Urban resilience and distributive justice

ABSTRACT

There is a growing awareness of the (potential) tensions be-tween urban resilience and justice. This paper provides a systematic account of justice issues in the context of urban resilience to natural disasters. On the one hand, I will demonstrate that the underlying understanding of resilience – as bouncing back/forward – shapes our understanding of the interplay between justice and resilience. On the other hand, I will argue that we should not only avoid unjust outcomes in the process of building resilience but also consider resilience engineering as a way of promoting urban justice.

KEYWORDS:

• Justice
• urban justice
• natural disaster
• philosophy
• rights

1. Introduction

This paper aims to map out the relationship between resilience and justice. The focus will be on urban resilience to natural disasters. This is not to say that this is the only example where we need to recognize tensions between the ideals of the just city and the resilient city. However, focusing on a specific case allows us to work towards a systematic account of the relationship between resilience and justice.

As Ziervogel et al. (2017, p. 125) have noted, the “language of resilience is strongly present in overarching development frameworks, including the Paris Agreement of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (2015), the UNISDR Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (2015), and most notably the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).“ (Ziervogel et al., 2017, p. 125); yet, according to Susan Fainstein (2015), there is a tendency to overlook “the trade-offs involved and the resulting distributions of costs and benefits. For example, efforts to archive resilience in relation to climate change through developing natural buffers against sea level rise will likely result in the displacement of populations. Who will be displaced and what measures will be taken to replace the lost housing and community are crucial questions not captured by the term resilience.“ (Fainstein, 2015, p. 157) Along similar lines, Griffin et al. (2017) asked to rethink the relationship between (environmental) justice and resilience. Furthermore, Ziervogel et al. (2017) indicate the need to counter the inherent top-down approach in promoting urban resilience by turning the promotion of justice and rights into explicit goals. All of these contributions can be considered as examples for an emerging critique which highlights the absence of questions concerning politics, power, and equity in resilience research. (Doorn, 2017; Meerow & Newell, 2016)

It is against this background that I aim to map out some of the general tensions between urban resilience and justice. Primarily, I will demonstrate how the underlying understanding of resilience shapes the interplay between urban resilience and justice.

I will proceed as follows: (1) I will introduce my perspective and clarify my understanding of “urban resilience“ and “justice.“ (2) I will discuss the interplay between “resilience“ and “justice“ by contrasting three different views on resilience: (a) resilience as bouncing back, (b) resilience as bouncing forward, and (c) resilience as anti-fragility.

2. Urban resilience and justice: basic considerations

In the following section, I will introduce central concepts including ‘Resilience,’ ‘Resilience Engineering,’ and ‘Urban Resilience.’ I will also provide a very brief introduction to the capability approach and an overview on the relationship between justice and the city to set the stage for the discussion on urban resilience and justice in the next section.

2.1. Resilience as a property of a city

In the context of this paper, I consider a city as a system (S). S₀ will refer to the predisaster state, S_D to the postdisaster state, and S₁ to the rebuilt and reorganized city. A city will be considered as being resilient to a specific kind of natural disaster if the system has been able to move from S_D to S₁ and S₁ is equivalent to S₀ in all relevant aspects.

I will use the term ‘Resilience engineering’ to refer to all engineering activities that aim to make a system (more) resilient. This understanding of resilience engineering might be at odds with other definitions of the term. For example, Erik Hoffnagel has proposed “resilience engineering“ as a new paradigm in safety engineering (Wood & Hollnagel, 2006, p. 2), which implies a much broader understanding of the term as it used in this paper. In contrast, Kazuo Furuta (2015) called to ‘establish a new academic field, which we can call resilience engineering, to devise resilient sociotechnical systems that can quickly recover their functions from damaged conditions.’ (Furuta, 2015, p. 439) If we consider the city as a sociotechnical system, Furuta’s definition is close to my understanding.

Especially in the context of ‘resilient cities’ and ‘urban resilience,’ resilience is often reduced to an overall positive and desirable goal (Meerow & Newell, 2016, p. 3). Following Carpenter et al. (2001), however, it should be emphasized that resilience “can be desirable or undesirable. For example, system states that decrease social welfare, such as polluted water supplies or dictatorships, can be highly resilient.“ (Carpenter et al., 2001, p. 766) Therefore, I will consider resilience as a property of a system rather than a value in itself.¹ My use of resilience is descriptive rather than normative.

