THE CITY WATER RESILIENCE APPROACH ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS CONTENTS
On behalf of the study team, I would like to thank The 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Rockefeller Foundation and The Resilience Shift for supporting this project. 6 BACKGROUND 10 What is Water Resilience? The CWRA is a joint effort developed in collaboration with our project partner, the Stockholm International 12 THE CWRA VALUE PROPOSITION Water Institute (SIWI), along with city partners in Amman, 14 The City Water Resilience Approach (CWRA) Value Proposition Cape Town, Greater Miami and the Beaches, Mexico City, Kingston upon Hull, Greater Manchester, Rotterdam and 18 DEVELOPING THE CITY WATER RESILIENCE APPROACH Thessaloniki, and with contributions from 100 Resilient Cities and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation 24 THE CITY WATER RESILIENCE APPROACH and Development (OECD). 28 Understand the System 34 Assess City Water Resilience This project would not have been possible without the 38 Develop an Action Plan valued collaboration of the CWRA Steering Group. 42 Implement the Action Plan Our thanks to the following: Fred Boltz (Resolute Development Solutions), Casey Brown & Sarah Freeman 44 Evaluate, Learn and Adapt (University of Massachusetts, Amherst), Katrin Bruebach 46 THE CITY WATER RESILIENCE FRAMEWORK & Andrew Salkin (100 Resilient Cities), Jo da Silva (Arup), Nancy Kete & Juliet Mian (The Resilience Shift), Diego 49 CWRF Structure Rodriguez and Maria Angelica Sotomayor (World Bank).” 52 CWRF Governing Principles 54 Leadership and Strategy MARK FLETCHER 56 Planning and Finance Arup Global Water Leader 58 Infrastructure and Ecosystems April 2019 60 Health and Well-Being 62 Selecting Resilience Indicators
66 GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS
68 BIBLIOGRAPHY
The CWRA project team includes Pilar Avello (SIWI), 70 ANNEX A: DATA ANALYSIS George Beane (Arup), Kieran Birtill (Arup), James 84 ANNEX B: INDICATORS FOR RESILIENCE Bristow (Arup), Alexa Bruce (Arup / The Resilience Shift), Louise Ellis (Arup / The Resilience Shift), Sophie 92 ANNEX C: CWRA FIELDWORK REPORT Fisher (Arup), Mark Fletcher (Arup), Caroline Karmann (Arup), Richard Gine (SIWI), Alejandro Jiménez (SIWI), 106 ANNEX D: REFLECTIONS ON GLOBAL KNOWLEDGE EXCHANGE 2018 James Leten (SIWI), Kathryn Pharr (Venturi Innovation), Oriana Romano (OECD), Iñigo Ruiz-Apilánez (Arup / The 114 ANNEX E: REFLECTIONS ON BELLAGIO Resilience Shift), Panchali Saikia (SIWI), Martin Shouler (Arup) and Paul Simkins (Arup). 4 CITY WATER RESILIENCE FRAMEWORK 5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The approach details five steps to guide cities To guide cities through this process, the CWRA through initial stakeholder engagement and offers a suite of resources that target specific baseline assessment, through action planning, challenges or “pain points” identified by cities in implementation and monitoring of new initiatives their efforts to properly manage water systems that build water resilience: and build water resilience:
EXECUTIVE Understand the system - in which the city’s •• The City Water Resilience Framework unique context is appraised to understand (CWRF) helps cities evaluate the current 1 SUMMARY shocks and stresses, identify important areas of strength and weakness in their own system interdependencies, convene key local urban water systems. The CWRF helps guide stakeholders and map key infrastructural assets cities to build resilience in four dimensions— and governance processes. leadership and strategy, planning and finance, infrastructure and ecosystems, and 1 health and well-being—which are broken down into eight goals, and detailed further With cities worldwide expected to grow an Assess urban water resilience - in which the city’s current practices are assessed according to in 53 sub-goals. Indicators for each sub-goal estimated 2 billion residents by 2050, there is an 2 allow cities to measure performance and the City Water Resilience Framework to identify urgent need for urban water management that assess the overall resilience of their current areas of existing strength and weaknesses that ensures consistent, adequate and high-quality 1 water system. water services for all. However, the scale and will be addressed by future actions, and establish a baseline against which progress is measured. •• OurWater is a digital tool that helps cities complexity of this need presents new challenges UNDERSTAND THE SYSTEM to decision-makers in government, civil society better understand their local water basin, including the types of shocks and stresses and the private sector. Develop an action plan - where, based on the confronted, their impact on natural and man-made infrastructural systems, and The City Water Resilience Approach (CWRA) 3 city assessment, an action plan is developed for 2 the interaction between key stakeholders responds to a demand for innovative approaches realizing interventions that build water resilience. The action plan is based on holistic evaluation of involved in urban water management. and tools that help cities build water resilience ASSESS URBAN anticipated benefits and costs and prioritization at the urban scale. The CWRA was developed WATER RESILIENCE to help cities grow their capacity to provide of key projects. high quality water resources for all residents, to protect them from water-related hazards, 3 and to connect them through water-based PLAN Implement the action plan - in which actions
transportation networks (“provide, protect, DEVELOP AN 4 agreed upon during the previous step are connect”). ACTION implemented by relevant city actors. In this step, ongoing advice guides how actions are The approach is the result of fieldwork and desk implemented and monitored according to best practices and international experience. In this research, collaborative partnerships with subject 4 matter experts, and direct engagement with city step, the CWRA provides best practice guidance partners. Based on this research, the CWRA for how ongoing actions can be monitored to IMPLEMENT THE outlines a process for developing urban water ACTION PLAN ensure objectives are met, and resources are resilience, and provides a suite of tools to help used appropriately. cities grow their capacity to survive and thrive in
the face of water-related shocks and stresses. 5 5 Evaluate, learn and adapt - in which implementation of resilience measures EVALUATE,AND ADAPT LEARN is evaluated and changes in context and stakeholder involvement are analysed to reassess objectives for the next period. 6 CITY WATER RESILIENCE FRAMEWORK
2 BACKGROUND
As the world’s population grows larger and more urbanized, resilient urban water management is critical to ensuring safe, healthy and prosperous cities. Water is an essential condition for human health, a catalyst of economic development, an ingredient in urban place-making and an element in shared culture, heritage and history. 8 CITY WATER RESILIENCE FRAMEWORK 9 BACKGROUND
Partner cities Partner cities, clockwise from top left: Mexico City, Miami, Greater Manchester, Cape Town, Rotterdam, Hull, Amman and Thessaloniki
Urban water issues are complex, involving Over the course of twelve months of overlapping and interconnected systems and research, field engagement with eight cities, diverse sets of actors. Water services are and consultation with over 700 individual shaped by financial and political considerations, stakeholders, Arup—working with the affected by urban growth, land use planning and Stockholm International Water Institute environmental management. Given the nature of (SIWI), 100 Resilient Cities (100RC), The these relationships, planning for water resilience Resilience Shift, the Organisation for Economic is neither simple nor straightforward. Cities Co-Operation and Development (OECD) require tools and approaches that help them and in close collaboration with city partners understand what drives water resilience and from Amman, Cape Town, Mexico City, navigate the process of building it. Miami, Hull, Rotterdam, Thessaloniki, and Greater Manchester—has identified the critical The City Water Resilience Approach (CWRA) challenges and opportunities for cities in their helps cities build the capacity of urban water efforts to build water resilience. systems to endure, adapt and transform in the face of new challenges for the benefit of all The CWRA translates this learning into action. city residents. It has been developed to guide It helps cities assess current water management decisions by a range of stakeholders including practice, defines a vision for local water government, private sector, academic and civil resilience, and guides the implementation of key society actors. Ultimately, the approach will actions. inform how water programmes and projects are planned, designed, delivered and operated to improve outcomes to individuals relying on safe water systems for their health and well-being. 10 CITY WATER RESILIENCE FRAMEWORK 11 BACKGROUND
