https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9372-2704
![Sample our Politics & International Relations journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5947/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Politics-International-Relations.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
Managing future uncertainty is the essence of planning. How planners conceptualize the future therefore has important practical and normative implications as contemporary decisions have long-term impacts that may be irreversible and distribute costs and benefits across society. A discourse analysis of strategies prepared under the 100 Resilient Cities programme reveals that while they are ostensibly forward-looking and cognizant of uncertainty, most presume a knowable future (epistemic certainty) and focus on well-understood or recently experienced risks. Few acknowledge the future’s inherent unknowability (ontic uncertainty). Those that do emphasize community self-help; others describe top-down, government-led initiatives. Most strategies also present an image of societal consensus, downplaying the potential for legitimate disagreement over means and ends (discursive uncertainty). These findings suggest that new conceptualizations of future uncertainty have had limited impacts on planning practice.
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Notes
1. Somewhat unexpectedly, the Rockefeller Foundation concluded the 100RC programme as of 31 July 2019. While the foundation has allocated a further US$8 million to support the work of chief resilience officers and member cities, it is not clear how these funds will be distributed or spent. The project’s conclusion diminishes neither the global agenda-setting role of the Rockefeller Foundation in this domain nor the continued popularity of the resilience approach in practitioner and academic circles alike, and thus an analysis of the 100RC strategies is timely and relevant to urban planning and policy-making.
2. The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) calculates a human development index (HDI) measuring countries’ levels of life expectancy, educational attainment and standard of living. Although Mexico ranks as ‘high’ on the HDI, Mexico City was included in our sample because of its political, economic and social integration with the United States and Canada within North America.