Problematizing resilience: Implications for planning theory and practice

This paper problematizes the introduction of the concept of resilience into the planning domain from three main starting points: 1. The nature of the events which are said to require resilience; 2. The different nuances in meaning that resilience assumes according to those different events, and 3. The theoretical and operational problems the concept entails. The paper sustains that: 1. The quest for a resilient behavior or a resilient answer, and the claim to improve urban and territorial resilience do not find the same justification in every kind of event; 2. Multiple sub meanings are embedded within one interpretation of resilience that leave the concept open to rather large margins of ambiguity, which emerge considering its operationalization; 3. The concept seems to fit and to be appropriate within different paradigms, planning traditions and policy frameworks. Its alleged 'neutrality' is one of the main reasons of its pervasiveness, but also of its ambiguity, showing latent controversial implications, which are progressively emerging in critical planning theory.