WHAT IS WATER RESILIENCE? Case Study 1: Decision-making across different levels in Cape Town In an interconnected water system, lack of coordination between institutions working across different levels can pose serious challenges to building resilience. Cape Town’s The concept of resilience emerged from the field one actor or institution sometimes taking on main catchments include the mountain fynbos areas located of ecology in the 1970s to describe the capacity multiple governance roles and responsibilities. In to the east and north-east of the city. Water to the City of systems to maintain or recover functionality building the resilience of urban water systems, of Cape Town (CCT) is transferred from other catchment in the event of disruption or disturbance. Since it is critical to improve the processes that impact areas as well, which includes Berg, Riviersonderend and Palmiet Rivers through an integrated water supply system then, the idea has gained purchase in many other who gets what services, where and how (Allan, called the Western Cape Water Supply System (WCWSS) academic disciplines, from the natural sciences 2001). Governance is a core component in (City of Cape Town, 2018). Nearly 14 dams are integrated to the humanities. It is of particular relevance building resilience and is reflected throughout to the WCWSS, with a collective capacity that feeds Cape to theorists and practitioners working in the each of the CWRA steps, which address who Town (City of Cape Town, 2018). Three of these dams fields of urban development, where the concept makes decisions and how those decisions are (Theeuwaterskloof, Voelvlei and Berg River Schemes) are owned and managed by the National Department of Water of city resilience provides insight into managing made, who gets to participate in decision-making, and Sanitation (DWS). chronic stresses or sudden shocks that threaten and who benefits as a result. To build water widespread disruption or the collapse of physical resilience, new initiatives must therefore address or social systems. Resilience has also helped to the duplications, overlaps and gaps in the roles bridge the gap between disaster risk reduction and responsibilities of stakeholders working and climate change adaptation by focusing on across multiple levels and sectors, responding enhancing the performance of a system in the to different shocks and stresses and addressing face of hazards, rather than preventing those the ways water resource management may hazards from occurring. be hindered by the governance gaps in policy, administration, coordination, funding, Water resilience describes the capacity of cities to information, and accountability (OECD, 2011). Water resource management involves large numbers of actors function in the face of water-related stresses so and multiple nested, overlapping, and interconnected urban that those living and working within the city can A water resilient city is one that can survive systems. Water is impacted by energy and transportation survive and thrive. Moreover, because overall and thrive in the face of shocks and stresses networks, and directly affected by land use and waste city resilience, water resilience and catchment related specifically to water—ranging from management practices. It guides economic growth, is driven level resilience are mutually interdependent, drought to flooding, storm surges, and sea level by local politics and shaped by relationships between local an assessment of urban water resilience must rise—and adequately mitigate the impact of all stakeholders. consider hydrological context (including water shocks and stresses on the urban water system basins), built infrastructure, and the socio- (e.g. the impact of an earthquake on key water As a result, water resilience demands action at a large scale, political and economical context (i.e. human, infrastructure). Resilience in this context means through interventions that affect the myriad systems that impact social, political, economic, physical and natural that the city exhibits the capacity to: water service delivery. Because the natural water cycle does capitals) (Arup, 2014). In a similar sense, water not neatly align with administrative or political boundaries, the resilience must consider the interrelationships 1. Provide access to high quality water CWRA encompasses actors existing throughout the urban area, between water and other critical urban systems. resources for all residents. including stakeholders that operate beyond city limits but whose A holistic approach to resilience is therefore key 2. Protect residents from water-related influence is felt by city residents. to designing interventions that make systems hazards. resilient (Rechkemmer and Falkenhayn, 2009). 3. Connect residents through water-based While recognising the influence of these actors, the CWRA mobility. focuses on the city as the ideal scale for meaningful participation As water allocation, distribution and use by diverse local stakeholders, including academia, civil society happens every day in formal and informal ways, The CWRA provides a model for water resilience and the private sector. Ultimately, it guides actions implemented building resilience needs to be grounded in the and outlines a path for achieving these three at the urban scale and for the benefit of city residents. existing decision-making processes around the capacities. socio-political, economical and hydrological In this way, the CWRA strengthens the symbiotic relationship urban context (see Case Study 1). Stakeholders between the city and its catchment, connecting the range of working across different levels of water system stakeholders and systems that bridge natural and urban systems. have specific governance responsibilities, with FOCUSING ON RESILIENCE AT THE URBAN SCALE THE URBAN FOCUSING ON RESILIENCE AT 12 CITY WATER RESILIENCE FRAMEWORK
3 THE CWRA VALUE PROPOSITION
With an estimated 2 billion new urban residents estimated by 2050, there is a clear demand for new approaches to providing essential services to city residents (United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2018). At the same time, global water crises—from drought to flooding—are the biggest threat facing the planet over the next decade. One-third of the world’s population currently lives in water-stressed areas and 10% of the world’s population are in low-elevation coastal zones. An increase in the frequency of extreme weather events due to climate change will profoundly impact communities globally. The scale and complexity of these impacts present both a conceptual challenge—to understand and measure a concept as complicated and fundamental as resilience—and a practical one, requiring long- term coordination across multiple stakeholders to undertaken meaningful action in cities.
Because holistic urban water resilience is a new consideration for most cities, there are few rigorous approaches currently available. Even when cities recognize the need for water resilience, they confront significant hurdles in achieving this goal. For one, building urban water resilience requires a shared understanding of what is meant by ‘water resilience’ and yet cities often lack the time, resources or inclination required to identify a common vision. Once a vision has been agreed upon, clearly defined actions are needed to translate that vision into real and meaningful action. Throughout, new tools are needed to aid cities facilitate the process of building water resilience. 14 CITY WATER RESILIENCE FRAMEWORK 15 THE CWRA VALUE PROPOSITION
Development Community banks groups
THE CITY WATER RESILIENCE National Utilities APPROACH (CWRA) VALUE Academia Private sector government PROPOSITION
CITY WATER Intergovernmental Social RESILIENCE organizations Clearly, there is an urgent need to support cities The CWRA provides a detailed plan enterprise CHAMPION in their efforts to provide high quality water for prioritizing key actions in cities and services to their growing populations. The City implementing them to achieve the city’s water Water Resilience Approach (CWRA) addresses resilience plan. Based on an assessment of each this demand by proposing a detailed process for city’s strengths and weaknesses, the CWRA Professional planning, designing, delivering and operating describes a rigorous, practical and researched organisations NGOs resilient water systems. process for translating shared vision into reality. Citizens Charitable The approach helps cities identify key actions and organizations The CWRA describes a five-step process that then guides them as they implement and monitor moves from stakeholder engagement and city those actions. assessment, to creating and implementing action Interest groups plans, and then evaluating results to reassess The CWRA provides resources that will help objectives and priorities and inform future cities carry out each step of the process. These programmes. Within each step (described in tools include a mix of analogue and digital tools— detail in Chapter 5) the approach outlines a including the City Water Resilience Framework The CWRA is intended for all actors that are committed to detailed methodology for achieving the goals (CWRF) and OurWater—that facilitate the building water resilience and who are able to effect change at according to best practices, and a suite of tools critical steps along this process and address the the urban scale. The approach has been designed for cities of that can be used to achieve this goal. practical problems that cities face. different sizes, located in diverse natural and developmental conditions, and which confront different shocks and stresses. Additionally, the CWRA provides a set of The CWRA establishes an extensive and resources to assist with the individual steps along continuously growing body of knowledge on In fact, the only criteria for leading the CWRA in cities are the process, corresponding with the five steps. urban water resilience that cities can draw that local champions have the local knowledge, resources and These are meant to reduce the time and effort on to share experiences, identify innovative expertise to bring together a diverse set of stakeholders towards required to complete each step and consist of a new approaches, and advance a community developing and implementing an action plan for their city. mix of digital and analogue tools (see Chapter 5). of practitioners at all stages of the resilience Specifically, the approach responds directly to approach. As the CWRA expands to additional The CWRA is designed for a wide range of adopters, with the cities’ critical needs in the following ways: cities, the community of practitioners will recognition that building resilient practices requires diverse benefit from new experiences, and help catalyse voices. While in many cases the appropriate city champion will The CWRA helps cities formulate a clear partnerships between a range of users and be city government, local champions might come from specific vision of what urban water resilience means funders. WHO CAN USE THE CWRA? public agencies or non-governmental actors such as inter- to them, including what specific conditions must governmental organizations, development banks, public utilities, be accomplished to achieve this vision, what academia, NGOs, civil society, the private sector and community efforts will be required to build resilience and groups. what actors are involved in this project. For each city, the CWRA develops a vision plan that guides The local resilience champion can be a single organization future actions. This plan is informed by extensive or a team of organizations working together. The champion research into what makes up resilience, and is identified at the onset of the CWRA process and leads the builds off review of international best practices, approach through all five steps, with ongoing advice and support insights from academic scholarship, and practical from the advisory team. experience with eight pilot cities. 16 CITY WATER RESILIENCE FRAMEWORK 17 THE CWRA VALUE PROPOSITION