Urban resilience to natural disasters is thought of as the capability of a city to stay persistent over time despite being exposed to natural disasters (e.g., extreme weather conditions or flooding).² Following Meerow and Newell (2016), it is crucial to underline that focusing on short-term disruptions (such as natural disasters) makes it more likely to relate resilience to persistence. In contrast, resilience to long-term stress is more likely to be thought of in terms of transformation and transition. (Meerow & Newell, 2016, p. 10) As I will show later, linking resilience to short-term disruptions to long-term transition thinking is indeed one way to promote justice.

Finally, it needs to be acknowledged that focusing on building resilience may frame natural disasters as an external force and does not do justice to the underlying causes (e.g., Fainstein, 2015; Meerow & Newell, 2016). As an extreme example, Benjamin R. Barber (2017) has considered the current focus on urban resilience as distracting and asked for giving priority to fighting climate change. However, in the context of this paper, it will be assumed that the causes of natural disasters cannot be eliminated completely and the city will be exposed to, e.g., extreme weather conditions or flooding in the foreseeable future.

2.2. (Distributive) justice and the city

Despite the current interest in spatial justice, the ideal of the just city remains a mostly underresearched subject in Political Philosophy (see, e.g., Weinstock, 2011). Therefore, I will use the discussion on integrating the capability approach into resilience research as a starting point.

Following the work of Colleen Murphy and Paolo Gardoni (Gardoni & Murphy, 2008, 2009; Murphy & Gardoni, 2008, 2012), Neelke Doorn (2017) has argued in favor of the capability approach in the context of resilience engineering. Unlike other approaches to distributive justice, the capability approach focuses not on the goods to be distributed but rather on the opportunities people have to achieve important goals (Nussbaum, 2006, 2011; Sen, 1980, 1993). For example, being healthy or being educated are considered as an important functionings, and the capability to be healthy refers to the real opportunity to become and remain healthy. The capability to be healthy, however, is not only based on the resources available to an individual but also influenced by the social and material environment. (Doorn, 2017, p. 723; see also: Doorn et al., 2018) For example, the capability to be healthy is influenced by the (physical) accessibility of the healthcare system.

Within such a framework, a city may become more just if more inhabitants and other city users have access to the healthcare or the education system. For example, a city where 80% of the population has access to basic healthcare is less just than a city where 100% of the population has access to basic healthcare. The aim of this paper is not to develop nuanced capability indicators; however, this brief reflection already shows that it is reasonable to consider some cities as more just than others – and the same holds true for the comparison of one city before and after being exposed to a natural disaster.

Along similar lines, Shane Epting (2016a) suggests considering the city as a whole comprising different parts. To stay with the examples already introduced, we could consider hospitals or schools to be parts of a city that may allow inhabitants and other city users to realize their capability to be healthy and to be educated. Furthermore, he argues that the lack of certain parts may serve as indicators of injustice, and “municipal officials can amend ‚broken’ parts, add new ones, or eliminate parts to ensure justice.“ (Epting, 2016a) On the one hand, the presence of other parts, e.g., harmful industry, may give rise to justice concerns if located close to other parts of the city such as residential areas. On the other hand, schools and hospitals can be understood as parts of a city, and the absence of these parts can be considered an indication of injustice. Emily Talen (2013), too, has suggested that ‘inaccessibility to what is desirable can be interpreted as an expression of injustice. Proximity to what is undesirable is an expression of injustice.’ (Talen, 2013, p. 129)

However, the mere presence of a hospital or a school may not be sufficient to ensure accessibility for all. In a town where part of the population lacks access to individual transportation, the availability and reliability of the public transportation system will determine the real opportunity of the inhabitants to remain healthy. In other words, the appropriate (re)design of a transportation system that allows the inhabitants of a neighborhood to make use of (or to ease access to) a hospital will promote justice in a city. (For an extensive inquiry into transport justice, see Epting, 2016b; Martens, 2016)

3. Urban resilience and justice

In the previous section, I have outlined my understanding of ‘urban resilience’ and the interplay between justice and cities from the perspective of the capability approach. In the following, I will explore different approaches to resilience and how they are related to justice.

