (CoF), a spatial
restructuring plan developed in accordance with
the GDS to enhance the city population’s mobility.
Johannesburg’s concept of ‘Corridors of Freedom’aims at connecting strategic nodes through thedevelopment of corridors linked through affordable
and accessible public transit, which includes bus
and passenger rail. One of the key features ofthis plan is to reduce the use of private transport.
2This case study draws on an interview with Yondela Silimela, City of Johannesburg.

Exploring the Nexus between Resilience and Resource Efficiency

53

SAO PAULO, BRAZIL
Brazil is one of the most urbanised countries in Latin
America, which is in turn the most urbanised region in
the world: 80% of the region’s population lives in cities(Arsht, 2014). After absorbing more than 80 million
new urban residents between 1970 and 2000, Brazil
has today completed its urban transition and 85%
of its population is urban (Martin and McGranahan,2010). São Paulo, Brazil’s largest urban area, is oneof the most populous cities in the world. Nearly
12 million people live in the city (World Population
Review, 2015), which is the financial and cultural
centre of Brazil and Latin America (Ribeiro, 2004).
In parallel, the city is facing major urban issues suchas poverty and unemployment, inadequate housing
and basic service provision, ageing infrastructure,urban sprawl and increasing levels of pollution(Bucalem, 2012). Forty percent of the population(including the majority of low-income and vulnerable
citizens) lives in the urban periphery where accessto water, sanitation and electricity is lacking (World
Bank, n d). For example, the average consumptionof water in high-income areas reaches 350 litres perperson per day, in contrast with 120 litres per person
per day in poorer areas (Interview with Mauricio
Piragino, 10th April 2015). With climate change,
the city is projected to experience more frequent,
heavy rain and higher temperatures. 900,000
largely low-income households located in peripheral
areas also face environmental risks because of thelocation on slopes and in flood-prone areas) (World
Bank, n d). Issues of water availability and accessare increasingly prominent and reflect a lack ofinstitutional involvement and capacity.
Despite some plans and policies, concrete actions
to tackle these issues remain poor. The lack ofinstitutional initiatives and the non-existence ofparticipatory processes in urban governanceare repeatedly pointed out. São Paulo misses
coordination between governmental policies but alsowith society’s actions which prevents the city fromdeveloping in a sustainable way. Nevertheless, the city
has considerable financial, economic, educational,
technological, cultural and social resources. Manysocial movements and grassroots initiatives in thecity have emerged: a wave that reflects the need foraffirmation of democracy” (Caldeira, 2003). Rede
Nossa Sao Paulo (‘Our Sao Paulo Network’), forexample, is a network of actors that involves around
700 organisations, citizens, and businesses, andwhich has for overall objective to transform the city
into a just, democratic and sustainable city where
the quality of life of citizens is improved. The network
seeks to mobilise citizens to tackle problems in

54

Resilience and Resource Efficiency in Citiesl

the city, increase the civil society’s participation indecision-making, debate on urban governance andcall politicians for action (Rede Nossa Sao Paulo,2015). Rede Nossa Sao Paulo believes that such
mobilisation may be capable to build a political,
social and economic force bringing society andgovernments to a set of medium and long-termsustainable development goals.
A range of different types of actions have been
conducted by the network which focuses onpolitical activism, advocacy and community
capacity-building. Amongst many initiatives andactions, it launched the Sustainable Cities Program(PCS) in 2011, in partnership with two other socialorganisations. More than 270 Brazilian cities haveparticipated in PCS. The programme’s goal is toengage city representatives to take action in aplatform of sub-programmes (‘Foundations’) to
improve governance, protect common natural
assets, promote equity, social justice, and cultureof peace, better mobility and less traffic, etc. The
programme provides cities with an administrative
agenda for urban sustainability, including indicatorsand targets defined to measure progress with regard
to sustainable development. It also focuses on
public participation, and enhances the exchange
of information and experiences between local andglobal levels (Nossa Sao Paulo, 2014).
What does this imply in terms of resilience andresource efficiency? Organisations like Rede Nossa
Sao Paulo attempt to undertake initiatives where
governmental bodies may fail to fulfil their role, andthereby demonstrate the value of coordination,
participatory processes and knowledge sharing
to achieve goals of sustainable development.
Through the mobilisation of stakeholders who are
engaged with values and principles around themes
such as energy efficiency, climate mitigation, andhealthy environment, socio-environmental andpolitical initiatives were born. The movement has
thus enabled to engage key actors to build a typeof grassroots social resilience against politicalinstability, and to demonstrate that while the roleof municipal governments in achieving resource
efficiency and resilience is essential, organised civilsociety also has a central role to play in this.

4.6

onclusion co-bene ts rom
achieving resilience and resource
efficiency

Cities around the world are facing a range ofinterconnected challenges and opportunities linked
to changing demographic and environmentalpressures. For urban centres to survive and thrive,
they need to be well-coordinated and to respondeffectively to these different pressures. Moving
towards resilience and resource efficiency is one key
element of this preparation.
This report – and in particular the city case studies
it contains – demonstrates some of the ways inwhich cities are responding to these challenges, andidentifies some promising areas for action that canbe taken on board by urban areas elsewhere. The
key messages that it presents can be summarised
as follows: A resilience agenda can help cities become
more resource efficient by being more flexible
and by being better able to learn and respond tochanged circumstances. The process of building
resilience can therefore simultaneously offer
opportunities to build resource efficiency.
 A resource efficiency agenda can help cities tobecome more resilient by reducing exposure to
the risk of shortfalls in essential inputs. Various
inputs addressed in a resource efficiency agenda(materials, products, water, energy, food) are all
essential for urban functioning. The outcomeof achieving greater resource efficiency cancontribute to a city becoming more resilient,because it will rely less heavily on the systems
that provide resources.
 A number of areas of action are common to bothconcepts, therefore providing ground for mutual
reinforcement. City leaders aiming to achieveboth resilience and resource efficiency can adopt
measures for each with the potential to contributeto the achievement of both objectives.
 Possible tensions between resource efficiency
and resilience may also exist. Redundancy andmodularity may help cities to be more resilient toshocks and stresses, but could also be framed
as representing inefficient use of resources.
Overcoming these potential conflicts will require
more integrated and responsive urban planningand governance.
 Achieving resilience and resource efficiency at
city-level can help meet broader sustainability
objectives. The urban resilience and resource
efficiency concepts have overlapping objectives
and both aim at addressing major challenges
such as climate change and pressure on

natural resources. They are concerned not onlywith short-term achievements, but also with
providing key tools for the long-term sustainable
development of cities.
The case studies support many of these lessons.
It is clear that cities in a wide range of contexts aremaking significant commitments and progress
towards either enhanced resource efficiency or
improved urban resilience, and that efforts to achieve
one are often contributing to the other. These citycase studies also reveal a wide range of potential
entry points to these environmental agendas. In
New York City, an environmental disaster has helped
to drive the resilience agenda; in Johannesburg,
the social and political stresses created by historicpatterns of governance and planning are catalysing
transformative actions; and in Sao Paulo, civil society
groups have engaged in the absence of action by theformal structures of government.
The examples above also reinforce the scale of thechallenge facing cities. To quote the New Urban
Agenda, “the persistence of multiple forms ofpoverty, growing inequalities and environmental
degradation remain among the major obstacles tosustainable development worldwide, with social andeconomic exclusion and spatial segregation often an
irrefutable reality in cities and human settlements”.
Enhancing urban resilience and resource efficiency
will be critical to addressing the social, economicand environmental challenges facing not just cities,
but the planet. These agendas are fundamental
to delivering a range of global commitments
beyond the New Urban Agenda, including the Paris
Agreement, the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk
Reduction and the Sustainable Development Goals.
Cities are uniquely positioned to see the need for,and to address, an integrated approach to resilienceand resource efficiency. City governments are often
the most effective actors at directing capital into
more resource-efficient activities, and are placedat the most effective scale to respond to shocks
and stresses. Moreover, shared urban identities canmobilise the private and civic sectors to support acity’s environmental agenda, adding a dynamism
and creativity to local initiatives that can underpin
transformative change. With their concentrationof people, ideas and infrastructure, cities haveunique opportunities to deliver improved resilienceand resource efficiency. The growth of urban
populations and economies could be an engine
for sustained and sustainable development – if it
is possible to readdress the way cities and humansettlements are planned, designed, financed,
developed, governed and managed. This is animmense challenge – but it is also an opportunitythat cities cannot afford to miss.