Table 1: CWRA value proposition
KEY STAKEHOLDERS COMMON CHALLENGES DIRECT GAINS VALUE
-- Logistical challenge of identifying and convening all -- Suite of resources for identifying and mapping The CWRA helps cities formulate a clear vision High-level decision-makers in: relevant stakeholders relevant stakeholders, roles and links of what urban water resilience means to them, -- Complex, time-consuming process required to -- Detailed five-step process for achieving end goal, including what specific conditions must be met to -- City Government agree on a shared plan for resilience realized according to clearly defined objectives and achieve this vision, what efforts will be required to -- Regional/National Government -- Difficulty communicating benefits of resilience time horizons build resilience and what actors are involved. For each -- Private Sector to constituents for buy-in (citizens, corporate -- Clear articulation of holistic benefits of resilience to city, the CWRA develops a vision plan to guide future stakeholders, board of directors, etc.) all stakeholders actions. This plan is informed by extensive research into what makes up resilience, and builds off review of international best practices, insights from academic Department / organizational heads in: scholarship, and practical experience with eight pilot -- Lack of tools to help identify/assess how the city is cities. -- City Government performing at a high level -- CWRF shows how city performs in 12 goals of -- Water Utilities -- No systematic approach to identifying and urban water resilience The CWRA provides a detailed plan for prioritizing key actions in cities and implementing them to -- Private Sector prioritizing necessary actions -- Develop a coherent vision with targets for achieve the city’s water resilience plan. Based on an -- Little cross-organizational agreement on action resilience -- Multi-National Government Organizations assessment of each city’s strengths and weaknesses, plan and actors involved to improve performance -- Detailed five-step process for achieving defined -- Regional/National Government the CWRA describes a rigorous, practical and - Limited opportunities for communication between objectives according to defined time horizons -- Catchment/Basin Authorities - researched process for translating shared vision into cities or awareness of innovations being piloted (i.e. -- New platforms (digital platforms, conferences, etc.) -- NGOs reality. The approach helps cities identify key actions what other cities are doing and who can resilience for sharing knowledge across cities and then guides them as they implement and monitor -- Community Organizations practitioners learn from) those actions. -- Development Banks
The CWRA provides resources that will help cities carry out each step of the process. These tools Department heads or technical leads in: include a mix of analogue and digital tools—including -- Difficulty finding projects to fund with well- -- Action plan prioritizes key projects including the City Water Resilience Framework (CWRF) and considered actions, clear resilience benefits and potential costs and benefits of projects, with wide -- Development Banks OurWater—that facilitate the critical steps along this broad support from stakeholders stakeholder buy-in process and address the practical problems that cities -- Multi-National Government Organizations face.
The CWRA establishes an extensive and continuously growing body of knowledge on urban -- Mapping of the water system to show role of various actors and how individual users can best water resilience that cities can draw on to share End users : -- Limited understanding of individual’s role influence governance processes experiences, identify innovative new approaches, and within a wider water system and awareness of advance a community of practitioners at all stages -- Residential Users opportunities to impact water services in their city -- Better coordination results in improved water of the resilience approach. As the CWRA expands service -- Commercial Users -- Poor coordination between water providers results to additional cities, the community of practitioners -- Action plan combining a bottom-up and top-down -- Citizens/Electorate in lower quality of water service for end-users will benefit from new experiences, and help catalyse approach, and focusing on resilience dividends to partnerships between a range of users and funders. final users 18 CITY WATER RESILIENCE FRAMEWORK
4 DEVELOPING THE CWRA
The CWRA is based on a mixed-method research approach that included desk studies to identify current trends in thinking on the subject, and field engagement to better understand the needs of city partners. The following section is divided into three parts corresponding with three phases of research used to develop the CWRA: (i) literature review, (ii) fieldwork and (iii) data processing and analysis. 20 CITY WATER RESILIENCE FRAMEWORK 21 DEVELOPING THE CWRA
LEARNING FROM LITERATURE
The Arup team reviewed literature describing asset-based approach, which focuses on physical the assets, practices and qualities that help assets rather than considering intangible forces build water resilience; the types of shocks and that influence human behaviour. Systems- stresses typically encountered; and commonly thinking helps account for the important ways used tools, approaches and frameworks. In total, governance influences decisions around assets, we examined more than 50 academic sources, how socio-cultural systems determine human and 40 sources on shocks and stresses. These behaviour, and how these phenomena ultimately included academic literature, government and impact how physical systems are designed and regulatory reports, and guidance from non- used in the urban environment. The literature government, non-profit and policy institutions. also suggested the need for coordination Based on these investigations, the research team between interdependent systems operating at created a database of 750 factors that contribute different scales. to the resilience of urban water systems. Additionally, the team assessed existing guidance The literature review reinforced the need to documents, including eight approaches, nine understand water resilience as a function of frameworks and 14 tools designed to assess Workshop in Kingston upon Hull interdependent urban systems. A systems-based resilience in the context of cities and/or approach to urban resilience differs from an water systems. In this context, approaches or implementation programmes describe processes, methods or activities which typically serves to LEARNING FROM solve a specific problem. Approaches are realized through the use of various resources, including CITIES conceptual frameworks and tools. Frameworks refer to overarching systems of ideas or concepts that are used to assess or understand an issue. To ensure that the CWRA is practical and casting a wide net, we anticipated the need for an Finally, once broad objectives have been defined, grounded in the experiences of cities, the second approach that works in a range of cities around tools are used to facilitate the specific tasks stage of research involved fieldwork in five the world, confronting different challenges in required to achieve necessary results. “Wave 1” cities: Cape Town, South Africa; Mexico different socio-political contexts. City, Mexico; Miami and the Beaches, United Based on our review, we concluded that a need States; Kingston upon Hull, United Kingdom; In each city, the research team carried out exists for a holistic approach (i.e. methodology) and Amman, Jordan. Fieldwork involved 10 workshops, focus groups and key informant to building water resilience. The approach should workshops and 38 structured interviews, with interviews with people from the municipal address the physical and hydrological elements 710 participants in five cities. In an additional government, utility providers, business and civil of the city’s water system, as well as aspects three “Wave 2” cities—Rotterdam, Holland; society. Site visits helped us better understand related to governance, institutions and human Thessaloniki, Greece; and Greater Manchester, the realities of water shocks and stresses in each behaviour. It should be relevant in the context United Kingdom—the team provided remote city, and the tools and approaches currently used of economic, physical and social disruption and support to city partners leading on-the-ground to tackle those problems. Across the five cities, apply at the full catchment scale rather than to engagement. we collected data on factors of resilience—the individual systems within a city. Our analysis assets, practices/procedures or behaviours that of the literature also led to key principles that We selected these eight pilot cities because they contribute to the resilience of their respective guide the CWRF (see Chapter 6: The City Water confront persistent water-related shocks or city. Through this process, the team identified Resilience Framework). A detailed description suffer chronic water-related stresses, and have a total of 1,577 factors that either helped or of the CWRA literature review can be found in expressed commitment to co-creating water hindered resilience building in each city. For a Workshop in Mexico City the CWRA Water Resilience Literature Review, a resilience approaches. The cities represent detailed description of engagement in all cities separate report. diverse geographies, face a range of shocks and see Annex C: CWRA Fieldwork Report. stresses, and use various political systems. By 22 CITY WATER RESILIENCE FRAMEWORK 23 DEVELOPING THE CWRA
