Governing urban resilience: Organisational structures and coordination strategies in 20 North American city governments
Governing urban resilience: Organisational structures and coordination strategies in 20 North American city governments
复制标题
DOI：
10.1177/0042098020907277
复制
发表时间：
2020-03-13
期刊：
影响因子：
4.7
通讯作者：
Miller, Thaddeus R.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Fastiggi, Mary;Meerow, Sara;Miller, Thaddeus R.
本文根据对城市官员的访谈，描述了北美20个城市(19个美国和1个加拿大)的城市复原力治理是如何构建和协调的。这项共同制作的研究源于与俄勒冈州波特兰的市政官员的对话，他们有兴趣了解其他城市是如何组织弹性工作的。访谈的重点是新出现的定义、组织结构、内部和外部协调努力以及从业者的见解。这份白皮书描述了城市是如何构建和协调复原力的。此外，我们还讨论了复原力协调的当前趋势如何为城市复原力研究的未来方向提供信息。我们将从业者认为的关键成功因素与有效弹性治理的六个常见理论特征进行了比较。总体而言，我们发现理论和实践中的经验教训有相当大的重叠，包括系统方法的好处、对复原力、强有力的领导和利益攸关方参与的明确定义的必要性。从业者使用复原力来诊断他们城市的整体健康状况。此外，实践往往强调局限性，如政治更替、中央和分散组织之间的权衡，以及仔细诊断和确定复原力工作的必要性，而学术文献呼吁多层次和跨规模的治理和反馈以及更具变革性的行动。鉴于这些见解，我们强调了新的复原力奖学金的机会，包括分析复原力规划诊断阶段的好处，评估复原力目标以确定最佳部门匹配，以及了解采用广泛系统方法的本地障碍和权衡。
This paper describes how urban resilience governance is structured and coordinated in 20 North American cities (19 US and one Canadian) based on interviews with city officials. This co-produced research evolved out of conversations with city officials in Portland, Oregon, who were interested to learn how other cities were organising resilience work. Interviews focused on emerging definitions, organisational structures, internal and external coordination efforts, and practitioners' insights. The paper includes a descriptive summary of how cities are structuring and coordinating resilience efforts. Additionally, we discuss how current trends in resilience coordination can inform future directions for urban resilience scholarship. We compare what practitioners view as key success factors against six commonly theorised characteristics for effective resilience governance. Overall, we find considerable overlap in lessons from theory and practice, including the benefits of a systems approach, the need for a clear definition of resilience, strong leadership, and stakeholder engagement. Practitioners use resilience to diagnose the overall health of their cities. Additionally, practice tends to emphasise limitations such as political turnover, trade-offs between centralised and dispersed organisation, and the need to carefully diagnose and scope resilience work, whereas the academic literature calls for multi-level and cross-scale governance and feedbacks and more transformative action. Given these insights, we highlight opportunities for new resilience scholarship, including analysing the benefits of the diagnostic phase of resilience planning, evaluating resilience goals to determine the best departmental fit, and understanding local barriers and trade-offs to adopting a broad systems approach.