Exploring the Nexus between Resilience and Resource Efficiency

55

5 BIBLIOGRAPHY
21st Century Architecture (2012). Pearl River Tower, Hualien Beach Resort exemplify modern China. Available at:
http: 21stcenturyarchitecture.blogspot.co.uk 2012 05 pear-river-towerhualien-beach-resort.html Accessed 12th
February 2015 .
ACCCRN (2011). Building climate change resilience in Semarang. Available at: http: resilientcities.iclei.org
fileadmin sites resilient-cities files Resilient Cities 2011 Presentations E E6 and F6 Brown.pdf Accessed
11th November 2014 .
ACCCRN. (2013). ACCCRN City Projects. Bangkok. Available at: http: www.rockefellerfoundation.org uploads
files 8ff925b8-2254-4b71-a7fb6082464b844e-acccrn-cities.pdf Accessed 12th November 2014 .
Adger, W.N. (2006). Vulnerability. Gobal Environmental Change, 16: 268-281.
Ahern, J. (2011). ‘From fail-safe to safe-to-fail: sustainability and resilience in the new urban world’ Landscape and
Urban Planning 100(4): 341-343.
Alexander, D. E. (2013). Resilience and disaster risk reduction: an etymological journey. Natural Hazards and Earth
System Science, 13(11), 2707-2716.
Almrsal (2013). ‫رب كا ىن ب م ب تاك مل ل ةعش م لا د يرب ت ل ل‬. The largest office building with radiative cooling Available at:
http: www.almrsal.com post 66921 news img de pearl river tower 3 02 Accessed 13th February 2015 .
Arku, G., Mkandawire, P., Aguda, N. and Kuuire, V. (2012). Africa’s Quest for Food: What is the Role of Urban
Agriculture? The African Capacity Building Foundation. Occasional Paper No.19. Available at:
http: allafrica.com download resource main main idatcs 00060351:9f53711217e8321b8a ff8efa6bc9dadf.pdf
Accessed 22nd November 2015 .
Arsht, A. (2014). Urbanization in Latin America. Atlantic Council, Washington. Available at:
http: www.atlanticcouncil.org images publications 20140205 LatAm UrbanizationTwoPag er.pdf Accessed 14th
May 2015 .
Arup (2011). Cities and climate change. Available at: http: www.arup.com Homepage Cities Climate Change.aspx
Accessed 13th February 2015 .
Arup and EWB-UK (2012). Visions of a resilient city. Available at: http: publications.arup.com media Publications
Files Publications V Resilient Cities Sc oping Study.ashx Accessed 15th November 2014 .
Arup (2014a). City Resilience Framework. Available at: http: publications.arup.com Publications C City Resilience
Framework.aspx Accessed 3rd November 2015 .
Arup (2014b). City Resilience Index: Desk Study. Available at: http: publications.arup.com media Publications Files
Publications C Volume 1 Desk St udy Report.ashx Accessed 15th December 2015 .
Arup (2014c). City Resilience Index: Fieldwork Data Analysis. Available at: http: publications.arup.com Publications C
City Resilience Framework.aspx Accessed 15th December 2015 .
Arup (2014d). City Resilience Index: Urban Measurement. Available at: http: publications.arup.com Publications C
City Resilience Framework.aspx Accessed 15th December 2015 .
Athlyn (2014). You won’t believe what they’re growing on roofs in Toronto. Available at: https: urbantimes.co 2014 01
green-roofs-healthy-cities Accessed 10th December 2015 .
Atkinson, A. (2014). Nexus: new approaches to resourcing cities. DPU60 Working Paper Series: Reflections 166).
Development Planning Unit, London.
Awomeso, J.A., Taiwo, A.M., Gbadebo, A.M. and Arimoro, A.O. (2010). Waste disposal and pollution management inurban areas: a workable remedy for the environment in developing countries. American Journal of Environmental
Sciences, 6(1): 26-32.
Awuor, C.B., Orindi, V.A. and Adwera, A.O. (2008). Climate change and coastal cities: the case of Mombasa, Kenya.
Environment and Urbanization, 20(1): 231-242.
Bahadur, A. V., Ibrahim, M., and Tanner, T. (2010). The resilience renaissance? Unpacking of resilience for tacklingclimate change and disasters. Strengthening Climate Resilience Discussion Paper 1.

56

Resilience and Resource Efficiency in Cities

Bahadur, A. and Tanner, T. (2014). Transformational resilience thinking: putting people, power and politics at the heartof urban climate resilience. Environment and Urbanization, 26(1): 1-15.
Bancheva, S. (2014). Integrating the concept of urban metabolism into planning of sustainable cities: analysis of theEco2 Cities Initiative. DPU Working Papers 168). Development Planning Unit, London.
Banovec, P., Cilen ek, A. and Cerk, M. (2014). Identification of priority NRW-reduction measures using a decision
support system. Desalination and Water Treatment, 1-12.
Banting, D., Doshi, H., Li, J., Missios, P., Au, A., Currie, B.A. and Verrati, M. (2005). Reports on the environmental
benefits and costs of green roof technology for the city of Toronto. Ryerson University. Available
at: https: www.google.co.uk url?sa t rct j q esrc s source web cd 1 cad rja uact 8
ved 0CCIQFjAA url http%3A%2F%2Fwww1.toronto.ca%2Fcity of toronto%2Fcity planni
ng%2Fzoning environment%2Ffiles%2Fpdf%2Ffullreport103105.pdf ei PETzVMWTBI7fasS
3gugG usg AFQjCNFaUeKen5ORdiBt7Z2TyfEPTftv A sig2 zmEjWcdczCvFbdPAdHC79Q bv
m bv.87269000,d.d2s Accessed 10th December 2014 .
Barles, S. (2010). Society, energy and materials: the contribution of urban metabolism studies to sustainable urban
development issues. Journal of Environment Planning and Management, 53(4), 439-455.
Barthel, S. and Isendahl, C. (2014). Urban gardens, agriculture, and water management: sources of resilience for longterm food security in cities, Ecological Economics, 86, 224-34.
Béné, C., Wood, R. G., Newsham, A., and Davies, M. (2012). Resilience: new utopia or new tyranny? Reflection about
the potentials and limits of the concept of resilience in relation to vulnerability reduction programmes. IDS Working
Papers, 2012(405): 1-61.
Béné, C., Cannon, T., Gupte, J., Mehta, L., and Tanner, T. (2014). Exploring the Potential and Limits of the Resilience Agenda
in Rapidly Urbanising Contexts. Brighton, Institute of Development Studies, Evidence Report.
Betsil, M., Bulkeley, H. 2006. Cities and the multilevel governance of global climate change. Global Governance. 12(2)141-159
Birkmann, J., Garschagen, M., Kraas, F. and Quang, N. (2010). Adaptive urban governance: new challenges for thesecond generation of urban adaptation strategies to climate change. Sustainable Science, 5:185-206.
Brown, P. R. (2007). Water resources and land use: creating sustainable cities of the future. Boston: Society of Civil
Engineers Section.
Brown, A. (2011). Building Climate change Resilience in Semarang, 2nd World Congress on Cities and Adaptation,
Resilience Cities 2011, Mercy Corps, Semarang City and ACCCRN, Available at: http: resilient-cities.iclei.org
fileadmin sites resilient-cities files Resilient Cities 2011 Presentations E E6 and F6 Brown.pdf
Accessed 26th April 2017 .
Brown, A., Dayal, A. and Rumbaitis del Rio, C. (2012). From practice to theory: emerging lessons from Asia for building
urban climate change resilience. Environment and Urbanization, 24: 531556.
Brown, D., McGranahan, G. and Dodman, D. (2014). Urban informality and building a more inclusive, resilient and green
economy. Environment and Urbanization. Working Paper. IIED, London.
Bucalem, M. L. (2012). Sustainable Urban Development of S o Paulo: Challenges and Opportunities.
Prefeitura de S o Paulo and SP-URBANISMO. Available at: https: www.google.co.uk
url?sa t rct j q esrc s source web cd 1 cad rja uact 8 ved 0CCcQFjAA url http%3A%2F%2Fwww.
city.ac.uk%2F data%2Fassets%2Fpdf file%2F0007%2F129949%2FSecretary-General-SaoPaulo Day1.pdf ei Ei2WVc pMai67gbe0ICQAw usg AFQjCNHOcWze7M6Tk hYhUHBCwii
nBMyJA sig2 aFOgENlwtL1JHOj4tIqUig bvm bv.96952980,d.ZGU Accessed 2nd April 2015 .
Bulkeley H, Broto VC, Maassen A. 2011. Governing urban low-carbon transitions”. In H Bulkeley, VC Broto, M Hodson,
S Marvin. (Eds) Cities and Low-carbon Transitions. Routledge. 29-41
Bulkeley, H., Tuts, R. (2013). Understanding urban vulnerability, adaptation and resilience in the context of climatechange. Local Environment, 18(6): 646-662.
Caldeira, T.P.R. (2003). Democracy and Enclosed Spaces: From Social Movements to Fortified Enclaves to Hip-Hop in
Sao Paulo. Available at: http: www.publicspace.org en textlibrary eng a015-democracy-and-enclosed-spacesfrom-social-movements-to-fortifiedenclaves-to-hip-hop-in-s-o-paulo Accessed 1st June 2015 .