PROCESSING AND VALIDATING RESULTS
To analyse the information collected as part of translated into positive contributors to resilience, To validate findings from our fieldwork and GKE stakeholder validation exercises helped city missions, we employed a joint emergent and a and validated against the seven ‘qualities of literature review, the team tested the draft inform changes to the CWRF based on general priori coding technique to aggregate factors into resilience’ to ensure they reflect commonly framework with partners from seven cities at participant feedback and the results of specific smaller number of groups. In emergent thematic accepted definitions for resilience (Arup and the Global Knowledge Exchange (GKE), an event workshops. Again, a series of internal workshops coding, the coder identifies categories on-the-fly the Rockefeller Foundation, 2014b). Through hosted by Arup and the Resilience Shift and held tested an updated draft to ensure the framework through the process of reviewing raw data. This this analysis, the team identified a total of 84 at the Lloyd’s Register Foundation in London remained coherent, consistent and intuitive. differs from a priori coding, where the coder sub-goals. To this, we added an additional nine from August 21-23, 2018. The event provided defines categories before data is reviewed, and sub-goals derived from an Arup literature review, an opportunity to share lessons learned, and to The validation process has resulted in the set each record assigned its best fit (Blair, 2015). and 21 sub-goals proposed by the Stockholm validate the team’s research findings. In a series of 53 sub-goals and 12 goals that comprise the Coupling a priori and emergent qualitative International Water Institute (SIWI) based on of workshop exercises held over the course of CWRF. As a final step, the team is currently analytic methods enabled the work to build on a review of literature on water governance and three days, participants were asked to highlight identifying indicators (i.e. quantifiable metrics) previous research insights while also remaining SIWI’s diverse experiences working on global gaps in the draft framework, identify irrelevant for each sub-goal, based on analysis of literature open to the possibility of new themes revealed water issues. Sub-goals were aggregated again sub-goals or goals, rearrange the location of on the topic of indicators, indices and resilience through data exploration. into larger groups, named ‘goals,’ representing sub-goals, and suggest clarifications to language measurement, field experience, and review of families such as ‘collaborative governance’ or where applicable. global best practices. Through this process, individual positive and ‘sustainable funding.’ Based on this combined negative factors were aggregated into groups set of goals and sub-goals, the project team called ‘sub-goals’ that combined related conducted a series of internal workshops factors—for instance, all pertaining to ‘insurance’ to develop a draft version of the resilience or to ‘flood protection.’ Sub-goals were then framework, which outlines the key elements of urban water resilience.
Combining sub-goals from fieldwork, Refining and validating initial indicator experience and literature pool BUILDING INDICATOR POOL WHERE WE ARE NOW
+ +
1577 63 32 9 104 53 12 factors fieldwork sub-goals sub goals (SIWI) literature review draft sub goals sub goals goals sub-goals (Arup)
This data processing and validation process resulted in a framework for resilience, which consists of four dimensions, Empowered Communities s S ou tra er s te sp tie V gi twelve goals, and 53 sub-goals (see Structuring the CWRF). o ni isi c r u o P m n om C LE NG AD EI E C B R o L S o L H r For a detailed description of how factors were processed n E I d a P G b W in r & o a U s & v t e S e e y c H T r d h R n a T a lt B p L A n a a S A T c e s e E E i H n H G
following fieldwork engagement and public workshopping Y
d
f n
o a
s n n
e y
t o
o
i c i
i l
i t i
s
v
see Annex A: CWRF Data Processing Methodology. a
i
b r l
v
a
e u t
o g
S
r
n
e
l P
u
a
R i o
e
t l
c
e n
b c
v
e i a
t A
t
s i
c s
u e E f
q f
E E
I N
F R g A P n i r S d n o T n t E a n E e R a l n c U C e t v P v e C N i i d A t d r T p o N e n N U I a t R d a m a F r tu E A g e & n ra & te ts l E G n C IN I O N S N Y A ST PL EM g E S in ff d ec un tiv F M e le ce an As ab n ag se ain ina em t st F e Su nd nt a Effective Disaster y Response and Recover 5 THE CITY WATER RESILIENCE APPROACH
The result of the research process—combining a review of literature, interviews and workshops with key stakeholders, input from outside experts and observations of field conditions—is the City Water Resilience Approach (CWRA), which is presented in detail in this section. 26 CITY WATER RESILIENCE FRAMEWORK 27 THE CITY WATER RESILIENCE APPROACH
The desktop study confirmed the demand for Framework (CWRF) and other governance a broad approach or implementation process analysis resources, along with workshop and to guide action, as well as specific tools or programming activities recommended to develop frameworks to help cities carry out that an improved understanding and approach to process. The CWRA includes a mix of activities, building urban water resilience. The approach frameworks and tools used to address this recognizes the need to understand urban water demand. systems from a holistic perspective, and the need for in-depth analysis to improve understanding The CWRA outlines five key steps, with activities of governance of urban water resilience for under each step, including the methodologies achieving better outcomes. and resources to be used in each step. These resources include the City Water Resilience
1. Establish a city champion 2. Collect background information 1 Resources: 3. Multi-stakeholder inception • OurWater UNDERSTAND workshop THE SYSTEM
1. Research data collection 2 2. Assessment and diagnosis process Resources: 3. Findings report • CWRF 4. Validation workshop • Stakeholder responsibility matrix ASSESS URBAN
WATER RESILIENCE
1. Interpretation of results Resources: 3 PLAN 2. Prioritizing • Governance analysis 3. Develop a Joint Action Plan • A CWR action plan toolbox DEVELOP AN ACTION
1. Develop a monitoring and 4 evaluation mechanism Resources: 2. Engage facilitators and coaches • A CWR action plan toolbox 3. Evaluation of the baseline • Workshop facilitator’s guide book IMPLEMENT THE ACTION PLAN assessment
1. Evaluate the implementation of resilience measures 5 2. Analyse changes in context and stakeholders’ involvement 3. Re-assess objectives for next EVALUATE,AND ADAPT LEARN period 28 CITY WATER RESILIENCE FRAMEWORK 29 THE CITY WATER RESILIENCE APPROACH
Sphere of control, influence and context
Sphere of control, influence and context 1 UNDERSTAND THE SYSTEM The spheres of control, influence and context provide critical thinking around different governance functions, institutions and actors responsible for managing the water SPHERE OF CONTROL system and other interdependent and interlinked systems. This approach helps in identifying the stakeholders that Clearly defining the urban water system Along with these complexities, interdependencies Core to urban water sector have primary roles and responsibilities for a particular according to a holistic view is a fundamental first exist between the city water system and other governance function in the urban water sector (sphere of step in undertaking a resilience assessment for a systems (e.g. energy, agriculture and food supply, control), along with the stakeholders that do not have the city. The two major components comprising this land, forest, communications and transportation) mandate and control over that function in the sector but step are: that impact and are impacted by the water may directly or indirectly impact the sector’s performance sector. Each of these sectors has their own (sphere of influence) and are equally important. The outer sphere (sphere of context) describes the broader and 1. Defining the basin(s) upon which the city priorities, policies and programmes, and often SPHERE OF INFLUENCE long-term structural factors such as demography, history, depends there is a lack of coordination and interactions Significant and direct impact but culture, economy and geography. The spheres of control 2. Engaging with the individuals and among stakeholders. These conflicting interests outside the control of the sector and influence, will be context-specific, and may vary organisations that have jurisdiction over and lack of policy coherence often lead to poor greatly from one city to the next based on the stakeholders different elements of the water cycle in these management and hinders achieving development involved in the process. This critical thinking around the basins goals. spheres provides the necessary guidance to bring all the SPHERE OF CONTEXT relevant stakeholder to the discussion, which is crucial towards meeting an effective outcome that may otherwise Natural and socio-economic Urban water systems are complex. Cities draw It is important to note that the stakeholders in be ignored or go unseen. factors - Demography, History, upon larger catchment areas extending beyond the system are responsible for certain water Culture, Economy, Geography administrative boundaries, connected to one governance functions that happen within a set or more water basins that cross cities, states or of broader institutional factors (where the city even national boundaries (Bahri, 2012) beyond can influence but do not completely control), the city’s control. This often leads to spatial-scale as well as long-term structural or contextual misalignment between the boundaries of urban factors such as history, culture and demography, water governance and the wider water systems economy and geography, which define the control on which the water system depends. and influence