3.1. Resilience as bouncing back

C. S. Holling’s work on ecological resilience is often seen as the starting point of modern resilience theory. Holling (1973) used resilience to capture the persistence of an ecological system, which undergoes change in reaction to a disturbance. He contrasts his idea of resilience with so-called ‘engineering resilience,’³ where the emphasis is an original single state of equilibrium to which a resilient system returns. (Meerow et al., 2016, p. 40) Hence, the contemporary debate started by questioning the idea of ‘resilience as bouncing back’ in a very strict sense, where S will return to S₀.

Within the urban resilience research, a slight majority in the Meerow et al. (2016) sample leans towards the ideas of multiple-state equilibrium, especially dynamic nonequilibrium resilience. Other definitions do acknowledge that cities constantly undergo change. (Meerow et al., 2016, p. 43) This particular view of the city might prevent most urban scholars from viewing resilience as bouncing back in a narrow sense.

Indeed, the fact that cities are constantly changing is a feature that also has been highlighted by Epting (2016a) as the ongoing replacement of parts raises an interesting and general question about the identity and persistence of cities over time. On what grounds, e.g., are we entitled to consider a city to be the same city 100 years ago and today? Obviously, cities undergo change, and 18th century Paris is different from contemporary Paris. However, we still are inclined to use the same reference (“Paris“) for an object, which is likely to be different in many respects.

The topic of city identity is of interest here because of the common link between resilience and identity in the resilience literature. For example, Folke et al. (2010) define resilience as the “… capacity of a system to absorb disturbance and reorganize while undergoing change so as to still retain essentially the same function, structure and feedbacks, and therefore identity, that is, the capacity to change in order to maintain the same identity.“ (Emphasis added, M.N.) Similarly, Carpenter et al. (2001) have highlighted persistence over time as a property of a resilient system. However, rather than treating the persistence of a city over time as a unique challenge in understanding urban resilience to natural disasters, we need to recognize that city identity in itself is something that is in need of explanation. It follows that the mere difference between S₀ and S₁ is nothing that should raise immediate concern if S₀ and S₁ are equivalent in all relevant aspects.

From a normative perspective, resilience as bouncing back not only comes with the risk of being inherently conservative. Resilience as bouncing back also frames ‘resilience’ and ‘justice’ as being independent of each other. Simply put, if S_D is expected to bounce back to S₀, the postdisaster city will be as (in)just as the predisaster city. Hence, it’s not only the overall descriptive rather than the normative orientation of early resilience research that leads to the lack of attention to justice issues. It is the underlying idea of bouncing back to a previous state, which disconnects the discussion on resilience from any discussion on justice.

From an epistemic perspective, resilience as bouncing back has the advantage of having detailed knowledge about the state, to which the city should return to. As we will see, the question of ‘bouncing back to what?’ has been rightfully asked concerning approaches, where S₁ can be different from S₀. However, this question does not seem to be as prominent if we think about resilience as bouncing back in the narrow sense. However, even this assumption might be misleading as we do not always have the same level of knowledge for all parts of the city. Thus, rebuilding irregular settlements after a disaster might become a serious challenge due to the lack of information regarding S₀.

3.2. Bouncing back to what?

In view of post-Katrina New Orleans, Epting (2016a) remarks that during “the rebuilding process, new or repaired parts gradually changed the city. When the rebuilding is finished, ‚new‘ New Orleans will resemble ‚old’ New Orleans, but it will not be the exact same.“

As we have already seen, the mere difference between ‘old’ and ‘new’ New Orleans should not be seen as problematic. So, according to what criteria does the difference between S₀ and S₁ become problematic? – Let’s have a look at an example presented in Fainstein (2015): In the aftermath of the hurricane, some inhabitants of New Orleans had to learn that their neighborhood was marked as buffer zones, and the buildings had to leave room for future flooding. While the buffer zones may have increased the resilience of New Orleans to flooding, the inhabitants of the most impoverished parts protested against the plans and were finally allowed to rebuild in the designated area. – What made the planning problematic from the perspective of justice is that certain parts of the city were not considered to be relevant. Vale (2014) elaborates:

“Taking post-Katrina New Orleans as an example, it quickly becomes clear that judging resilience depends on where one looks, given that the city’s repopulation has taken radically different forms from neighborhood to neighborhood in the years since the August 2005 disaster. Is ‘New Orleans’ resilient even if some of its component neighborhoods remain half-empty? Is ‘the city’ resilient even if many of its poorest former citizens have not been able to return? Or, as is the view of some, is the city’s resilience actually dependent on the departure of many of its most vulnerable residents? … Whose New Orleans matters?“ (Vale, 2014, p. 197)