Bibliography

57

Carpenter, S.R., B.H. Walker, J.M. Anderies and N.Abel (2001). From metaphor to measurement: resilience of what towhat? Ecosystems, 4, 765-781.
Carpenter, S.R. and Folke, C. (2006). Ecology for Transformation. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 21(6): 309-15.
Carpenter, S.R. and Brock, W.A. (2008). Adaptive capacity and traps. Ecology and Society, 13(2): 40
Chapple, K. (2008) Defining the Green Economy: a primer on Green Economic Development. The Center forCommunity Innovation (CCI). UC-Berkeley, Berkeley.
Chelleri, L. Waters, J.J., Olazabal, M. and Minucci, G. (2015). Resilience trade-offs: addressing multiple scales andtemporal aspects of urban resilience. Environment and Urbanization, 1-18.
City of Johannesburg (2011). Joburg GDS 2040 Strategy. Available at: http: www.joburg.org.za index.php?option com content id 7343%3Ajoburg-gds-2040strategy ltemid 114 limitstart 1 Accessed 10th April 2015
City of Johannesburg (n d). Corridors of Freedom: Bridging the Green Divide: IERM National Conference. Available
at: http: www.ierm.org.za Portals 19 Documents Convention%202014 Corridors%20of%20Fr eedom%20-%20
Bridging%20the%20Green%20Divide%20-%20Jhb%20City%20Parks.pdf Accessed 11th April 2015
City of Toronto (2013a). Impact of July 9, 2013 storm on the city’s sewer and stormwater systems. Available at: http:www.toronto.ca legdocs mmis 2013 pw bgrd backgroundfile61363.pdf Accessed 10th December 2014 .
City of Toronto (2013b). City of Toronto guidelines for biodiverse green roofs. Available at: https: www1.toronto.ca
City%20Of%20Toronto City%20Planning Zoning%20 %20Environ ment Files pdf B biodiversegreenroofs 2013.
pdf Accessed 10th December 2014 .
City of Toronto (2014). Resilient city – preparing for a changing climate. Available at: http: www.toronto.ca legdocs
mmis 2014 pe bgrd backgroundfile-70623.pdf Accessed 10th December 2014 .
City of Toronto Climate Change Adaptation Steering Group (2008). Ahead of the storm…preparing Toronto for climatechange: development of a climate change adaptation strategy. Available at: http: www.climateneeds.umd.edu
reports Toronto%20City-Preparing%20Toronto%20for%20Climate%20Change.pdf Accessed 10th December 2014 .
Coady, D., Parry, I., Sears, L.
Monetary Fund

Shang, B., 2015. How Large Are Global Energy Subsidies? Paris, France: International

Colenbrander, S. (2016). Cities as engines of economic growth: the case for providing basic infrastructure and services inurban areas. International Institute for Environment and Development.
Colenbrander, S., Gouldson, A., Roy, J., Kerr, N., Sarkar, S., Hall, S., Sudmant, A., Ghatak, A., Chakravarty, D., Ganguly, D.,
McAnulla, F. 2016. Can low-carbon urban development be pro-poor?. Environment and Urbanization.
Collins, J.P., Kinzig, A., Grimm, N.B., Fagan, W.F., Hope, D., Wu, J. and Borer, E.T. (2000). A new urban ecology: modellinghuman communities as integral parts of ecosystems poses special problems for the development and testing of
ecological theory. American Scientist, 88: 416425.
Convention on Biological Diversity. (1993). Convention Text - Article 2. Use of Terms. Available at: https: www.cbd.int
convention articles default.shtml?a cbd-02 Accessed 2 February 2017 .
Davis, J. and Uffer, S. (2013). Evolving cities: exploring the relations between urban form resilience and the governanceof urban form, LSE Cities, London.
Dawkins, E., Roelich, K., Barrett, J. and Baiocchi, G. (2010). Securing the future – the role of resource efficiency. WRAP.
Delgado, D.M. (2008). Infrastructure leakage index (ILI) as a regulatory and provider tool.
Department of Civil Engineering Engineering Mechanics, College of Engineering. University of Arizona.
Available at: https: www.google.co.uk url?sa t rct j q esrc s source web cd 1 cad rja uact 8
ved 0CCYQFjAA url http%3A%2F%2Fwsp.arizona.edu%2Fsites%2Fwsp.arizona.edu%2Ffil
es%2Fuawater%2Fdocuments%2FFellowship200708%2FDelgado.pdf ei N0zzVP uFcncapCK gpgB usg AFQj
CNE2nFuzxLsnnJdQFuOAaBofVf4mZA sig2 f6rC0ShsP-9CCDkGQtzwUw bvm bv.87269000,d.d2s Accessed
13th December 2014 .
Dodman, D. (2009). Blaming cities for climate change. Environment & Urbanization, 21(1): 185-201.
Dodman D, Satterthwaite D. 2009. Institutional Capacity, Climate Change Adaptation and the Urban Poor. IDS Bulletin.
39(4) 67-74 DOI: 10.1111 j.1759-5436.2008.tb00478.x

58

Resilience and Resource Efficiency in Cities

Dodman, D., Ayers, J.,

Huq, S. (2009). Building resilience. Worldwatch Institute, State of the World, 75-77.

Dodman, D. (2013). Report on learning and leadership groups on resource ef cient cities: Bankgok, Thailand and Shenzhen,
China. Unpublished.
Dodman, D. (2014). Report on learning and leadership groups on resource ef cient cities: Addis A a a, Ethiopia andStellenbosh, South Africa. Unpublished.
Dodman, D., Leck, H., Rusca, M., Colenbrander, S. (2016) African Urbanisation and Urbanism: Implications for risk
accumulation and reduction. Urban ARK Working Paper 2016 06. Available from: http: www.urbanark.org africanurbanisation-and-urbanism-implications-risk-accumulation-and-reduction
Droege, P. (2010). 100% renewable energy and beyond for cities. World Future Council. HafenCity University, Hamburg.
Dubbeling, M. (2013). Cityfood: linking cities on urban agriculture and urban food systems. RUAF and ICLEI. Available
at: http: www1.montpellier.inra.fr daume writeable documents ruaf.pdf Accessed 11th December 2014 .
Duranton, G. (2008). Cities: Engines of Growth and Prosperity for Developing Countries?, Washington DC, USA: World Bank.
EECi (2014). Energy Ef cient Cities Initiati e. Available at: http: www.eeci.cam.ac.uk publications EECi Booklet.pdf
Accessed 14th February 2015 .
Eisenberg, B., Nemcova, E., Poblet, R. and A. Stokman (2014). Lima Ecological Infrasxtructure Strategy (LEIS). ILP .
Available at: http: issuu.com ilpe docs lima ecological infrastructure stra 9c435aba38df2f 1 Accessed 20th 2015 .
Elmitwalli, T., Feng, Y., Behrendt, J. and Otterpohl, R. (2006). Anaerobic digestion potential for ecological anddecentralised sanitation in urban areas. Water Science & Technology, 53(9): 45-54.
Elmqvist, T (2013). Urban sustainability and resilience – why we need to focus on scales. The Nature of Cities. Available
at: from http: www.thenatureofcities.com 2013 03 27 urbansustainability-and-resilience-why-we-need-to-focuson-scales Accessed 3rd November 2014 .
Elmqvist, T. (2014). Urban resilience thinking. Solutions, 5(5): 26-30.
European Commission. (2000). Compendium of European planning systems. Regional De elopment Studies Report 2 ,Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
European Commission (2014). A out resource ef ciency. Available at: http: ec.europa.eu environment resource
efficiency about index en.htm Accessed 2nd December 2014 .
Eurostat (2013). Manual on waste statistics. Methodologies and Working papers. Available at: http:ec.europa.eu eurostat documents 3859598 5926045 KS-RA-13-015-EN.PDF 055ad62c-347b-4315-9faa0a1ebcb1313e?version 1.0 Accessed 8th February 2015 .
Fang (2014). How cities can save trillions, curb climate change, and improve public health. World Resources Institute.
Available at: http: www.wri.org blog 2014 09 how-cities-can-savetrillions-curb-climate-change-and-improvepublic-health Accessed 12th December 2014 .
FAO. (1981). Food Loss Prevention in Perishable Crops. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Foodand Agricultural Service Bulletin, no. 43.
FAO (2014) Urban and peri-urban agriculture in Latin America and the Caribbean: compendium of case studies.
Available at: http: www.fao.org ag agp greenercities pdf Compendium.pdf Accessed 23rd January 2014 .
Floater, G., Rode, P., Robert, A., Kennedy, C., Hoornweg, D., Slavcheva, R., and Godfrey, N. (2014). Cities and the New
Climate Economy: the transformative role of global urban growth. New Climate Economy Cities Paper 01. LSE
Cities. London School of Economics and Political Science.
Foster A, Kumar N. 2011. Health effects of air quality regulations in Delhi, India. Atmospheric Environment. 45(9) 16751683 DOI:10.1016 j.atmosenv.2011.01.005
Frechette, R. and Gilchrist, R. (2008). Towards zero energy: a case study of the Pearl River Tower, Guangzhou, China.
Technical Paper. Council of Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat 8th World Congress, Dubai.
Friend, R., and Moench, M. (2013). What is the purpose of urban climate resilience? Implications for addressing
poverty and vulnerability. Urban Climate 6: 98-113.