boundaries of the stakeholders (Figure 1) (Jiménez et al, 2016). Mapping the Understanding the basin extent, and stakeholders by different governance functions stakeholders located within, is a critical first step. (Table 2) across these spheres of control and Table 2: KEY FUNCTIONS GUIDING GOVERNANCE QUESTIONS: DROUGHT Industry, the environment and citizens present influence will help identify all the responsible Mapping Preparedness and Is there a disaster preparedness plan for drought? Does an early warning system exist? If so, stakeholders competing demands within the city and across actors for each of those governance functions, Planning who is responsible for this planning? by governance the Basin. For example, in the case of flooding, including those that are core to the sector and function, Coordination Do you have a coordination mechanism in place in case of drought? Who is involved? Who are one cannot understand and mitigate risk without those which may affect or be affected by the showcasing a the stakeholders with whom you need to collaborate and coordinate? considering the upstream basins that contribute sector. typical drought example to flows through the city. Cities located in water Policy and Strategy Do you have a strategy for drought management? Do you have an operational plan for basins that cross national borders, confront A multi-level, multi-sector stakeholder implementation of the strategy? Who is responsible in this policy making and who is involved? governance, technical and political challenges, approach is grounded in a good-faith, shared Which actors are responsible for implementation of the strategy? which are beyond the influence and control understanding which will help create the spaces Financing Are there regular funds directed to drought management? Who is responsible? of city authorities. For example, the roles and to share diverse knowledge, reflections, learning Regulation Do you have applicable exceptional regulations in case of drought? Who is responsible? responsibility for negotiations, cooperation, and innovation, further improving the capacity coordination over the transboundary water to building resilience. This multi-stakeholder Capacity Development Do you have sufficient human and technical capacity to manage drought? Who is responsible resource management (TWRM) often lie under approach refers to actors and institutions for providing the finance, the technical capacity development? Which stakeholders are involved in these capacity development programmes and which are the target groups? the mandate of the ministry of water resources, working across levels (local, regional, national basin authorities or the ministry of foreign/ and transboundary) and sectors, including public, Monitoring, Do you have a systematic process of collecting evidence, evaluating, analysing and using this external affairs. However, city-based authorities private, civil society and communities, as all Evaluation and evidence for managerial decisions to adapt and improve policies and programmes. Which such as municipalities or utilities and even end- stakeholders of the wider urban water system Learning actors are responsible and involved? Are civil society and community networks part of the monitoring and evaluation? users have no control over transboundary water engage with the city stakeholders. This multi- issues and their engagements in TWRM is often stakeholder approach is important throughout Immediate Response Do you have the provision for immediate response to drought? Which actors are responsible? limited or absent. the process of CWRA to communicate, identify Procedure gaps, identify priority areas, and effectively develop, plan and implement a resilience strategy. 30 CITY WATER RESILIENCE FRAMEWORK 31 THE CITY WATER RESILIENCE APPROACH
1 ACTIVITIES
ESTABLISH A CITY ‘RESILIENCE COLLECT BACKGROUND INFORMATION MULTI-STAKEHOLDER INCEPTION CITY CHARACTERISATION REPORT CHAMPION’ WORKSHOP The city resilience champion will collect Through desk review and workshopping with This initial activity aims to engage with a city background information through preliminary A multi-stakeholder inception workshop city stakeholders, the resilience champion ‘resilience champion’ that is motivated and desktop review, interviews with key stakeholders allows the resilience champion to convene works with local stakeholders to develop a City has the leadership, convening power and and focus group discussions, along with the water system partners around a common Characterisation Report that outlines key shocks responsibilities to be able to push forward developing an understanding of the urban water understanding of the city water resilience idea, and stresses encountered in the city, identifies the initiative during the initial stage. The local system and the institutional landscape governing and validate the background information and stakeholders and describes ongoing programmes, resilience champion can be a single organization the system, by using the following tools: data collected through an inclusive, transparent projects and policies. This document summarizes or a team of organizations working together. The and a collective sense-making workshop. actions at the start of the CWRA process and can champion is identified at the onset of the CWRA •• Definition of the water system: basic The workshop should provide the city the be referred to in future phases to identify initial process, and leads the approach through all five schematic drawing of key elements of the opportunity to: actions taken, and inform which actions are taken steps, with ongoing advice and support from the water system and their relationships. as part of Step 3: Develop an Action Plan. advisory team as needed. It is important that the •• Present and validate the background •• Mapping of the institutional landscape information (water systems, stakeholder resilience champion take into consideration the governing water using the OurWater mapping and network, characterization of following information: webtool: mapping of stakeholders and their shocks and stresses). responsibilities, with jurisdictions over •• Human, technical and financial resources elements of the water system and basic •• Discuss the scope, motivation and objective are secured for carrying out the five-step representation of key functions related of CWRF in building resilience capacity. process. to the water system. This mapping can be •• Identify other potential partners to be performed by water related subsector if •• A clear understanding among the team of engaged in the process. Based on the relevant, (e.g. water supply, wastewater the entire process, including the city water thinking around the spheres of control and treatment, natural and urban environment resilience idea, the CWRA and its objectives, influence, map the stakeholders by the management). to ensure that the team, with help from governance functions, discuss if inclusion of internal/external facilitators, can provide •• Characterisation of shocks and stresses other potential stakeholders could help in necessary support to the stakeholders using the OurWater webtool: basic strengthening the discussion and who might throughout the process. schematic representation of shocks and be key to address some of those governance •• The resilience champion will also coordinate stresses to understand how they affect gaps; and agree on the partner engagement and facilitate the data collection through the different parts of the system and its strategy. This exercise will also help build on OurWater webtool along with identifying interdependencies with other systems. the findings from background data collection and validating that information. and coordinating with user groups, etc. •• Mapping the network of stakeholders: While •• The champion will take the lead in facilitating the mapping of the institutional landscape •• Discuss and plan for Step 2 of the CWRA, the entire process through a transparent, helps identify the key stakeholders in the ‘Assessing City Water Resilience’ to inclusive and accountable way. water system, the mapping of stakeholder introduce the CWRF, its objectives, networks is an important aspect of indicators and goals. •• The champion will be responsible for governance to get an in-depth understanding conducting the preliminary data collection of the institutional arrangements, through a process and validating it, by referring stakeholder network diagram. Often there to different methodologies and tools are large number of authorities involved recommended under this activity, to collect in water resource management decisions, background information and organize a without a clear understanding of their roles Multi-Stakeholder Inception Workshop. and responsibilities for ‘who does what, at what level and how’ (OECD, 2011), and the stakeholder network diagram will help map the link between the stakeholders in terms of the roles performed. 32 CITY WATER RESILIENCE FRAMEWORK 33 THE CITY WATER RESILIENCE APPROACH
1 METHODOLOGY To help cities enact the multi-step CWRA process, we have developed a suite of resources, including digital and analogue tools and frameworks, with additional resources planned for the following steps of the approach. In developing these resources, the project team first identified guiding qualities to inform this work, Step 1 is performed through desktop review, the system, the OurWater webtool and multi- based on field research and inputs from project partners: interviews with key stakeholders and focus stakeholder inception workshop help identify group discussions using a snowball sampling relevant stakeholders, interdependent urban 1. Practical—New resources developed to advance the CWRA methodology (in which key issues and actors systems and shocks and stresses that affect the should be low-cost in terms of the time and resources demanded of are identified as the study progresses based on city. users, and the level of technological sophistication assumed. If they a growing body of knowledge). To understand are not, users will find more convenient alternatives or will return to the methods they used before.