The challenge as highlighted by Vale (2014) and exemplified in the case presented by Fainstein (2015) is to ensure that S₁ is similar to S₀ in all relevant aspects – and to ask who determines the relevant aspects. In this context, Ziervogel et al. (2017) argue that we need to question the underlying assumption in many relevant policy documents that ‘it is city government that occupies the primary position to deliver urban resilience at the city scale.’ (Ziervogel et al., 2017, p. 125) To counter the inherent top-down perspective, a rights- and justice-based approach is needed to align increasing urban resilience while enabling pro-poor development. Fainstein (2015) and Doorn (2017), too, underline the need to take the situation of vulnerable groups as a starting point. Hence, the aforementioned authors agree upon the need to give special considerations to marginalized and vulnerable groups, who too often seem to pay the price for increasing the overall resilience of a city.

In addition, categories such as ‘Age,’ ‘Transportation Access,’ ‘Special needs,’ and ‘Health coverage’ are used to operationalize (social) resilience. (Doorn, 2017, pp. 719–720) The resulting index suggests that, e.g., a high percentage of the population with access to individual vehicles (rather than public transport) will have a positive effect on resilience. In other words: Such indicators suggest that if the sole goal is to increase urban resilience, lowering the percentage of inhabitants without access to individual vehicles or telephones, removing elderly people and people with disabilities and in medical conditions, and so on is an option. Therefore, it is crucial to emphasize that the legitimate goal to increase urban resilience needs to be balanced with the needs and rights of all inhabitants and city users. Cities need to become both: resilient and just.

3.3. Bouncing forward to the just city

One of the major concerns in the literature discussed so far is that the goal to increase resilience all too often does not take into account the needs and rights of all inhabitants and city users. Rather, developments in the name of urban resilience seem to favor the well-off parts of the population.

If we leave behind the (contested) idea that cities need to bounce back to the predisaster state, there is also hope that cities might bounce forward to a more desirable state. For example, a city may become more just by making healthcare and education more accessible to a larger part of the population, either by building new facilities or improving the transport system. However, a discussion on how to reduce inequalities is absence in the resilience literature. (Doorn, 2017, p. 8)

There are different ways to explain, why resilience as bouncing forward is rarely linked with the idea of promoting justice. As we have already seen, the original descriptive and naturalistic understanding suggested treating justice and resilience as independent subjects. In contrast, the contemporary normative approach considers resilience as a desirable goal in itself and often assumes that promoting resilience and justice goes hand in hand.

For the following, I suggest distinguishing between two interrelated yet distinct challenges: The first challenge concerns the promotion of justice while increasing resilience. The critique voiced by Vale (2014) and Fainstein (2015) is helpful in reminding us how promoting resilience can contribute to making a city less just. The second challenge is to think of increasing resilience as a way to promote justice (while being aware that fostering resilience and promoting justice do not always go well together).

As Meerow and Newell (2016) have noted, one particular challenge in focusing on resilience to natural disasters is that this kind of resilience gives preference to short-term disruptions rather than long-term stress. On the one hand, giving special emphasis to short-term disruptions comes with the risk of overlooking the connection between resilience to natural disasters and long-term development. For example, Ziervogel et al. (2017): ‘Infrastructure gaps often exist in neighborhoods that have experienced historic marginalization, economic trauma, and low community cohesion. It is at these vulnerable points that critical functions and entitlements, even for the most apparently robust systems, can fail.’ (Ziervogel et al., 2017, p. 129) On the other hand, there is the need to consider resilience in the broader context of transformation to avoid the bias towards ‘business as usual’ (Meerow & Newell, 2016).

As we have already seen, rebuilding a city does not necessarily mean returning to the predisaster state. While Meerow et al. (2016) seem to suggest that an emphasis on rebuilding and recovery is an indicator for resilience as bouncing back, I would like to recommend that the process of rebuilding can also be seen as an opportunity for transformation. As stated by Jamie Hicks Masterson et al. (2014):

‘The postdisaster recovery period is a window of opportunity for change. Stakeholders are generally more open to making community improvements that will increase resilience and thus will be more engaged and supportive of such initiatives. Furthermore, there is usually at least a temporary influx of financial resources that can be used to implement projects if the projects are ready to go (“shovel-ready”).’ (Masterson et al., 2014, pp. 53–55)