Bibliography

59

Folke, C. (2006). Resilience: the Emergence of a perspective for social-ecological systems analyses. Global
Environmental Change, 16: 253-67.
Garg A. 2011. Pro-equity effects of ancillary benefits of climate change policies: A case study of human healthimpacts of outdoor air pollution in New Delhi. World Development. 39(6) 1002-1025
Garoma, T. and Williams, C. (2013). Enhanced anaerobic digestion as a sanitation and energy recovery technology.
Journal of Water, Sanitation and Hygiene for Development, 3(4): 572581.
Garthwaite, J. (2011). Guangzhou, China, wins sustainable transport prize. Available at: http: news.nationalgeographic.
com news energy 2011 01 110124-guangzhou-chinasustainable-transport-prize Accessed 12th February 2015 .
Gavilan, R.M. and Bernold, L.E. (1994). Source evaluation of solid waste in building construction. Journal ofConstruction Engineering and Management,120(3): 536-552.
GEF (2011). Project Identification Form (PIF). Available at: http: www.thegef.org gef sites thegef.org files gef
prj docs GEFProjectDocuments Clima te%20Change Thailand%20-%20%285086%29%20-%20Achieving%20
Low%20Carbon%20Growth%20in%20Cities%20through%20Loca PIMS%20 4778%20THA%20Urban%20
Systems%20PIF%20010313.pdf Accessed 12th December 2014 .
Gill, S., Handley, J., Ennos, A. and Pauleit, S. (2007). Adapting cities for climate change: the role of the green
infrastructure, Built Environment, 33(1), 115-133.
Girardet, H. (2004). Cities People Planet: Liveable Cities for a Sustainable World. United Kingdom: Wiley Academy.
GI-REC (n d). Global Initiative for Resource Efficient Cities: engine to sustainability. UNEP. Available at: http: www.
unep.org pdf GI-REC 4pager.pdf Accessed 3rd November 2014 .
GI-REC (2012). Results from a global city survey on resource efficiency in cities: survey summary. UNEP. Available
at: http: www.unep.org resourceefficiency Portals 24147 scp REC GIREC Global%20Survey%20Summary.pdf
Accessed 3rd November 2014 .
GIZ (2011). Pioneering grid-connected solar PV systems in Kenya – SOS Children’s Village Mombasa goes green withGerman technology. Available at: http: www.giz.de fachexpertise downloads giz2011-en-sos-children-villagessolar-projectfactsheet.pdf Accessed 27th November 2014 .
GIZ (2014). Metropolitan Regions - De nitions, Typologies and Recommendations for De elopment Cooperation - Discussion
Paper Series. Available at: http: www2.giz.de wbf 4tDx9kw63gma Metropolitan-Regions Definitions Typologies.
pdf Accessed 1 March 2017 .
Global Commission on the Economy and Climate (2014). The New Climate Economy Report 2014: Better Growth,Better Climate. Washington, DC.
Gouldson, A., Colenbrander, S., Sudmant, A., Godfrey, N., Millward-Hopkins, J., Fang, W., Zhao, . (2015a). Accelerating
Low-Carbon Development in the World’s Cities, London, UK: Global Commission for the Economy and Climate.
Gouldson, A., Colenbrander, S., Sudmant, A., McAnulla, F., Kerr, N., Sakai, P., Hall, S., Papargyropoulou, E., Kuylenstierna,
J. (2015b). Explorign the economic case for climate action in cities. Global Environmental Change. 35 93-105 DOI:
10.1016 j.gloenvcha.2015.07.009
Gouldson, A., Colenbrander, S., Sudmant, A., Papargryropoulou, E., Kerr, N., McAnulla, F., Hall, S. (2016). Cities andclimate change mitigation: Economic opportunities and governance challenges in Asia. Cities [Cities, Energy andClimate Change Mitigation]. 54 11-19 DOI: 10.1016 j.cities.2015.10.010
Gosh, S. and Aich, A. (2014). Rebuilding C&D waste recycling efforts in India. Waste Management World. Available at:
http: www.waste-management-world.com articles print volume12 issue-5 features rebuilding-c-d-wasterecycling-efforts-in-india.html Accessed 5th January 2015 .
Guibrunet, L. (2013). Sustainable Resources for Sustainable Cities Symposium: a Discussion Document. The Bartlett
University College London. Available at: https: www.bartlett.ucl.ac.uk sustainable latest activities symposium
series symposium 2013 documents Sustainable Resources for Sustainable Cities Executive Summary.pdf
Accessed 28th June 2015 .
Guiran, G. (2014). Resilience thinking and CCA projects’ assessment: research on assessment methods for climatechange adaptation projects: scoping phase. Unpublished
GuoZhongHua Shutterstock (2011). Pearl River Tower. Available at: https: www.shutterstock.com fr image-photoguangzhou-china-nov-20-pearl-river-134517884 Accessed 13 April 2017 .

60

Resilience and Resource Efficiency in Cities

Habitat 3 Secretariat. (2016). The New Urban Agenda Explainer. Available at: https: www2.habitat3.org file 537430
view 591365. Accessed 16 February 2017 .
Hampwaye, G., Nel, E. and Rogerson, C.M. (2007). Urban agriculture as local initiative in Lusaka, Zambia. Environment
and Planning C: Government and Policy, 25: 553-572.
Heal, G. (2004). Valuing ecosystems services: towards better environmental decision making. National Academy
Study, Columbia University School of Business. Available at: http: www.nap.edu catalog 11139 valuingecosystem-services-toward-betterenvironmental-decision-making Accessed 2nd December 2014 .
Hertwich, E. 2005. Consumption and the rebound effect: an industrial ecology perspective. Journal of Industrial
Ecology. 9 85-98
Hodges, R.J., Buzby, J.C., Bennett, B. (2010). Postharvest losses and waste in developed and less developed countries:
opportunities to improve resource use. Journal of Agricultural Science. 149 37-45
Hongyon, C. (2013). Khon Kaen Municipality. Learning and leadership groups on resource efficient cities. Bangkok.
Unpublished.
Hoornweg, D. and Bhada-Tata, P. (2012). What a waste: a global review of solid waste management. Urban
Development Series. World Bank. Available at: http: siteresources.worldbank.org INTURBANDEVELOPMENT
Resources 3363871334852610766 What a Waste2012 Final.pdf Accessed 22nd February 2015 .
Hordijk, M., Miranda Sara, L., Sutherland, C., Sydenstricker-Neto, J. Noes, A.J. and Gomes Rodrigues Batata, A. (2013).
Water governance in time of uncertainty, complexity, fragmentation, innovation. WP 4 Fieldwork Reports. Lima
Hornborg, A. (2009). Zero-sum world: challenges in conceptualizing environmental displacement and ecologicallyunequal exchange in the world-system. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 50: 237-262.
IPCC (2014). Summary for Policymakers. Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 535-612.
IPCC (2014). ‘Glossary’ in Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability., s.l.: Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC).
James, N. (2013). City of Kigali. Learning and leadership groups on resource efficient cities. Addis Ababa.
Unpublished.
Jansen, J. (2013). Resource efficiency: what does it mean and why is it relevant? Policy Brief. ECN. Available at: http:www.ecn.nl docs library report 2013 o13004.pdf Accessed 6th December 2014 .
Jones, A. (2014). Thailand totters towards waste crisis. AFP. Available at: http: www2.bangkokpost.com news
local 429877 thailand-totters-towards-waste-crisis Accessed 10th December 2015 .
KaMpEr (2012). San Juan de Lurigancho desde Cerro San Cristóbal (Lima, Perú). Available at: http: flickr.com
photos 7518030 N04 7157767087 Accessed 13 April 2017 .
Karlenzig, W. (2010). The death of sprawl: designing urban resilience for the twenty-first-century resource and climate
crises. The Post Carbon Reader Series: Cities, Towns and Suburbs. Available at: http: www.commoncurrent.com
pubs PCReader-Karlenzig-Cities.pdf Accessed 26th February 2015 .
Keenan, J.M. and Chakrabarti, V. (2013). NYC 2040: housing the next one million New Yorkers. The Trustees ofColumbia University in the City of New York.
Kerres, M. (2010). Adaptation to Climate Change in the R mac River Basin. BMZ and kfw. Draft for discussion. Available at: https: www.google.co.uk url?sa t rct j q esrc s source web cd 1 cad rja uact 8 ved 0CCcQFjAA url https%3A%2F%2Fwww.kfwentwicklungsbank.de%2Fmigration%2FEntwicklungsbank-Startseite%2FEntwicklungsfinanzierung%2FSektoren%2FWasser%2FKlimawandel%2FRimacRiver-Basin-Snapshot.
pdf ei GjzU9mRHIHA7AbW7oFI usg AFQjCNGNZI1KVbfojKPnHO9sQz R1eLqHg sig2 gLrHrZ1Hhfut GhwFsF3k5Q Accessed 12th January 2014 .
Keys, P., Barron, J., and Lannerstad, M. (2012). Releasing the pressure: water resource efficiencies and gains forecosystem services. UNEP and Stockholm Environment Institute. Available at: https: www.google.co.uk
url?sa t rct j q esrc s source web cd 1 cad rja uact 8 ved 0CCEQFjAA url http%3A%2F%2Fwww.
sei-international.org%2Fmediamanager%2Fdocuments%2FPublications%2FAir-land-waterresources%2Fsei-unep-releasing-the-pressure.pdf ei cHPzVI-QF4nuaKOwgsgE usg AFQjCNFw2GrgJ40xVkDDgnVlpoaZC NH w sig2 dAZ7JCtkAlFKtPEm TpsPIw Accessed 8th December 2014 .