2. Flexible—Cities confront different challenges and have RESOURCES access to different types of resources. Tools and frameworks 1 should therefore be flexible enough to work in diverse contexts. Because the CWRA has identified a range of possible lead actors in cities, new tools must be made easily adoptable by multiple users, including government, inter-governmental organizations, The OurWater digital tool is designed to help system. By answering key questions about the development banks, public utilities, academia, NGOs, civil society, cities better understand their local water system, number, type and interaction between assets and the private sector and even community groups. Tools should including the types of shocks and stresses actors that make up the water system, the tool be designed for inputs from a wide range of actors, and can be confronted, the impact of various hazards on addresses a fundamental challenge in many cities, deployed by any of the type of actors described above with the natural and man-made infrastructural systems, where water governance functions are often interest and resources to do so.
and the interaction between key stakeholders siloed, and limited coordination, collaboration FOR RESILIENCE RESOURCES DEVELOPING involved in urban water management. OurWater and knowledge sharing exists between actors 3. Consistent—The desire for flexibility should be balanced with allows users to input information about the working in the water system. In crowd-sourcing a need to maintain a consistent view of resilience. For instance, in infrastructure and governance processes they these tasks, OurWater creates a platform for developing the CWRF (see The City Water Resilience Framework), participate in, and to map relationships between city-wide information supplied by users across the team recognized the important of putting forth a coherent stakeholders throughout the entire water multiple sectors and levels of government. view of what drives resilience, in the form of 12 goals and 53 sub- goals. While the CWRF allows for flexibility in the ways that cities achieve these goals (i.e. the specific solutions adopted), the goals themselves are the result of extensive collaborative research and will not change between cities.
In moving from general principles to specific tools and frameworks, Arup worked closely with project partners to better understand the needs and challenges that cities confront. Each new addition therefore targets a specific challenge or “pain point” identified by cities in their efforts to properly manage water systems and build water resilience. Initial engagement with city partners, and user testing in the five Wave 1 pilot cities—Amman, Miami, Cape Town, Mexico City and Hull—and validation at the Global Knowledge Exchange 2018 refined these resources and informed decisions around design, functions and user interface. The OurWater digital tool 34 CITY WATER RESILIENCE FRAMEWORK 35 THE CITY WATER RESILIENCE APPROACH
2 ASSESS CITY WATER RESILIENCE
In this second step, the preliminary assessment During Step 2, cities will complete the following is fundamental to generating the right options in identifying which governance functions initiated in Step 1 will be completed using the tasks: to address vulnerabilities. From these options are well resourced within a city, where City Water Resilience Framework (CWRF). an intervention, or suite of interventions, can there are overlaps, and where there are The CWRF supports cities and governments •• Assess their present-day performance and be prioritised based on the broad objectives gaps and challenges. The findings from to gather information in a structured way and their trajectory towards a more resilient identified initially. The core team shares the this assessment process will help different assess current practices, providing cities with future report with relevant stakeholders for their stakeholders to discuss and identify which are the areas they need to strengthen to a comprehensive, credible, and technically •• Identify governance gaps in designing and review and incorporates their comments into a build resilience, what role each of them plays, robust means to assess and monitor their water implementing successful city water resilience revised final report to be circulated before the who should do what, and how each of them resilience to inform decision-making. The CWRF policies and regulations validation workshop. operationalizes resilience by providing a means can contribute towards implementing an effective city water resilience strategy. for measuring cities’ progress through qualitative •• Facilitate a process of engagement with and VISIONING EXERCISE AND within cities to generate dialogue and deeper and quantitative indicators, with the intention VALIDATION WORKSHOP •• Based on the analysis and findings of the understanding around city water resilience of guiding future actions. This framework will assessment, the stakeholders will identify help structure cities’ thinking around water •• Identify clear objectives and a common A multi-stakeholder workshop will facilitate and discuss areas that need to be addressed resilience, including what elements are hindering vision for building water resilience in the city dialogue and deeper understanding of the Water and prioritized. This initial discussion could and what is required in building resilience. Step 2 Resilience Profile report. The profile will be involve identifying broad areas to be taken results in a Water Resilience Profile report that revisited and revised as needed based on the forward in the next step of prioritisation. summarizes analysis from the water resilience workshop conclusions. The workshop provides •• This step results in a visioning exercise assessment. the city with the opportunity to: that outlines shared objectives for building resilience in the city, and describes clear •• Present the key findings of the Water goals during the short, medium and long- Resilience Profile report . term time horizons. 2 ACTIVITIES •• Facilitate an exercise designed to conduct an in-depth governance analysis to discuss on the identified governance gaps through CWRF and assess how to improve those RESEARCH AND DATA COLLECTION takes place over the course of several weeks, governance gaps. This exercise will help FOR THE ASSESSMENT PROCESS using a mix of qualitative and quantitative identify who are the primary decision- maker(s), who implements those decisions, As part of this step, the resilience champion indicators, and through a combination of workshops and expert interviews. Throughout who monitors actions, who is responsible shares the City Characterisation Report for coordination, who approves the budget this process, the city resilience champion findings from Step 1 with all participants of and which actors benefit from or are regularly interacts with the stakeholders to the stakeholders and other potential partners. otherwise affected by these decisions. This address key concerns in understanding and using The champion collects relevant data from activity will be aided using a Stakeholder CWRF. stakeholders through interviews, workshops Responsibility Matrix (SRM) modified and and focus groups. It shares the guidelines on the developed based on the Responsibility CWRF stating the timeline of the assessment DIAGNOSIS AND WATER RESILIENCE Assignment (RACI) matrix. The SRM PROFILE REPORT process with the stakeholders. Internal/external analysis will help in indicating the roles of support is provided to guide stakeholders on the The resilience champion will coordinate with stakeholders under each of the governance assessment process and CWRF where needed. the stakeholders and collect findings of the functions. For example, for the governance assessment. Following this, the team will develop function ‘finances’ and the stress drought ASSESSMENT PROCESS USING CWRF a City Water Resilience Profile report with management, the SRM will help identify which actors are responsible for approving With the research and data collected, the the main findings, which will be shared with all the finances for a drought management stakeholders conduct the baseline assessment partners and stakeholders engaged in Step 1. The plan, which actors are accountable for on an agreed timeline. The baseline assessment aim of this diagnosis activity is to identify areas where resilience improvements are required. It this function (Table 3). This further helps 36 CITY WATER RESILIENCE FRAMEWORK 37 THE CITY WATER RESILIENCE APPROACH
2 METHODOLOGY
Empowered Communities
us St ro rat e s eg Step 2 resource: sp itie Vi ic Data collection for the assessment can be ro un sio P m n om City Water C conducted in different ways depending on the LE Resilience NG AD EI E C B R o L S o L H r city context and stakeholders involved. Where n I d Framework a E P G b W in r & o a U s & v t e S e e (CWRF) y c H T r d n h T R partner engagement is already well-established t a a B l p L A n a a S A T c e s e E E i H n H G
and where information is easily accessible, a rapid Y
d review and data collection may be conducted, n f
o a
s
n n y
e
t o
o i
c i
i l
i t i
s
v
i a
b followed by a stakeholder consultation workshop l r
v
a
e u t
o g
S
r
n
e
l P
u
a
R i o
e
t l
to collectively make sense of knowledge from c
e n
b c
v
e i a
t A
t
s i
c
s u e
E f q different partners, assess the city resilience and f
E E
I N
F reaching a consensus. The resilience champion R g A P n i r S d n o T n t E a n E e R a leads data collection and will document the c U C e l n t v P v e C N i i d A t d r T p o N e n N U I a t R d a m a F r outcomes of this discussion. t E A u g e & n ra & te ts l E G n C IN I O N S N Y A ST PL EM g E S in ff d ec un In other cases where partner engagement tiv F M e le ce an As ab n ag se ain ina em t st F e Su nd is more challenging and access to relevant nt a Effective Disaster y information is limited, the data collection may Response and Recover be a time-consuming process, and more in- depth and rigorous data collection methods, desktop review, surveys and interviews with key stakeholders and focus groups may be required. The assessment report will be submitted by the resilience champion, followed by the validation workshop.