Chelleri et al. (2015), too, point out that the reconstruction process can be part of a ‘structural long-term transition.’ (Chelleri et al., 2015, p. 187)

Without paying particular attention to justice, Masterson et al. (2014) also emphasize the need to prepare a comprehensive plan to guide decision-making in a postdisaster situation. While additional resources may become available and opportunities for new project may arise, planning ahead helps to make decisions under time constraints. (Masterson et al., 2014, pp. 55–56) However, comprehensive postdisaster planning is also instrumental for promoting justice. For example, Fainstein highlights in her critique of the planned buffer zones which were to replace housing that the inhabitants were informed after the decision had been made. She does not reject the idea of moving low-income neighborhoods per se under the condition that the inhabitants accept the proposal. She adds: If ‘the likeliest location is a distance from the center, then transit systems to improve access, social services, and local amenities have to be developed alongside the housing.’ (Fainstein, 2015, p. 116) Ideally, this would allow us to promote resilience on the city scale, the resilience of the particular community, and justice in the city.

Furthermore, such progressive postdisaster planning could do justice to the general tension between “Resilience for All“ and “Collective Resilience,“ which has been highlighted by Kalliopi Sapountzaki (2014). She argues that the discussion on urban resilience tends to overlook the resilience of individuals to an unjust environment. This leads to a situation where the inhabitants ‘combat and undermine collective or city level resilience just because they claim their rights on the means of personal resilience (basically their predisaster property rights).’ (Sapountzaki, 2014, p. 46) Hence, it is important to recognize the rights of marginalized groups to return to and rebuild their neighborhood, to start a meaningful discussion about alternative developments. The recognition of predisaster (property) rights can be seen as addressing the neglect of the ‘underlying conflicts of interest in terms of a desirable postdisaster situation’ (Fainstein, 2015, p. 166). Rather than assuming that the predisaster situation has been noncontested, it is crucial to be aware of existing injustice and turn resilience engineering and planning into an instrument of overcoming injustice. A participatory approach to resilience and postdisaster planning might be helpful to understand what is at stake and how to improve the current situation. (Menser, 2012)⁴

At first glance, the idea to wait for a disaster to hit a city before starting to improve the living conditions of people seems odd. If we do care about justice and consider, e.g., the accessibility to healthcare for parts of the population to be problematic, why should we wait at all? How can we justify delaying addressing injustice? However, following Masterson et al. (2014), it can be argued that postponing addressing the issues of urban justice can be justified if (a) there is a lack of resources before the postdisaster recovery period and (b) the additional financial resources in the postdisaster recovery period are used to increase justice in the city. For example, there might be funding available for building a new hospital in a particular neighborhood, yet the postdisaster planning can give priority to creating a new, more accessible facility.

3.4. Resilience and uncertainty

In the previous section, I have argued that understanding resilience as bouncing forward does make room for including justice considerations by recognizing the process of recovery as a window of opportunity. However, to promote justice through resilience, we do need to pay attention to the rights of the marginalized and vulnerable group in the postdisaster planning. These rights need to be taken into account when answering the question of bouncing forward to what?

Such a view can be contested from a perspective that emphasizes that resilience is about addressing uncertainty and ‘building systems-based adaptive capacity to unexpected future change.’ (Meerow & Newell, 2016, p. 4) The emphasis on nonpredictability can already be found in earlier accounts. For example, according to Sapountzaki (2014, p. 39), Waldrop (1992) stated: “Resilient/adaptive systems actively try to turn whatever happens to their advantage.“ Taken to an extreme, ‘resilience thinking’ can come close to embracing Taleb’s idea of ‘Antifragility’ (Taleb, 2012). Ironically, Taleb himself presents antifragility as being in opposition to resilience: ‘Antifragility is beyond resilience or robustness. The resilient resists shocks and stays the same; the antifragile gets better.’ (Taleb, 2012)⁵ However, his plea for overcoming robustness as the main goal and allowing systems to fail in order to improve echoes the idea to link resilience and innovation. For example, Folke at al. (2010) argue that transformation should be considered an essential element of resilience (besides persistence and adaptability) and is needed to avoid the misunderstanding of resilience as backward-looking. (Folke et al., 2010) In contrast, they argue that transformation as part of resilience asks for innovation. Taleb (2012) may suggest the next step: to embrace being exposed to risk and disturbance as a way to stimulate innovation. The off-shot would be that – in the context of urban resilience – cities may become less risk adverse (and, thus, less likely to fall back into resilience as bouncing back thinking) while the question arises of who will have to bear the risk.

