Standardised indicators for "resilient cities": The folly of devising a technical solution to a political problem

Chmutina, K; Lizarralde, G; von Meding, J K and Bosher, L (2023) Standardised indicators for "resilient cities": The folly of devising a technical solution to a political problem. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 14(4), pp. 514-535. ISSN 1759-5916

Abstract

Purpose: Driven by the New Urban Agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals, decision makers have been striving to reorientate policy debates towards the aspiration of achieving urban resilience and monitoring the effectiveness of adaptive measures through the implementation of standardised indicators. Consequently, there has been a rise of indicator systems measuring resilience. This paper aims to argue that the ambition of making cities resilient does not always make them less vulnerable, more habitable, equitable and just. Design/methodology/approach: Using an inductive policy analysis of ISO standard 37123:2019 “Sustainable cities and communities — Indicators for resilient cities”, the authors examine the extent to which the root causes of risks are being addressed by the urban resilience agenda. Findings: The authors show that the current standardisation of resilience fails to adequately address the political dimension of disaster risk reduction, reducing resilience to a management tool and missing the opportunity to address the socio-political sources of risks. Originality/value: Such critical analysis of the Standard is important as it moves away from a hazard-centric approach and, instead, permits to shed light on the socio-political processes of risk creation and to adopt a more nuanced and sensitive understanding of urban characteristics and governance mechanisms.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: governance; indicators
Index terms: ISO, disaster risk reduction, urban resilience, methodology, sustainable city, governance, policy analysis, resilient city, implementation, dimension, effectiveness, sustainable development goal, standardization, monitoring
Subjects: sustainable design, urban design, performance measurement, performance management, research methods, environmental hazards, control systems, business, policy studies, contractual arrangements, health monitoring assessment and metrics, sustainability and resilience, standards development
Topics: Sustainability, Governance, Procurement, Research Practice, Health and Safety, Site Management, Quality Management, Urban Studies
Descriptive scope: 3 PCT

N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here