Critical Planning Summer 2010 2524 Critical Planning Summer 2006 i i l l i 10
!e history of resilience thinking can be summarized as a story of how the fundamental assumptions under-
pinning natural resource management (assumptions such as equilibrium, stability and predictability) were
challenged by new understandings of the dynamics of change in complex, linked social-ecological systems. In
challenging those management approaches, this story is also about how new modes of managing and governing
change in human and natural systems have evolved - modes that challenge the legacy of the modernist com-
mand and control paradigm, the treatment of human and ecological systems as separate, and the inadequate
attention paid to cross-scale interactions.
!is paper explores the relevance of this story and its implications for metropolitan planning from a practi-
tioner’s perspective. We suggest that the import of this relevance lies beyond the role of resilience as a neat
set of conceptual metaphors, and that the process of application identi"es key challenges for the role of the
metropolitan planner, the "eld of metropolitan planning and the knowledge-policy divide. Further we argue
that a thorough interdisciplinary exploration of resilience thinking’s potential for planning bene"ts from the
insights of practitioners.
Resilience thinking is of interest to planning theory and practice for a number of reasons. Improving our
knowledge of ecosystem dynamics and human-nature relations is crucial at this time as global ecological limits
are receiving renewed attention through the tentative identi"cation of planetary boundaries (Rockström et
al. 2009) and the detrimental impact of urbanization on global ecosystems (MA 2005; Grimm et al. 2008).
Further, proponents and critics of resilience thinking alike emphasize its strength as both a substantial critique
of linear thinking (Lélé 1998, 250) and for its ability to open interdisciplinary doors between ecologists and
social scientists.
Metropolitan Planning and Resilience
Thinking: A Practitioner’s Perspective
Cathy Wilkinson, Libby Porter and Johan Colding
Through inter-disciplinary exploratory research with metropolitan planners from Glasgow, Stockholm
and Melbourne, this paper synthesizes practitioner insights into how resilience thinking can inform
PHWURSROLWDQSODQQLQJ 7KHSDSHU LGHQWLÀHV WKUHHZD\V UHVLOLHQFH WKLQNLQJ FDQXVHIXOO\ LQIRUP
metropolitan planning. First, through new metaphors regarding the nature of structural change in
linked and complex systems that prioritize change and uncertainty. Second, by providing new frames
and tools for analysis of the dynamics of complex social-ecological urban systems are explored and
applied. Third, through more adaptive governance for metropolitan planning.

Critical Planning Summer 2010 2726 Critical Planning Summer 2006 i i l l i 10
!is paper reports on research "ndings from an inten-
sive, exploratory workshop with senior metropolitan
planning professionals from Glasgow, Stockholm and
Melbourne undertaken in 2009. We use interpretive
analysis to draw insights from a practitioner’s explora-
tion of resilience thinking (Bevir and Rhodes 2006;
Hajer and Wagenaar 2003). !is is not a theoretical
exercise (after Chettiparamb 2006 or Pickett et al.
2004) but rather a deliberate attempt to draw out
what is revealed when resilience thinking is exposed
to planning practice.
Four substantive sections structure the paper. !e
"rst section provides an overview of resilience think-
ing and how planning scholars have dealt with it.
Section two introduces the research approach. In the
third section we draw out some critical insights from
a practitioner’s meeting with resilience thinking that
we consider holds particular value for metropolitan
planning. !e "nal section draws concluding remarks.
Resilience and Urban Planning
Overview of Resilience
In this paper we use the term “resilience thinking” to
describe the body of work on social-ecological resil-
ience. Resilience thinking has its origins in systems
ecology (Holling 1973) but is now expanding to
address broader matters of the governance of linked
social-ecological systems (Berkes et al. 2003; Folke
2006; Walker and Salt 2006). Social-ecological resil-
ience has been de"ned as: the amount of disturbance
a system can absorb and still remain within the same
state; the degree to which the system is capable of
self-organization; and the degree to which the system
can build and increase the capacity for learning and
adaptation (Carpenter et al. 2001).
