Enabling strategies and impeding factors to urban resilience implementation: A scoping review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Despite growing interest in urban resilience, there is a significant gap between discourse and the capacity to develop resilience in practice. This scoping review assembles and shares evidence and insights from empirical studies of attempts to implement urban resilience published between 2005 and 2017. More precisely, it seeks to identify enabling strategies, impeding factors and trade‐offs in the implementation of urban resilience. Findings are presented along the dimensions of urban resilience detailed in the City Resilience Framework (ARUP/Rockefeller Foundation): Health and Wellbeing, Economy and Society, Infrastructure and Environment, and Leadership and Strategy (which we present as a cross‐cutting theme). While some enabling and impeding factors in implementation are associated with a specific dimension, others are common to all three. Across dimensions, we find that transparent, inclusive and supportive governance reduces the risk of negative impact that resilience implementation will have on communities. Conflicting priorities of managing risk and meeting short‐term needs are found to diminish the potential for transformative resilience action. Integrating risk into planning appears as a promising strategy in all dimensions of resilience. Trade‐offs are found in resilience implementation, and range from adverse effects associated with infrastructure to power imbalances when the power to implement resilience privileges one system level over another.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it