Additionally, the emphasis on uncertainty led resilience scholars to consider ‘sustainability management approaches that seek an optimal balance between current and future needs’ (Meerow & Newell, 2016, p. 4) to be too static. A one-sided focus on adaptability to unpredictable changes can further be amplified by a normative approach to resilience, which tends to downplay undesirable forms of resilience. Yet, the adaptability of an undesirable system can block progressive developments. Here, it becomes crucial to consider both adaptation and transformation as essential elements of resilience. (Per Olsson et al., 2014) Recognizing transformation as a vital feature of resilience engineering, however, is not only helpful in overcoming the tension between sustainability and resilience but also makes room for postdisaster planning to promote justice.

4. Summary and discussion

As we have seen, different understandings of urban resilience correspond with different ways of thinking about the interplay of resilience and justice:

1. The (contested) idea of resilience as bouncing back goes hand in hand with disconnecting the goals of promoting resilience and promoting justice. If a city is considered to be resilient because it returns to the predisaster state, the city will remain as (in)just as before.

   However, even if we emphasize the idea of the persistence of a city over time despite being exposed to natural disasters, there is no need to demand that S will return to S₀. As long as the postdisaster state S₁ is similar to S₀ in all relevant aspects, we may still consider the system to be persistent.

2. Resilience as bouncing forward allows us to address the question of how building resilience can promote justice.

   While critiques rightfully have noted that resilience as bouncing back runs the risk of blindly accepting the unjust status quo (e.g., Fainstein, 2015; Vale, 2014), resilience as bouncing forward asks us to consider how the city may become more just. This question is raised because of the observation that cities were considered to be resilient despite justice issues. More preciously, vulnerable and marginalized groups became further disadvantaged in the process of rebuilding and reorganizing the postdisaster city. In response, various authors have argued for recognizing the rights of all inhabitants (Sapountzaki, 2014; Ziervogel et al., 2017), to pay attention to these groups in the planning and evaluation processes (Doorn, 2017) and to take the situation of the most vulnerable groups as a starting point (Doorn, 2017; Fainstein, 2015). The question is not only how we can avoid acts of injustice when rebuilding a city but also how we can promote justice while increasing resilience.

   At first glance, thinking of resilience engineering as an instrument for addressing justice issues seems to be paradoxical. While resilience as bouncing forward allows us to ask how a city can bounce forward to justice, one may ask why we should postpone measures for alleviating injustice and promoting justice? – In response to this question, I have argued that the lack of resource in the predisaster city might provide us with a valid reason if the needed improvements are included in postdisaster recovery planning. The argument rests on the recommendation by Masterson et al. (2014) to view the postdisaster recovery period as a ‘window of opportunity for change’ where additional (financial) resources become available. It needs to be acknowledged that the short-term support of communities is in itself problematic and may give rise to justice issues itself. For example, the literature suggests that marginalized communities are less likely to ask for support. In addition, increasing the resilience of a city in the short term may undermine the development of long-term strategies in other places.

   However, from the perspective of an individual city, it seems advisable to plan ahead to make good use of such additional resources. The recognition of the rights of all inhabitants is needed to work towards a fair postdisaster recovery plan. Giving particular emphasis on postdisaster planning and recovery should not be misunderstood as falling back to ‘engineering resilience’ (resilience as bouncing back). Instead, postdisaster planning should be thought of as one, albeit valuable, tool in promoting both urban resilience and justice. To fully understand how, for example, building new infrastructure can contribute to improving justice in a city, there is also the need to understand the general interplay between infrastructure (and technologies in general) and the city. Therefore, the existing literature on transport justice – to stay with the example – needs to be taken into account. The same goes for inquiries into the relationship between justice and urban planning (e.g., Fainstein, 2010; Gerard & Barrie, 2013).

   To foster a connection between resilience building and pro-poor development, it is advisable to emphasize ‘transformability’ as an essential element of resilience (Folke et al., 2010). This is not to say that the bridging between the different perspectives and disciplines is easy and straightforward (e.g., Bousquet et al., 2016). However, recognizing transformation as a key element of resilience thinking avoids the pitfall of overemphasizing adaptability in response to uncertainty. As we have seen, there is considerable tension between long-term sustainability strategies and promoting adaptability as a key feature of urban resilience. Similar tensions are likely to occur between adaptability and long-term strategies to overcome injustice.