!e concept of the adaptive cycle is central to resil-
ience thinking. Holling introduced the adaptive cycle
to describe the general characteristics of ecosystems’
dynamic change in four phases: exploitation, con-
servation, release and reorganization (Holling 1986;
Holling and Sanderson 1996; Gunderson and Holling
2002). Attention to the release and reorganization
phases that follow periods of disturbance or crisis
fundamentally challenged previous assumptions of
equilibrium, stability and predictability in natural re-
source management. Gunderson and Holling (2002)
subsequently introduced the concept of “panarchies”
to “capture the adaptive and evolutionary nature of
adaptive cycles that are nested one within the other
across space and time scales,” thus emphasizing the
importance of cross-scale dynamics (Gunderson and
Holling 2002, 74).1
Adaptive co-management refers to recent e#orts to
bring together two emerging approaches to natural
resource management that attempt to respond to this
dynamic understanding of change: “co-management”
with its attention to matters of user participation in
decision-making and “adaptive management” with its
focus on “learning by doing in a scienti"c way to deal
with uncertainty” (Armitage et al. 2007, 1). Huitema
et al. (2009) identify four institutional prescriptions
for adaptive co-management: “collaboration in a
polycentric governance system, public participation,
an experimental approach to resource management,
and management at the bioregional scale” (Huitema
et al. 2009).Yet in a recent review of the adaptive
co-management literature from a governance perspec-
tive, Huitema et al. (2009) conclude that adaptive
co-management remains an ideal that the e#ective-
ness of which has not yet been proven (Huitema et
al. 2009).
Four attributes have been identi"ed as critical to
resilience building for adaptive capacity (Berkes et al
1998; Folke et al. 2003). !e "rst attribute is diver-
sity – important for spreading risks, creating bu#ers,
and adopting multiple strategies from which to learn
when uncertainty is high. !e second is change, sur-
prise and crisis, often called disturbance by resilience
scholars. !is opens up the opportunity for renewal by
recombining experience with novelty in adapting to
change. !e interplay of disturbance and diversity is a
prerequisite for building resilience in social-ecological
systems. !e capacity to respond to and shape change
is a key attribute of self-organization, the third at-
tribute. Systems that have the ability to respond
to change and reorganize in constructive ways are
likely to have $exible institutions (rules and norms)
that allow for adaptation to changing circumstances
(Ostrom 1990).2 Hence, in the social-ecological dis-
course, institutions are key instruments in the design
of governance systems to actively nurture resilience.
!e fourth attribute is knowledge and understanding
of the interplay between diversity, disturbance, and
self-organization that builds resilience. Knowledge is
necessary for developing a social-ecological system
because it determines the management practices
within institutions that build resilience.
Resilience and Urban Planning
!e general concept of urban resilience or resilient
cities has only recently appeared in the literature
(Vale and Campanella 2005; Coa#ee and Rogers
2008; Gleeson 2008; Newman et al. 2009). !e
range of matters to which urban planning scholars
apply resilience is quickly expanding and now in-
cludes: mitigation and adaptation to climate change
(Wardekker et al. 2009); disaster planning, manage-
ment and recovery (Campanella 2006; Goldstein
2008; Goldstein 2009); energy and environmental
security (Coa#ee 2008); urban water management
(Blackmore and Plant 2008; Pahl-Wostl 2007) and
urban design (Pickett et al. 2004; Colding 2007).
!e degree to which resilience thinking provides a
comprehensive basis for exploring planning related
matters varies signi"cantly across these publications.
Few focus speci"cally on its relevance for strategic
planning, few are based on empirical work with
practitioners, and few focus on the challenge of
operationalizing the concept of resilience. !e two
publications of particular relevance for this paper are
those by Newman and Wardekker (Newman et al.
2008; Wardekker et al. 2009).
Newman et al. (2008) draw loosely on resilience
thinking and identify the “Resilient City” as the most
desirable scenario for the future of cities (Newman
et al. 2008). !ey identify a series of elements in the
built environment that contribute to a resilient city
and conclude by suggesting ten strategies towards a
resilient city. !ese include facilitating localism and
learning, themes to which we will return later in the
paper. Wardekker et al. (2009), by contrast, report
on a deliberate attempt to operationalize a resilience
approach in response to uncertain climate changes in
the City of Rotterdam through engagement with prac-
titioners and stakeholders (Wardekker et al. 2009). A
set of “resilience principles” are identi"ed and tested
for relevance to an urban system. Wardekker et al.