Bibliography61

Khalil, D., Allen, A., Griffin, L. Johnson, C. (2013). Environmental Justice and Resilience in the Urban Global South: an
Emerging Research Agenda”. DPU News (56): 2-4.
Kigali Municipality (2013). Kigali Masterplan 2040 video. Available at: https: www.youtube.com
watch?v iM0Y4EiCvGE Accessed 14th December 2014 .
Layke, J. and Perera, A. (2014). As cities grow, so should their energy ef ciency. World Resources Institute. Available at:
http: www.wri.org blog 2014 10 cities-grow-so-should-theirenergy-efficiency Accessed 3rd December 2015 .
Law, WW.Y, Leung, T.H.D., Wang, G. and Chen, K. (2013). Resource Efficiency in Chinese Cities. Policy Background
Paper. Global Initiative for Resource Efficiency Cities (GI-REC).
Legislative Affairs Office of Guangzhou Municipal Government (2014). Measures of Guangzhou Municipality on theadministration of development and application of new type wall materials. Available at: http: www.gzlo.gov.cn
publicfiles business htmlfiles gzsfzb s10230 201403 2632527.html Accessed 2nd February, 2015 .
Levenston (2008). Urban agriculture as local initiative in Lusaka, Zambia. City Farmers News. Availavble at: http: www.
cityfarmer.info 2008 12 06 urban-agriculture-as-local-initiativein-lusaka-zambia Accessed 10th November 2015 .
Li, Y., Chi-Wai, S. and Seabrooke, W. (2005). Urban planning and sustainable development under transitional economy:a case study of Guangzhou. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 12: 300-313.
Lichter, J. (2014). From grid waste to good waste. Ensia. Available at: http: www.resilience.org stories 2014-02-24
from-grid-waste-to-good-taste Accessed 20th February 2015 .
Lighton Phiri. (2013). Lusaka, Zambia at Night. Available at: https: flickr.com photos 63828812 N07 24170379690
Accessed 13 April 2017 .
Linnerooth-Bayer, J. (2014). Disaster resilience: building resilience to “bounce forward”. International Institute forApplied Systems Analysis. Available at: http: www.iiasa.ac.at web scientificUpdate 2013 researchProgram
RiskPolicyandVulnerab ility Flood-resilience.html Accessed 10th November 2015 .
Linortner, C. (2012). Lignan architecture of South China. Available at: http: transculturalmodernism.org article 176
Accessed 9th February 2015 .
LiWa (n d). Sustainable water and wastewater Management in urban growth centres coping with climate change :concepts for Lima Metropolitana. Available at: http: www.limawater.de en documents.html?Menu 5 Accessed
12th January 2014 .
Lucatelli, L. and De Matteis, P. (2011). Rural urban partnership for sustainable development. Available at :https: www.google.co.uk url?sa t rct j q esrc s source web cd 3 cad rja uact 8 ved 0CDEQFjAC url http%3A%2F%2Fec.europa.eu%2Fregional policy%2Fwhat%2Fcohesi on%2Furban rural%2Fdoc%2Frural urban partnership presentation.ppt ei LxWLVJCSLsW wUezEgqgK usg AFQjCNEWigRAnRVLYY7C2o0 c14lJOlPmQ bvm bv.81828268,d.d24 Accessed 24th January 2015 .
Lusaka City Council. (2008). Lusaka City State of Environment Outlook Report. Lusaka City
Council and Environmental Council of Zambia. Available at: https: www.google.co.uk
url?sa t rct j q esrc s source web cd 1 cad rja uact 8 ved 0CCIQFjAA url http%3A%2F%2Fwww.
necz.org.zm%2Findex.php%2Fdloadspage%2Fd oc download%2F13-the-lusaka-state-of-environment-outlookreport-mainreport ei 93 zVLbDFcvgaJ-UgfgJ usg AFQjCNHeO84UOfEafsi KGCQl78VDdF4xA sig2 aus
pVfCuCBVcpTQ5BSYglw bv m bv.87269000,d.d2s Accessed 10th November 2015 .
MacLeod, D. (2013). Ahead of the storm: extreme weather resilience in the City of Toronto. Building Climate Resiliencein Cities Workshop.
Martin-Breen, P.

Anderies, J. M. (2011). Resilience: a literature review. Brighton, Institute of Development Studies.

Martin, G. and G. McGranahan. (2010). Brazil’s early urban transition: what can it teach urbanizing countries? United
Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) and the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED).
Mbiba, B. (2011). The marginalisation of urban agriculture in Lusaka. ALNAP. Available at: http: www.alnap.org
resource 7799 Accessed 15th November 2014 .
McElhinney, K. J. (2012). Auditing Water Resources for Application to Water-Sensitive Urban Design - A Case Study in
the Lima ( Perú ) Metropolitan Area. Universit t Stuttgart.

62

Resilience and Resource Efficiency in Cities

Mels, A., Guo, S., Zhang, C., Li, ., Wang, H., Liu, S. and Braadbaart, O. (2006). Decentralised wastewater reclamation
systems in Beijing – adoption and performance under field conditions. First SWITCH Scientific Meeting. Universityof Birmingham. Available at: http: switchurbanwater.lboro.ac.uk outputs pdfs CBEI PAP Decentralised
wastewater re clamation systems.pdf Accessed 17th January 2015 .
Michael, C. (2014). The three most resilient cities ? They’re all in Canada. The Guardian Cities. Available at : http: www.
theguardian.com cities datablog 2014 apr 11 most-resilientcities-canada-toronto Accessed 3rd November 2014 .
Miranda Sara, L. and Baud, I. (2014). Knowlesge-building in adaptation management: concertación processes intransforming Lima water and climate change governance. Environment and Urbanization, 26(1): 1-20.
Mitlin, D. and Satterthwaite, D. (2013). Urban Poverty in the Global South: Scale and Nature. Oxon: Routledge.
Moffat, S., Suzuki, H. and Iizuka, R. (2013). Eco2 Cities Guide: Ecological Cities as Economic Cities. The World Bank.
Moir, E., Moonen, T. and Cark, G. (2014). ‘What are future cities? Origins, meanings and uses’. Catapult Future
Cities. Available at: https: www.gov.uk government uploads system uploads attachment data file 337549 1
4-820-what-are-future-cities.pdf Accessed 5th December 2015 .
Momoh, J.A. (2009). Smart grid design for efficient and flexible power networks operation and control. Department ofElectricity and Computer Engineering. Howard University, Washington DC.
Monteiro, A., Carvalho, V., Velho, S. and Sousa, C. (2012). Assessing and monitoring urban resilience using COPD in
Porto. Science of the Total Environment, 414: 113-119.
Moriarty, P., Batchelor, C. and van Wijk, C. (2001). Trends in watershed management in arid and semi-arid regions.
DGIS Policy Supporting Paper. IRC Delft.
Mulyana, W., Setiono, I., Selzer, A. K., Zhang, S., Dodman, D. and Schensul, D. (2013). Urbanisation, demographics andadaptation to climate change in Semarang, Indonesia. Urbanization and Emerging Population Issues Working
Paper 11. IIED, London. Available at: http: pubs.iied.org pdfs 10632IIED.pdf Accessed 10th November 2015 .
Mwita, M. (2014). Kenya: solar energy to boost Mombasa street lighting. Available at: http: allafrica.com
stories 201401090677.html Accessed 12th December 2015 .
Nathanri, J. (2014). Kohn Kaen biggest rubbish dump in NE. Bangkok Post. Available at: http: www.bangkokpost.com
news environment 439413 khon-kaen-biggest-rubbishdump-in-ne Accessed 12th December 2015 .
National Bureau of Statistics of China (2013). Available at: http: data.stats.gov.cn search
keywordlist2?keyword %E4%BA%BA%E5%8F%A3 Accessed 12th February 2015 .
Newman, P. (2006). The environment impact of cities. Environment & Urbanization, 18(2): 275-295.
Newman, P.
Press.

Jennings, I. (2008). Cities as sustainable ecosystems: principles and practices. Washington, DC: Island

Njeru, G. (2014). Kenya to generate over half of its electricity through solar power by 2016. Available at: http: www.
theguardian.com environment 2014 jan 17 kenya-solar-power-plants Accessed 12th December 2014 .
Nwachukwu, T. and Robinson, M. (2011).The role of diversity in building adaptive resilience. Arts Council England.
Available at: http: www.artscouncil.org.uk media uploads pdf Diversity and adaptive resilience publi c.pdf
Accessed 12th February 2015 .
NYCEDC (2013). A stronger, more resilient New York. Available at: http: www.nycedc.com resource stronger-moreresilient-new-york Accessed 15th January 2015 .
OECD (2003). Glossary of Statistical Terms. Available at: https: stats.oecd.org glossary detail.asp?ID 2819 Accessed
20 February 2017 .
OECD and FAO (2010). OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2010-2019: Highlights.
Okpala, D. (2003). Promoting the positive rural-urban linkages approach to sustainable development and employment
creation: the role of UN-HABITAT. Available at: https: www.fig.net pub morocco proceedings PS1 PS1 1 okpala.
pdf Accessed 24th January 2015 .
Osbahr, H. (2007). Building resilience: adaptation mechanisms and mainstreaming for the poor. UNDP. Available at:
http: hdr.undp.org en content building-resilience-adaptationmechanisms-and-mainstreaming-poor Accessed
16th November 2015 .