3. Focusing on transformation in resilience engineering is one way to take into account the rights and needs of marginalized and vulnerable groups.

Ideally, urban resilience should aim for improving the situation of all inhabitants and city users in the process of increasing resilience and the postdisaster state. As long as vulnerability indicators are only used to understand the lack of resilience (Doorn, 2017), this is unlikely to happen. Furthermore, we will need to find an answer to the question, ‘bouncing forward to what?’ because we should not simply assume that all inhabitants and city users share a common vision of the desirable postdisaster state (Fainstein, 2015, p. 166). Moreover, it seems appropriate to answer this question by taking into account justice consideration.

5. Conclusion and outlook

I would like to conclude the paper with a radical suggestion to think about the relationship between urban resilience and justice. Following Vale and Campanella (2005), Kalliopi Sapountzaki (2014) asked if is there a rebuilt city which is not considered to be resilient. One way to answer the question from the perspective of resilience engineering is to stress that resilience engineering is about building or increasing resilience. There might very well be multiple examples of cities that have been rebuilt. However, resilience engineering is not about answering the question if some or all cities have proven to resilient in the past. Resilience engineering is about making cities more resilient. However, this answer might be misleading because of the questions raised by Vale (2014): Should we consider a city to be resilient even ‘if many of its poorest former citizens have not been able to return?’ (Vale, 2014) An easy answer would be to note the distinction between justice and resilience – and to answer the question of resilience as independent from the question of justice. After all, this paper is built on the premise that a city may very well be resilient to natural disasters while having become more unjust. The radical answer would be to claim that we should only consider a city to be resilient in retrospective if the situation of vulnerable and marginalized groups has improved in the postdisaster situation.

If we would consider every rebuilt city as being resilient, we run the risk of undermining the potential of resilience as bouncing forward for promoting justice. It is simply not enough to bounce back to an unjust predisaster state. Justice ought to be essential to resilience thinking.

To fully understand the relationship between justice and resilience, we would need to go beyond the scope of this paper. First, I have focused on urban resilience to natural disasters. This specific focus is helpful in exploring and recognizing the differences between resilience to short-term disruptions and long-term stress. However, focusing on different kinds of resilience may yield different results. Second, I have concentrated on resilience on the level of individual cities. Thus, issues arising from the uneven distributions of resilience within cities and intracity resilience trade-offs (e.g., Chelleri et al., 2015, pp. 191–193) have not been fully addressed. Third, I have completely neglected the question of intergenerational justice (on the temporal dimension of justice, see, Chelleri et al., 2015; Meerow & Newell, 2016). Forth, while there is broad consensus in the reviewed resilience literature on the need to take into account justice considerations, urban justice remains an underresearched subject in Political Philosophy. The scholars referred to in this paper built their accounts on various approaches to justice. While progress has been made, especially in addressing issues of in/justice in different domains and in view of specific application areas, there is still the need to deepen our understanding of urban justice. Finally, I argued that justice considerations could and ought to be part of resilience building. My inquiry was guided by the observation, that justice is often neglected or compromised in building resilience. Yet, it remains unclear how to address cases, where promoting justice may decrease urban resilience.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Michael Nagenborg

Michael Nagenborg is an Assistant Professor for Philosophy of Technology at the Philosophy Department of the University of Twente. His research is focused on the interplay between technologies and cities. He teaches Philosophy and Ethics in various engineering programmes and is a board member of the Philosophy of the City Research Group.

Notes

1. Comes et al. (2017, p. 3–4) point to the need of considering resilience as a process rather than just a property of a system.

2. For an overview on definitions of “urban resilience,“ see, Meerow et al. (2016), Defining urban resilience: A review, Landscape and Urban Planning 147 (2016), pp. 38–49.

3. Doorn et al. (2018)’s hesitance about the term ‘engineering resilience’ is an indicator for the limited view on resilience in engineering offered in Holling’s work.

4. See also Comes et al. (2017) for the need to overcome information asymmetries and to work towards a community-oriented approach to ICTs in disaster response.

5. As the quote reveals, Taleb’s understanding of the antifragile is very close to resilience as bouncing forward while his explanation of resilience suggests that resilience is reduced to resilience as bouncing back.