2 RESOURCES Table 3: Stakeholder responsibility matrix per governance functions
The City Water Resilience Framework (CWRF)
helps groups of stakeholders assess the current REGULATOR APPROVAL ACCOUNTABLE LEADING CONTRIBUTOR INFORMED status of local urban water resilience in their city. It corresponds with the second step of the Actors that sets the Actor that approves Actor responsible Actor that leads Actor is an active Actor is informed legal frameworks the main outcomes for responding to and coordinates the participant in the but does not have CWRA approach. For more detail, see The City and rules for that of the function (the the decisions taken action, starts, and process and can the opportunity to Water Resilience Framework. function policy, the plan, the in that function drives it throughout, provide inputs that provide inputs to strategy, the budget and coordinates the shape the final the process A Stakeholder Responsibility Matrix (SRM) etc.) process. This actor outcomes based on the widely used RACI matrix describing typically makes the submissions for parties responsible, accountable, consulted and approval informed for each action. The SRM analysis will help in indicating the roles of stakeholders under each of the governance functions. 38 CITY WATER RESILIENCE FRAMEWORK 39 THE CITY WATER RESILIENCE APPROACH
3 DEVELOP AN ACTION PLAN 3 ACTIVITIES
Steps 3-5 will be co-developed in partnership will identify new projects based on the objectives INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS: with cities in later project phases, during which defined in Step 2. Potential projects will be Following the assessment and diagnosis process, additional detail will be added and new resources prioritized by all stakeholders involved in the the core team will identify other governance identified. The following sections provide a high- assessment process in order to identify the most gaps. In this step, results are interpreted using level overview of these steps, including critical important actions to be taken. guidelines provided in the City Water Resilient considerations for each. Action Plan Toolbox. The Action Plan document The plan should build off existing actions that are will be developed with the objective to provide In Step 3, the city will turn the diagnostics and already being undertaken or are planned over guidance to stakeholders on how to interpret assessments conducted in previous steps into the short, medium and long term, respecting and results from Step 2 and turn them into actionable actionable initiatives and projects. Exploring supporting plans already undertaken by the city, initiatives. The toolbox will include governance the results, the city can evaluate its challenges which may be described in city master plans or analysis resources to map stakeholders by and opportunities, and initiate closer study of sector planning for urban water strategy, disaster governance functions for a particular shock or priority areas. The Water Resilience Action Plan management plans, etc. For an example of how stress. The governance function involved (e.g. resilience might be integrated into an existing planning and preparedness, policy and strategy, master plan, see Case Study 2. etc.) will differ for different shock and stresses. For an example of integrated coordination, see Case Study 3. Governance analysis will help identify key gaps and improve governance functions. Case Study 2: Aligning resilience strategy with existing action in Greater Miami and the Beaches (GM&B) The Greater Miami and the Beaches (GM&B) collaboration provides an excellent opportunity for planning and strategizing through improved coordination among the cities to build resilience and address disasters and uncertainties. The GM&B Preliminary Resilient Assessment (PRA) report, as part of the 100 Resilient Case Study 3: Jordan National Center for Cities project, highlights that the key actions of City of Miami to Security and Crisis Management (NCSCM) build a resilient city includes Sea Level Rise Advisory Committee Jordan has a National Center for Security established in 2015; revision and updating of the City of Miami’s and Crisis Management (NCSCM), which is in stormwater master plan while implementing stormwater upgrades charge of the overall coordination and planning in highly vulnerable areas and rapid action plan for flood risk to address potential shock, and for disaster mitigation of critical infrastructure and strengthening flood risk risk reduction in the country. It was found that mitigation in the Future Land Use and Coastal Management there was a need for a governance arrangement elements of the City’s Comprehensive Neighbourhood plan (100 (particularly related to drought management) Resilient Cities, 2017). Such existing plans needs to be explored which led to the creation of a national drought to assess if any of the newly discussed topics and aspects could be management committee responsible for drought included in the Action Plan. management planning and implementation, a unit under the Ministry of Water and Irrigation (MWI). This was accompanied by drafting of a drought policy and drought management plans. For other shocks, additional specific coordination and managements units are in place. 40 CITY WATER RESILIENCE FRAMEWORK 41 THE CITY WATER RESILIENCE APPROACH
IDENTIFICATION OF PRIORITY AREAS: DEVELOP JOINT ACTION PLAN THROUGH 3 METHODOLOGY A MULTI-STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOP: Prioritisation areas will be identified to collectively agree on an action plan to build Based on the in-depth analysis of the priority resilience. Prioritisation areas are those with areas and the short list of actions identified as part of the previous step, the core team will most opportunity and agreement for future For this step, an initial interpretation of the result work with all stakeholders to identify a list of action based on common consensus and can be conducted by the core team through an actions based on priority areas identified in resilience objectives identified in the previous in-depth governance analysis as guided under the previous activity, and considering ongoing step, in light of the CWRF assessment. the City Water Resilient Action Plan Toolbox, actions currently implemented in the city, as well as the efforts to revisit its partner identified during Step 1. Key elements that will be Building on the City Characterisation Report engagement strategy, and closer study of the discussed in this workshop include: validated in Step 2, the resilience champion identified priority areas. A facilitated workshop is will revisit the discussions from the validation recommended to facilitate dialogue and ensure •• Reaffirmation of objectives workshop to address prioritized opportunities stakeholders’ ownership and accountability of and challenges, as well as providing additional •• Prioritization of activities, i.e. what joint the action plan developed. inputs, including: actions can be taken to improve resilience
•• Revisit and define the partner engagement •• Costs and benefits associated with each strategy. action according to a holistic assessment that includes consideration of social, economic •• Initiate a closer study of the priority areas and ecological benefits identified in Step 2. 3 •• Definition of timelines i.e. short-term, RESOURCES •• Map projects and programmes to medium-term and long-term and actions link priorities with the existing policy associated with each timeframe framework, strategies and plans of each A Workshop Facilitator´s Guide document that •• Critical actors involved in each potential of the stakeholders. This will be done provides recommendations on how to conduct action through mapping programmes and projects a multi-stakeholder workshop to collectively by collecting information on the current •• Existing capacity (human, financial and create a robust action plan. programmes which respond to one or technical) to develop, implement and monitor more shocks or stresses, their contribution actions, and ways to improve capacity where A City Water Resilient Action Plan Toolbox to one or more governance functions for needed consists of tools to help cities prioritize key resilience in urban water sector, their actions. CWRF classification and the role of different •• Activities to monitor and evaluate actions as organizations within the programme. part of the Action Plan. This information will be used to help the city understand the gaps in the existing One important element of Step 3 will be programmes and prioritize. identifying a mechanism for monitoring progress •• Agree on selection criteria for identifying through the process. This mechanism, developed projects included in Action Plan. in the multi-stakeholder workshop, will provide information about progress and hindrances, towards effective results. Regular monitoring of programmes and plans will allow informed decisions on whether and how to adjust and adapt those programmes to meet goals.