Bibliography63

Ostrom, E. (2009). A general framework for analyzing sustainability of socio-ecological systems”. Science, 325: 419-422.
Papargyropoulou, E., Wright, N., Lozano, R., Steinberger, J., Padfield, R., Ujang, Z. 2016. Conceptual framework forthe study of food waste generation and prevention in the hospitality sector. Waste Management. 49 326-336 DOI:
10.1016 j.wasman.2016.01.017
Papargyropoulou, E., Colenbrander, S., Sudmant, A.H., Gouldson, A., Tin, L.C. 2015. The economic case for low carbon
waste management in rapidly growing cities in the developing wold: The case of Palembang, Indonesia. Journal ofEnvironmental Management. 163 11-19 DOI: 10.1016 j.jenvman.2015.08.001
Parnell, S. Robinson, J. (2006). Development and urban policy: Johannesburg’s City Development Strategy. Urban
Studies, 43(2): 337-355.
Peirce, N. and Peters, F. (2014). Inside the Guangzhou award for urban innovation. Citiscope. Available at: http: citiscope.
org story 2014 inside-guangzhou-award-urban-innovation Accessed 12th February 2015 .
Penney, J. and Dickinson, T. (2009). Climate change adaptation planning in Toronto: progress and challenges.Fifth
Urban Research Symposium. Available at : http: siteresources.worldbank.org INTURBANDEVELOPMENT
Resources 336387-1256566800920 6505269-1268260567624 Penney.pdf Accessed 10th December 2014 .
Peter, C. and Swilling, M. (2012). Sustainable, resource efficient cities – making it happen UNEP, Paris.
Peter, C. (2014). A review of resource efficiency in sub-Saharan Africa cities. Policy Background Paper. Global Initiativefor Resource Efficiency Cities (GI-REC).
Pieterse, E. (2014). Johannesburg: corridors of freedom. LSE Cities. Available at: http: delhi2014.lsecities.net
newspaper articles johannesburg-corridors-of-freedom engb Accessed 21st April 2015 .
Poblet, R., Eisenberg, B., Nemcova, E., Stokman, A., Sch tze, M., and Leon, C. (2013). Water-sensitive urban planningand design solutions for arid context : The Lima Ecological Infrastructure Strategy. In IWA International Week
Amsterdam 2013. Amsterdam: IWA.
ProAct-DRW-Shelter Centre (2010). Planning centralised building waste management programmes in response
to large disasters. Available at: http: www.sheltercentre.org library planningcentralised-building-wastemanagement-programmes-response-large-disasters Accessed 13th January 2015 .
Rahman, H. (2011). Waste concern: a decentralized community-based composting through publicprivate-community
partnership. Growing Inclusive Markets. Available at: http: growinginclusivemarkets.com media cases
Bangladesh WasteConcern 2011.pdf Accessed 12th February 2015 .
Rakodi, C. (1988). Urban agriculture: research questions and Zambian evidence. The Journal of Modern African Studies,26(3): 495-515.
Rapoport, E. (2011). Interdisciplinary perspectives on Urban metabolism: a review of the literature. UCL Environmental
Institute Working Paper. London, Development Planning Unit.
Ravetz (2000). City Region 2020: Integrated Planning for a Sustainable Environment. London: Earthscan.
Rede Nossa Sao Paulo (2015). History and Initiatives from Rede Nossa S o Paulo for better cities. Global Partnershipfor Social Accountability Knowledge Platform. Available at: http: gpsaknowledge.org knowledge-repository
history-and-initiatives-from-rede-nossasao-paulo-for-better-cities .VZYaOPlViko Accessed 1st Jun 2015 .
Republic of Zambia (2011). Sixth national development plan 2011-2015. Available at: http: siteresources.worldbank.
org INTZAMBIA Resources SNDP Final Draft 20 01 2011 .pdf Accessed 10th November 2014.
Resilience Alliance (2014). Resilience. Available at: http: www.resalliance.org index.php resilience Accessed 28th
October 2014 .
Revi, A., Satterthwaite, D.E., Aragón-Durand, F., Corfee-Morlot, J., Kiunsi, R.P.R., Pelling, M., Roberts, D.C., and Solecki, W.
(2014). Urban areas. in Field, C.B., Barros, V.R., Dokken, D.J., Mach, K.J., Mastrandrea, M.D., Bilir, T.E., Chatterjee, M.,
Ebi, K.L., Estrada, Y.O., Genova, R.C., Girma, B., Kissel, E.S. Levy, A.N., MacCracken, S., Mastrandrea, P.R. and White,
L.L (eds.), Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects.
Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 535-612.
Ribeiro, H. (2004). Municipality of S o Paulo, Brazil: City Profile. Avaliable at: http: jp1.estis.net includes file.
asp?site chip file 349B041E-8BAF-4B68-8A9361A898231A5E Accessed 28th June 2015 .

64

Resilience and Resource Efficiency in Cities

Rinner and Hussain (2011). Toronto’s urban heat island – exploring the relationship between land use and surface
temperature. Remote Sensing, 3: 1251-1265.
Rockstr m, J., Steffen, W.L., Noone, K., Persson, A. and Chapin III, F.S. (2009). Planetary boundaries: exploring the safe
operating space for humanity. Institute for Sustainable Solutions Publications. Portland State University.
Rode, P. and Burnett, R. (2011). Cities: investing in energy and resource efficiency. UNEP.
Rodin J. (2014). The Resilience Dividend: being strong in a world where things go wrong. PublicAffairs.
Roelich, K., Steinberger, J.K., Knoeri, C. (2013). Efficient and service oriented in infrastructure operation; the role of theEnergy Efficiency Directive in driving change towards multi-utility service companies
Roelich, K., Knoeri, C., Steinberger, J.K., Varga, L., Blythe, P.T., Butler, D., Gupta, R., Harrison, G., Martin, C. and Purnell,
P. (2015). Towards resource-efficient and service-oriented integrated infrastructure operation. Technological
Forecasting and Social Change, The Open University. Available at: http: oro.open.ac.uk 41476 1 LotM
PositionPaper Revision Final.pdf 22nd February, 2015 .
Royal Thai Embassy (2014). Khon Kaen set to build garbage-to-energy power plant. Available at: http: archive-org.com
page 4977884 2014-11-28 http: www.thaiembdc.org dcdp ?q node 643 Accessed 12th December 2014 .
Ruth (1998). Energy from municipal solid waste: a comparison with coal combustion technology. Progress in energy
and Combustion Science. 24(6): 545-564.
Sanders, R.G. and Milford, L. (2014). Clean energy for resilient communities: expanding solar generation in Baltimore’s
low-income neighbourhoods. Clean Energy Group. Available at: http: www.cesa.org assets 2014-Files CleanEnergy-for-Resilient-Communities-ReportFeb2014.pdf Accessed 15th January 2015 .
Saroso, O. (2014). More biopores built to improve water retention. Jakarta Post. Available at: http: www.thejakartapost.
com news 2014 04 24 more-biopores-built-improve-waterretention.html Accessed 13th December 2015 .
Satterthwaite, D., Dodman, D. (2013). Towards resilience and transformation for cities within a finite planet.
Environment and Urbanization, 25(2): 291-298.
Schilderman, T. and Lyons, M. (2011). Resilient dwellings or resilient people? Towards peoplecentred reconstruction.
Environmental Hazards, 10: 3-4.
Schreiber, F. (2014). Resilient Cities 2014 - 5th Global Forum on Urban Resilience and Adaptation. GRF Davos Planet@
Risk, 2(5): 318-323.
Science Communication Unit (2013). Resource efficiency indicators. European Commission. In depth- report Issue 4.
Available at: http: www.gppq.fct.pt 7pq docs brochuras online ResourceEfficiencyIndicatorsFeb2013.pdf
Accessed 26th January 2015 .
Seabrook, W., Yeung, S.C.W., Ma, F.M.F., and Li, Y. (2004). Implementing sustainable urban development at theoperational level (with special reference to Hong Kong and Guangzhou). Habitat International, 28(3): 443-466.
SERI-Global 2000-Friends of the Earth Europe (2009). Overconsumption? Our use of the world’s natural
resources. Available at: http: www.foe.co.uk sites default files downloads overconsumption.pdf Accessed
3rd December 2014 .
Seto K.C., S. Dhakal, A. Bigio, H. Blanco, G.C. Delgado, D. Dewar, L. Huang, A. Inaba, A. Kansal, S. Lwasa, J.E. McMahon,
D.B. M ller, J. Murakami, H. Nagendra, and A. Ramaswami, 2014: Human Settlements, Infrastructure and Spatial
Planning. In: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Edenhofer, O., R. Pichs-Madruga, Y.
Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, A. Adler, I. Baum, S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J. Savolainen,
S. Schl mer, C. von Stechow, T. Zwickel and J.C. Minx (eds.) . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United
Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
Sharma, S.K. and Vairamoorthy, K. (2008). Urban water demand management: prospects and challenges for thedeveloping countries. Water and Environment Journal, 23:210-218.
Siemens and C40 (2014). New York climate close-up. City climate leadership awards. Available at: http: www.
siemens.com press pool de events 2014 infrastructure-cities 2014-06CCLA new-york-climate-close-up.pdf
Accessed 15th January 2015 .
Simatele, D., M. (2010). Climate change adaptation in Lusaka, Zambia: a case study of Kalingalinga and Linda
compounds, the University of Manchester, Global Urban Research Centre Working Paper #6.

