Introduction of the concept

Resilience is a concept from physics that has been transferred to the social sciences via ecology. In the course of these transfers among sciences, the concept has diversified and come to have more than one meaning (Carpenter and Brook, 2008).The Oxford dictionary defines resilience as the capacity to recover quickly from difficulties, toughness and as the ability of a substance or object to spring back into shape. In other words, being elastic (Oxford Dictionaries, 2015). This term has a commonsense meaning with a colloquial use as well as historic meaning topping agendas in many forums and institutions, drawing new attention to the concept (Schoon, 2005; SA Cities Network, 2011; Rodin, 2014).

According to the Torrens Resilience Institute, the concept of resilience has its origins dating back to the 17th century from the Latin verb resilire with the meaning to rebound or recoil (Oxford Dictionaries, 2015; Resilience Alliance, 2013). Thomas Tredgold introduced the term in 1818 to explain the characteristic of wood which accommodates sudden and enormous pressure without breaking (Tredgold, 1818). It was further developed by Robert Mallet in his work that involved assessing the ability of materials to withstand severe conditions which he called the modulus of resilience (Mallet, 1862). The concept was later introduced in 1973 by Crawford Holling to the discipline of Ecology and Environment. Holling (1986) defined resilience as the capacity of an ecosystem to integrate a disturbance without modifying its qualitative structure.

Resilience thus expresses both a system’s capacity to resist during disturbance and its capacity to confront it, recover and regenerate (Pickett, Cadenasso and Grove, 2004). This dual capacity to resist and recover without any change in structure may indeed be applied to many subjects of study such as populations, societies or cities (Holling, 2001). Since 1980, two approaches have come into conflict. The first approach argues that a resilient system is a stable system close to a permanent state of equilibrium (Pimm, 1984). This is known as engineering resilience (Holling, 2001:65) where a system incurs brutal shock or continual pressure to sustain itself and remains unchanged (Walker and Salt, 2006). The system is measured by its resistance and the

29 | P a g e

rapidity of return to equilibrium. The second approach states that a resilient system is one that maintains its essential functions and structures by moving through different states of equilibrium (stable and unstable). This is referred to as ecological or ecosystem resilience (Holling, 2001:89). Ecological resilience is more suitable in the study of complex adaptive systems as it goes beyond the single-equilibrium paradigm (Walker and Salt, 2006).

Adger (2000) argues that resilience is not only confined to either a state of equilibrium or non-equilibrium but also within the societal and cultural practices that determine coping capacity. This is referred to as social resilience where a community or society bears the capacity to face disasters using social capital (Lucini, 2013). Constantinos (2011) discusses that social capital is generated from households, communities or a nation in the form of new systemic relationships in response to conditions. Adger (2000) argues that social resilience is as a result of social, political and environmental change. He attempts to build a link between social and ecological resilience based on their dependency on ecosystems of communities and economic activities. In the opinion of Moberg and Simonsen (2011), resilience is observed as the capacity of a system, be it an individual, forest, a city or an economy, to deal with change and continue to develop. Carpenter, Arrow, Barret, Biggs and Brook (2012) add that resilience in the context of environmental management and sustainability is defined as the capacity of a socio- ecological system to absorb disturbance, recognise and thereby retain essential functions, structures and feedbacks. In support of this, Pickett, Cadenasso and Grove (2004) highlight the non-equilibrium factor of systems and their ability to adjust within their internal and external processes. These systems have a self-organising capacity to maintain originality under changing conditions (Klein, Nicholls and Thomalla, 2004). The non-linear, self-organising, transformative and adaptive capacity of systems, institutions or individuals define what is known as social-ecological resilience (Berkes, Colding and Folke, 2003; Constantinos, 2011).

In the face of these disciplinary approaches to resilience, another concept, that of systemic resilience has made its way across the globe (Damien, Barroca and Laganier, 2012). Transdisciplinary research concerned with ideas of system renewal, society

30 | P a g e

interactions, environmental and social pressures that goes beyond mere idea of resistance to change and preservation, continues to grow (Berkes and Ross, 2013; Gunderson and Holling, 2002; Klein et al., 2004; Resilience Alliance, 2012; Walker et al., 2004). Systemic resilience is adapted to the management of risks with physical and social dimension (van Vliet, 2001). In line with systemic resilience, the World Bank (2012) discusses economic resilience as a measure of a community’s economic diversity as well as the overall employment, number of businesses and their ability to function following a disaster.

In the humanities and social sciences, the concept of resilience has spread a variety of different contexts (Carpenter and Brook, 2008). Research has been conducted into the resilience of individuals’ ability to function during life changing situations and has been described as personal resilience (Brugmann, 2011; Simmie and Martin, 2010). In psychology, Higgins (1994) argues that resilience is the ability to bounce back and to withstand hardship by repairing oneself. While in psychiatry, resilience is the psychological and biological strength that humans use to master change successfully (Flach, 1998). In the field of human development, resilience is defined as the ability to withstand or successfully cope with adversity (Garmezy and Mastern, 1986). In change management, resilience is viewed as the ability to demonstrate both strength and flexibility during the change process, while displaying minimal dysfunctional behaviour. In the realm of medicine, resilience is the ability to recognise pain, acknowledge its purpose, tolerate it for a while, until things begin to normalise (Jones, 1991). In the social sciences, resilience is generally defined as the ability to recover from negative life experiences and become stronger while overcoming them (Tiemey, 2002).

Though many definitions of resilience differ in scope and context, they have one thing in common i.e. the ability or capacity to deal with disturbance. This disturbance takes many shapes and the ones used within these definitions are stress, crisis, disaster or shock. This is in line with the context of this research. Thus drawing from the different definitions, the definition adopted for this study is provided by the Rockefeller Foundation stating that “resilience is the capacity of individuals, communities, institutions, businesses and systems within a city to survive, adapt and grow no matter

31 | P a g e

what kinds of chronic stresses and acute shocks they experience” (Rockefeller Foundation, 2013). This definition covers the meaning of urban resilience (Polese, 2010). It underpins physical, social, economic and environmental aspects of resilience discussed above. This notion of resilience addresses the main objective of this study which is to assess the extent to which indicators of the City Resilience Framework and Index resonate within the Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality. Urban resilience highlights the need for institutions to focus on situational awareness and respond to their rapidly changing internal and external environments (Torrens Resilience Institute, 2010). Rodin (2014) provides five resilience characteristics of such organisations as those that are aware, adaptive, diverse, integrated and self-regulating. Seville et al. (2006) affirm that resilient organisations are able to meet its objectives in the face of adversity by reducing their vulnerability, improving their adaptive capacity and are constantly evolving in the complex system within which they operate.