Speaker
Description
The spatial notion of resilience has recently been extended into urban and territorial dimensions, reflecting the perspective on cities as complex and multi-level entities driven by constantly changing and evolving flows and relations (Krueger et al., 2022; Schröder, 2022). The recent bibliometric analysis showcases the accelerated proliferation of “territorial resilience” in the planning literature over the last decade (Pascariu et al., 2023). However, the scholars state a lack of clear and feasible tools to transpose resilient-based theories into concrete planning measures and policies. The growing interest in territorial resilience is explained by the increased demand to instrumentalise uncertainty and preparedness for unanticipated shocks in spatial planning (Balducci, 2023; Balducci, 2020; Armondi et al., 2023). The key to this is often embedded pre-existing governance models and the historical interaction of communities and risks (Brunetta et al., 2019).
Yet, the available methodologies often fail to address these components while defining resilient-oriented strategies and policies. A review of the recent studies of territorial resilience showcases their general reliance on quantitative modelling based on a pre-determined set of parameters describing both the factors of resilience and the specific social-ecological features of the territory (Assumma et al., 2024; Assumma et al., 2019; Pilone et al., 2019; Suarez et al., 2016). Despite being presented as a “decision support system,” such studies can be difficult to understand and appropriate for planners and local authorities.
Scholars also note the lack of a relational perspective on resilience, emphasising the need to expand the biophysical origin of the concept to include the socio-economic and institutional aspects (Davoudi 2012; Allen et al., 2020). Vale (2014) found that the resilience research agenda should not just assess the design products but also consider the general power dynamic that enables new forms of development. In particular, in cases of sudden destruction followed by a protracted recovery period, it is important to reflect on the dominant groups for whose benefit the recovery storyline is constructed. Long (2021) warns of the emergence of “crisis capitalism” based on exploiting post-disaster debt finance disguised as sustainable development.
Allen et al. (2020, 477-479) list the limitations of available operationalisations of resilience in spatial planning and policy, ranging from the reliance on theoretical discussion from developed countries and ignoring context-specific factors to treating different types of shocks equally regardless of their origin, not differentiating between unexpected events, such as natural disaster, and contentious and unwanted, such as social upheaval or war. Applied to public actors, operationalising resilience may undermine their accountability for disasters (ibid., 483).
The presentation addresses the context of war-related crises in Ukraine, viewed as a complex security, socio-economic, and environmental disaster. It derives from the consensus in the literature concerning the positive role of decentralised local governance and collectivity in addressing the early stage of the war-related crises in Ukraine (Romanova & Umland 2024; Keudel & Huss 2024; OECD 2022). Based on the interviews with expert informants in two Ukrainian municipalities of Lviv and Sumy, it aims to critically explore the role of local governance and decision-making in generating regulations for post-disaster recovery. Based on qualitative coding, it also traces the evidence of their transfer to land use and strategic plans adopted by these municipalities in 2022-2025. Obtained findings are discussed within the debate on operationalising urban and territorial resilience in spatial planning.
| Keywords | resilience; local governance; spatial planning; decentralisation |
|---|---|
| Best Congress Paper Award | No |