Bibliography

65

Simatele, D.M. (2012). Asset adaptation and urban food security in a changing climate: a case study of Kalingalinga
and Linda compounds in Lusaka-Zambia. University of St. Andrews.
Simatele, D., Binns, T. and Simatele, D. (2012). Sustaining livelihoods under a changing climate: the case of urban
agriculture in Lusaka, Zambia. Journal of Environmmental Planning and Management. 44(9): 1175-1191.
Slater, T. (2014). The resilience of neoliberal urbanism. openDemocracy. Available at: https: www.opendemocracy.net
opensecurity tom-slater resilience-of-neoliberalurbanism Accessed 5th March 2014 .
Sookie (2006). Green roof at Mountain Equipment Coop, Toronto, Canada. Available at: http: flickr.com
photo 20532289 N00 156954114 Accessed 13 April 2017 .
Sorrell, S., Dimitroploulos, J., Sommerville, M. 2009. Empirical estimates of the direct rebound effect: a review. Energy
Policy. 37 1356-1371
Steffen, W., Richardson, K., Rockstr m, J., Cornell, S.E., Fetzer, I., Bennett, E.M., Biggs, R., Carpenter,
S.R., de Vries, W. de Wit, C.A., Folke, C., Gerten, D., Heinke, J., Mace, G.M., Persson, L.M., Ramanathan, V., Reyers, B.,
S rlin, S. (2015). Planetary boundaries: guiding human development on a changing planet. Science, 347(6223):736-746.
Sudmant, A., Millward-Hopkins, J., Colenbrander, S., Gouldson, A. 2016. Low carbon cities: is ambitious action
affordable? Climatic Change. 138(3) 681-688 DOI: 10.1007 s10584-016-1751-9
Surjan, A. R. Shaw (2008). Eco-city’ to ‘disaster-resilient eco-community’: a concerted approach in the coastal city ofPuri, India. Sustainability Science, 3(2): 249-265.
Sutarto, R. and Jarvie, J (2012). Integrating climate resilience strategy into city planning in Semarang, Indonesia.
Mercy Corps. Urban Climate Resilience Working Paper Series. Available at: http: www.mercycorps.org.uk sites
default files city resilience semarang 0.pdf Accessed 8th November 2014 .
Swilling. M., Robinson, B., Marvin, S. and Hodson, M. (2013). City Level Decoupling: Urban Resource Flows and theGovernance of Infrastructure Transitions. Oslo: Birkeland Trykkeri AS.
Tabercil (2010). Opening of the new green roof on the podium of City Hall during Doors Open 2010, Toronto, Ontario,
Canada. Available at: http: www.flickr.com photos 44775455 N00 4651710390 Accessed 24 April 2017 .
Tacoli, C (2013). Urban poverty, food security and climate change. International Institute for Environment andDevelopment, Human Settlements Working Paper Number 37. http: pubs.iied.org pdfs 10623IIED.pdf
Tanner, T., Mitchell, T., Polack, E., Guenther, B. (2009). Urban governance for adaptation: assessing climate change
resilience in ten Asian cities. IDS Working Papers, 2009 (315).
Thurlow, J., Zhu, T. and Diao, . (2009). The impact of climate variability and change on economic growth and povertyin Zambia. International Food Policy Research Institute.
Timmerman, P. (1981). Vulnerability, resilience and the collapse of society: a review of models and possible climatic
application, Environmental Monograph No. 1. Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Toronto, Toronto.
Todd, J. and Josephson, B. (1996). The design of living technologies for waste treatment. Ecological Engineering,
6:109-136.
Ton, D. (2014). DOE program activities on microgrids and grid resiliency. U.S. Department of Energy. Office ofElectricity Delivery and Energy Reliability. Available at: http: bnl.gov rcsg2014 files talks DobrianskDTon.pdf
Accessed 26th February 2015 .
Toronto City Clerk (2014). Resilient city – preparing for a changing climate. Available at: http: app.toronto.ca tmmis
viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item 2014.PE28.6 Accessed 5th December 2014 .
Toronto City Planning (2014). How does the city grow? Available at: http: www1.toronto.ca wps portal contentonly?vgnextoid 3cee3851be402410VgnVCM10 000071d60f89RCRD vgnextchannel 1e68f40f9aae0410VgnVCM10000071d60f89RCRD Accessed 11th December 2015 .
Toronto Financial District (2013). Toronto: the resilient city. Available at: http: www.loopinitiatives.com toronto-theresilient-city Accessed 11th December 2014 .
Toronto Green Standard (2013). Developing Toronto. Available at: http: www1.toronto.ca wps portal
contentonly?vgnextoid f85552cc66061410VgnVCM10 000071d60f89RCRD Accsessed 10th December 2014 .

66

Resilience and Resource Efficiency in Cities

Torrens Resilience Institute (2009). Characteristics of Resiience. Torrens Resilience Institute, Adelaide. Available at:
http: torrensresilience.org characteristics-of-resilience Accessed 14th May 2015 .
Turok, I. McGranahan, G., 2013. Urbanization and economic growth: the arguments and evidence for Africa andAsia. Environment and Urbanization, 25(2), pp. 465-482.
UN-DESA (2000). Handbook on geographic information systems and digital mapping. Available at: https: unstats.un.org
unsd publication SeriesF SeriesF 79E.pdf Accessed 16 February 2017 .
UN-DESA (2014). World Urbanization Prospects, the 2014 revision. Percentage urban and urban agglomerations bysize class. United Nations. Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Population Division. Available at: https: esa.
un.org unpd wup Maps CityDistribution CityPopulation 2014 City Urban high.png. Accessed 11th January 2015 .
UN-DESA (2016). The Wolrd’s Cities in 2016. Available at: http: www.un.org en development desa population
publications pdf urbanization the worlds cities in 2016 data booklet.pdf. Accessed 28 February 2017 .
UNECA (2009). Africa review support on sustainable consumption and production. United Nations Economic andSocial Council. Available at: http: sustainabledevelopment.un.org content documents AfricanReviewReportonSustainableConsumptionSummary.pdf Accessed 19th January 2015 .
UNEP (2010). Resource Efficiency. Available at: http: www.unep.org pdf UNEP Profile Resource efficiency.pdf
Accessed 3rd November 2014 .
UNEP (2011). Towards a Green Economy: Pathways to Sustainable Development and Poverty Eradication.
UNEP (2013). Integrating the Environment in Urban Planning and Management. Nairobi: UNON Publishing Services
Section.
UNEP (2014). UN Environment Green Infrastructure Guide. Available at: http: www.medspring.eu sites default files
Green-infrastructure-Guide-UNEP.pdf Accessed 16 February 2017 .
UNEP (n d). Climate Change - Mitigation. Available at: http: web.unep.org climatechange mitigation Accessed 16
February 2017 .
UNEP (n d). Ecosystem Management - About Ecosystems. Available at: http: web.unep.org ecosystems who-weare about-ecosystems Accessed 13 February 2017 .
UNEP (n d). Shifting to Resource Efficient Cities: 8 Key Messages for Policy Makers. Paris.
UNFCCC (2011). Fact sheet: Climate change science - the status of climate change science today. Available at: https:
unfccc.int files press backgrounders application pdf press factsh science.pdf Accessed 2 February 2017 .
UNFCCC (n.d.). FOCUS: Adaptation. Available at: http: unfccc.int focus adaptation items 6999.php
Accessed 2 February 2017 .
UNFCCC (n.d.). Glossary of climate change acronmys and terms. Available at: http: unfccc.int essential backgroundglossary items 3666.php Accessed 20 February 2017 .
UN-HABITAT (2007). Zambia: Lusaka urban profile: participatory slum upgrading programme in African, Caribbean
and Pacific countries. UN-HABITAT, Nairobi.
UN-HABITAT (2014). Medell n collaboration on urban resilience: 11 April 2014. Available at: http: wuf7.unhabitat.org
Media Default PDF FINAL%20Medellin%20Urban%20Resilience% 20Colalboration 11%20April.pdf Accessed 1st
December 2015 .
UN-HABITAT (2016). World Cities Report 2016: Urbanization and Development; Emerging Futures, United Nations
Human Settlements Programme.” Nairobi, 247.
UNISDR (2009). Risk and poverty in a changing climate: invest today for a safer tomorrow. 2009 Global Assessment
Report on Disaster Risk Reduction. Manama, Oriental Press.
UNISDR (2009). 2009 UNISDR Terminology on Disaster Risk Reduction. Available at: http: www.unisdr.org
files 7817 UNISDRTerminologyEnglish.pdf Accessed 1 March 2017 .
UNISDR (n.d.). What is Disaster Risk Reduction?. Available at: https: www.unisdr.org who-we-are what-is-drr
Accessed 2 February 2017 .

Bibliography

67

UN-ECOSOC (2006). Definition of basic concepts and terminologies in governance and public administration.
Available at: http: unpan1.un.org intradoc groups public documents un unpan022332.pdf Accessed 16
February 2017 .
United Nations Secretary General’s High-Level Task Force on Global Food and Nutrition Security (2015). All Food
Systems Are Sustainable. Available at: http: www.un.org en issues food taskforce pdf All%20food%20
systems%20are%20sustainable.pdf Accessed 16 February 2017 .
United Nations, 2015. Sustainable Development Goal. Available at: http: www.un.org sustainabledevelopment
sustainable-development-goals Accessed 20 February 2017 .
US Department of Agriculture (2015). New York City High-Line. Available at: https: flickr.com photos 41284017
N08 21571387346 Accessed 13 April 2017 .
Vorhies F (2012). ‘The economics of investing in disaster risk reduction’ Working Paper prepared for the UN
International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR), Geneva. Available online: http: www.preventionweb.net
posthfa documents drreconomicsworkingpaperfinal.pdf
Wackernagel, M., Kitzes, J., Moran, D., Goldfinger, S., Thomas, M. (2006). The ecological footprint of cities andregions: comparing resource availability with resource demand. Environment and Urbanization, 18(1), 103-112.
Walker, B., Holling, C. S., Carpenter, S. R. Kinzig, A. (2004). Resilience, adaptability and transformability in Socialecological systems. Ecology and Society, 9(2): 5.
Wang, R. and Keyton, D. (2010). Traditional Lingnan architecture offers glimpse into GZ history. Life of Guangzhou.
Available at: http: www.lifeofguangzhou.com node 10 node 37 node 85 2010 06 22 127718251277 812.shtml
Accessed 13th February 2015 .
Watson, D., Fern ndez, J. Usubiaga, A. (2014). Progress on resource efficiency and decoupling in the EU-27. Available
at: http: www.eea.europa.eu publications progress-on-resourceefficiency-and Accessed 6th February 2015 .
West, J, Schandl J, Heyenga S and Chen S (2013). Resource Efficiency: Economics and Outlook for China. UNEP,
Bangkok, Thailand.
Welsh, M. (2012). Resilience and responsibility: governing uncertainty in a complex world. The Geographical
Journal,180(1): 15-26.
WHO (2014). Urban population growth. Global Health Observatory (GHO) data. http: www.who.int gho urban healthsituation trends urban population growth text en Accessed 20th February 2015 .
Wicaksono, G. (2014). Urban Climate Change Resilience in Semarang – Indonesia, 5th High Level Seminar on
Environmentally Sustainable Cities, Surabaya, Available at: http: hls-esc.org documents 5hlsesc Semarang.
pdf Accessed 25th April 2017
World Bank (n d) Sao Paulo Case Study Overview. Available at: http: siteresources.worldbank.org
INTURBANDEVELOPMENT Resources 3363871306291319853 CS Sao Paulo.pdf Accessed 1st June 2015 .
World Bank. (2014). Results-based Financing for Municipal Solid Waste. World Bank Urban Development
Series. Available from: http: documents.worldbank.org curated en 237191468330923040
pdf 918610v20WP0FM0BE0CATALOGED0BY0WED0.pdf
World Economic Outlook Database (2013). Available at: http: www.imf.org external pubs ft weo 2013 01
weodata weorept.aspx?sy 1980 ey 2018 sort country ds . br 1 pr1.x 40 pr1.y 0 c 924 s NGDP
RPCH%2CPPPPC grp 0 a Accessed 16th February 2015 .
World Energy Council (2013). Waste to energy. Available at: http: www.worldenergy.org wpcontent
uploads 2013 10 WER 2013 7b Waste to Energy.pdf Accessed 13th February 2015 .
World Population Review (2015). Working Group on Decoupling of the International Resource Panel. (2011).
Decoupling natural resource use and environmental impacts from economic growth. Paris.
evgenos, D.,Dimopoulos, K., Moustakas, K., Malamis, D. and Loizidou, M. (2014). Enhanced resource efficiency in thedesalination sector through resoruce recovery from bring. Available at : http: conference2014.esymbiosis.eu pdf
xevgenos et al.pdf Accessed 31st January 2015 .
Yi-bin and Yong-shi (2006). Energy saving – architects inspired from traditional residential property in Ling Nan (South
China). Available at : http: www.seiofbluemountain.com en search index.php?act all audit ISTP page 180
Accessed 31st January 2015 .

68

Resilience and Resource Efficiency in Cities

6 APPENDICES
Appendix 1. Initiatives for building resilience around the world
Alongside the growing concern over the range of threats faced by cities and their inhabitants, the recognition
that urban transformations will be playing a major role in economic, demographic, social and environmental
change has led to a rising number of urban resilience agendas worldwide (Moir et al., 2014). A range ofinstitutions and networks are supporting these, most frequently with an explicit link to climate change risks.
Inter-governmental organisations supporting urban resilience include: The United Nations institutions: Among UN institutions focusing on the city-level, UNHabitat is currently
working with local governments of 40 cities, most of them in the Asia-Pacific Region. Through its Cities
and Climate Change Initiative (CCI), it supports them in resilience building with climate change vulnerability
assessments, climate change action plans, and with the definition of climate change and urban policies.
The United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR) has launched the ‘Making Cities
Resilient’ campaign to encourage and give recommendations to Mayors and local governments with aparticular emphasis on the application of the Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-2015.
 The C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group (C40): Aiming to highlight the leadership role of cities inaddressing issues of the 21st century, the C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group (C40) is a network of
the world’s megacities committed to take action regarding climate change. Founded in 2005, it serves
cities as a forum where they can collaborate, share knowledge on successful achievements, and drive
sustainable and measurable action. It has held a risk assessment workshop in Rio de Janeiro in November
2014, and will host the C40 Mayors’ summit in Mexico in 2016, bringing together global C40 mayors andurban sustainability leaders in order to build up collective research for climate solutions.
 The Asian Cities Climate Change Resilience Network (ACCCRN): Funded by the Rockefeller Foundation,
the Asian Cities Climate Change Resilience Network (ACCCRN) initially operated in 10 cities in India,
Indonesia, Thailand and Vietnam. It seeks to develop practical strategies for cities to be equipped withthe right resources, tools and methods to be able to respond to the impacts of climate change. ACCCRN’s
main goals are centred on capacity building, networks for knowledge and learning, and engagement andthe scaling-up of actions.
 The International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI): ICLEI was established as theInternational Council for Local Environmental Initiatives in 1990. It is a global association of local
governments and national, regional and local government organisations. ICLEI establishes links
within its network that comprises over 1200 members, and works collaboratively with hundreds ofother governments through campaigns and programmes aiming at supporting the implementation ofsustainable development strategies at the local level. In relation to resilience, ICLEI has been hosting the‘Resilient Cities Congress’ on an annual basis.


he ity esilience Pro ling Programme led by UN-Habitat and supported by C40, ICLEI, the InterAmerican Development Bank (IDB), UNISDR, the Rockefeller Foundation, United Cities and Local
Governments (UCLG) and the World Bank, this programme aims to enhance effectiveness of response
to humanitarian crisis and subsequent development issues. Beyond common approaches adopted
in disaster risk reduction, the CRPP has developed a multi-sectorial, multi-hazard, multi-stakeholder
model for building resilience while taking into account the complexity and diversity of cities in which it is
implemented. Four objectives are pursues within its 4-5 year implementation timeframe: 1) research on
operational framework; 2) indexing and profiling; 3) tools software development; 4) normative guidance.
The CRPP involves key partnerships founded on integrated approaches to urban resilience.

 100 Resilient Cities: Also financed by the Rockefeller Foundation, 100 Resilient Cities is a programmethat works with cities to build resilience to notable social, economic and physical challenges. Cities submit
their own analysis of the risks they are exposed to and for which they consider the most important to beprepared. Key elements of support involve the recruitment of a Chief Resilience Officer for each selected
city, as well as aid to develop an urban resilience plan and access to services to implement this plan.
In addition, UN-Habitat, UNISDR, the World Bank, GFDRR, ICLEI, the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB),
the Rockefeller Foundation and its 100 Resilient Cities programme and C40 are some of the signatories ofAppendices69the ‘Global Collaboration for Urban Resilience’. This collaboration seeks knowledgesharing, the harmonizationof the approaches and tools currently available, and the facilitation of the flow of financial resources byforging alliances between governments, institutions and the private sector (UN-Habitat, 2014).
These city networks tend to have been developed with the aim of informing decision-making and policy
implementation at local level through bridging the gap between research and practice in urban adaptation
and resilience. They are often based on the idea that national governments have taken insufficient actions
to address complex issues like climate change at the local scale. Being part of an influential network should
provide the cities with opportunities to take parts in debates and learn from the experiences of others (Moiret al., 2014; Schreiber, 2014).

Appendix 2. Examples of tools to apply, measure and assess resilience
TAMD (IIED): The International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) is currently working
with its partners on the piloting of a framework designed to track adaptation and measuring its impact on
development in low- and middle-income countries. Called ‘Tracking Adaptation and Measuring Development(TAMD)’, this method is used to monitor and assess the actions deployed in climate risk management at
the international, national and sub-national scale, and make use of vulnerability and development indicators
to evaluate the outcomes relative to local climate resilience. Already used in Pakistan, Ethiopia, Cambodia,
Uganda and Tanzania, it is aimed to be tailored in a manner it can be used effectively by local and national
government officials, NGOs and development partners.
World Bank: Through the Resilient Cities Program, The World Bank has developed the City Strength Diagnostic
Methodology, a qualitative, rapid diagnostic process that uses a combination of guided interviews, exercises,
and review of existing studies to determine sectoral and crosscutting recommendations.” The process isdivided into four stages: 1) Pre-diagnostic data collection; 2) Launch workshop; 3) Interviews and field visits;
4) Prioritization of actions and investments to enhance resilience. This methodology has for key purpose tofacilitate a dialogue amonst stakeholders about risks in their city and the performance of urban systems.
City Resilience Index (Arup): With support from the Rockefeller Foundation, Arup has recently defined theCity Resilience Index (CRI), aimed at enabling the measurement of resilience at the city scale. It has been
designed and tested from fieldwork for the particular purposes of enabling urban communities to thrive
despite the occurrence of social, environmental, and economic stresses and disruptions. It seeks to informresearch on resilience and to be easily accessible to urban planning practitioners and investors. CRI does notrecognise asset-based3 and system-based4 approaches as comprehensive as each of them tends to overlook
questions of scale, interdependencies between different systems and power dynamics. Instead, CRI follows
a performance-based approach defining resilience according to a city’s capacity to fulfil and sustain its corefunctions, which are achieved by multiple city assets, systems and actors simultaneously (Arup, 2014c). The
index is based around assessing the performance of key urban sectors and activities against a set of defined
characteristics of resilience.
LSE Cities: Exploring the interplay between the designed and built qualities of urban form and urban
governance in creating resilience, LSE cities has defined four main measures and a set of indicators toevaluate urban form resilience. By framing the ‘resilient urban form’ as dense, inclusive of a diversity ofbuilding types, founded on co-ordinated and robust movement infrastructure and accommodating ofmultipurpose or ‘flexible’ open spaces”, LSE cities has established four key measures to explore the resilienceof urban form: Physical: a) population and built form density over time; b) adaptabilities of street layouts and building
types; c) evidence of the adaptability of street layouts and building types over time; Environmental: a) public transport accessibility; b) green space accessibility and open land preservation;
 Social: degrees of land-use and tenure diversity; - Economic: property values in a wider urban context.
These interlinked measures have the capacity to provide insight into the way change can impact on places. This
framework has been applied to a series of case studies which led to the conclusion that assessing the relative
overall resilience of different urban typologies is not a straightforward process” (Davis and Uffer, 2013).
3
470

Asset-based approaches look at the resilience of individual infrastructure components but neglect the role of these components in city systems.
System-based approaches take into account the role of individual infrastructure components but do not consider the interdependencies
between different systems at different scales, nor the governing structures that influence the way systems work. (Arup, 2014c)

Resilience and Resource Efficiency in Cities