Based on the results of the multi-stakeholder workshop, the resilience champion will draft a final Action Plan summarizing results from the workshop and sharing it with the stakeholders for review and comments. 42 CITY WATER RESILIENCE FRAMEWORK 43 THE CITY WATER RESILIENCE APPROACH
4 IMPLEMENT THE ACTION PLAN 4 METHODOLOGY
In this step, the core team will implement the This step is realised through frequent city’s Water Resilience Action Plan. Rather than interaction and continuous engagement with the a static road map, the Action Plan is dynamic stakeholders, with regular flow of information and can be revisited and adapted over time. A exchanges and feedbacks, and developing monitoring and evaluation mechanism included progress reports. within the Action Plan will allow the plan to be continuously evaluated and fine-tuned as priorities are addressed and initiatives are implemented.
4 RESOURCES
The Action Plan Toolbox and the Workshop Facilitators’ Guide described previously will 4 ACTIVITIES provide key recommendations and guidelines on the implementation process along with monitoring and evaluation mechanisms.
In Step 4 the city implements the Action Plan The processes of monitoring and evaluation developed as part of Step 3. For the resilience must be supported by regular facilitation and champion, this entails working closely with coaching, either through internal or external actors identified in the previous step to provide support, to follow-up and reflect upon the city support in the form of expertise and coordination water resilience efforts. The Action Plan Tool between actors involved. Box and the Facilitators’ guide will provide key recommendations and guidelines on the As part of Step 4, the resilience champion implementation process along with monitoring will ensure that stakeholders share the and evaluation mechanisms. implementation and monitoring and evaluation reports on regular basis. The results of the resilience action plan monitoring and evaluation should be aligned with the sector’s annual report which are discussed in regular joint ministerial review meetings. This will help facilitate the resilience discussion around the broader sectoral issues, and the opportunity to align the city water resilience objectives with the national priorities. 44 CITY WATER RESILIENCE FRAMEWORK 45 THE CITY WATER RESILIENCE APPROACH
Table 4: Governance functions for resilience
5 EVALUATE, LEARN AND ADAPT KEY FUNCTIONS DESCRIPTION Policy and Strategy Policymaking is the process whereby policies and strategies are developed. These contain the set of principles, priorities to achieve certain sector outcomes through a set of procedures, programs and/or mechanisms that provide the basis for water resources and water services management.
Learning, transforming and adapting are key to address these challenges in a timely manner. Coordination Coordination is the process of promoting and ensuring cooperation among diverse stakeholders, elements in the process of building resilience. When such instances are monitored, reported, across different levels of central, regional and local government departments, between different The CWRA Step 5 follows up on implementation, and documented, stakeholders can learn from sectors, including public and private institutions, civil society, communities, external support agencies and eventually with transboundary partners. It entails proactive information sharing, with actions based on monitoring performed these experiences, and the system becomes frequent interaction and discussion, and decisions for policy setting, strategizing and planning, as as part of Step 4. The activities, tools and more adaptive and better prepared to respond to well as related to implementation and monitoring stages. methodology for this step will evolve as the future unforeseen challenges. CWRA progresses and is co-developed with city Preparedness and Planning The capacities and knowledge developed by governments, professional response organisations, communities and individuals to anticipate and respond effectively to the impact of likely, partners. This step will entail reassessing objectives for the imminent or current hazard events or conditions. Planning is the process of data collection and next period. Based on the results and progresses analysis, formulation of actionable plans and estimation of costs and timeline. The typical outcome As part of Step 5, to ensure that the process is of the ongoing implementation, monitoring and is a time-bound roadmap with estimation of human and financial resources (in place). Planning active the resilience champion will continue its evaluation process, stakeholders will re-assess includes the deliberative and decision-making process towards developing key priorities, and the engagement with key stakeholders and conduct the objectives and priorities of the resilience level of stakeholder engagement through which those priorities are selected for intervention. an evaluation following the baseline assessment action plan at regular intervals to ensure that it Financing The ability to raise funds from different sources, and cover for the short and long-term costs within 2-3 years to assess progress and identify continues to meet its resilience goals. expenditures (capex and opex) of service delivery and resource management. challenges. Budgeting Budgeting answers questions such as: Do you have sufficient human and technical capacity to manage drought? Who is responsible for providing the finance, the technical capacity An important part of this step is the analysis of development? Which stakeholders are involved in these capacity development programmes and changing contexts and stakeholder involvement. which are the target groups? Unexpected challenges, risk and difficulties Service Delivery and Resource Through this function the arrangement for different aspects of service delivery and resource may arise due to resistance to change from Management Arrangements management is provided, describing who owns the infrastructure, who can operate them, who is different levels; change in leadership through responsible for service provision, and how services are provided in different settings. different electoral processes; fluctuating roles Regulation Regulations are rules or governmental orders designed to control or govern behaviour, and and responsibilities of stakeholders; lack of often have the force of law. They set standards, establish rights and responsibilities, monitoring motivation from resilience champion; or data mechanisms, and penalties. They include organizational responsibilities for the core regulatory gaps, time and budget constraints etc. All of process, and links between regulators and those they regulate. Regulation includes the capacity to these factors may have adverse effects in the enforce agreed standards and impose sanctions for non-compliance. process and the overall implementation of Capacity Development Capacity development refers to the process by which people, organizations and society the action plan. The core team should ensure systematically stimulate and develop their capacities over time to achieve social and economic that such changes and risk are assessed and goals, including through improvement of knowledge, skills, systems, and institutions. monitored, and possible solutions are explored Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Monitoring is a systematic process of collecting evidence and using that information to track progress of an ongoing intervention, which further contributes towards achieving desired outcomes. Evaluation is an exercise to systematically and objectively assess progress and the achievement of an outcome, which may include assessment of an activity, project, programme, strategy, policy, topic, theme, sector, operational area or institution’s performance. Evaluation helps determine the relevance, impact, effectiveness, efficiency, and sustainability of the intervention. Learning includes the processes whereby stakeholders analyse and use evidence for managerial decisions to adapt and improve policies and programmes.
Immediate Response Procedure This function describes the provision of emergency services and public assistance during or immediately after a disaster in order to save lives, reduce health impacts, ensure public safety and meet the basic subsistence needs of the people affected. It can be of an immediate, short-term, or protracted duration.
Post Recovery Post recovery refers to the provision of a plan or strategy for reconstruction, rebuilding, rehabilitation, restoring coping mechanisms and facilitating necessary adjustment to reduce the risk post-disaster. 46 CITY WATER RESILIENCE FRAMEWORK
6 THE CITY WATER RESILIENCE FRAMEWORK
The City Water Resilience Framework (CWRF) assessment aligns with the second step of the CWRA approach, helping cities assess strengths and weaknesses in their water systems, and generate a Water Resilience Profile to guide future action. 48 CITY WATER RESILIENCE FRAMEWORK 49 THE CITY WATER RESILIENCE FRAMEWORK
The CWRF can be used by a range of urban The CWRF allows cities to measure progress actors—including city government agencies, through key indicators associated with CWRF STRUCTURE civil society, NGOs, development organizations, each sub-goal. By evaluating performance private sector organizations and academic against quantitative and qualitative indicators, institutions involved in water management cities can identify specific areas of strength to for the urban basin. Any of these can lead the support, weakness that should be addressed. The CWRF lens establishes a model for city water resilience. assessment. The framework responds directly to The assessment baselines cities’ ongoing efforts cities’ critical needs in the following ways: against future actions, to measure progress over time. The CWRF brings together diverse The CWRF consists of three rings—dimensions, stakeholders to agree upon a shared vision The CWRF results in a Water Resilience goals and sub-goals—that describe a holistic of urban water resilience in their city. The Profile that helps cities identify and prioritize model for city water resilience. framework provides a clear definition for key actions and the actors best positioned to resilience, and the specific elements that implement those actions. Based on detailed The innermost ring consists of four dimensions, contribute to water resilience. Rather than assessment of each city’s strengths and 4 critical areas for building resilience. prescribe specific solutions, the CWRF helps weaknesses, this profile helps translate a shared DIMENSIONS cities identify the range of potential strategies vision into an implementation plan based upon Within each dimension are goals that indicate that might be appropriate for them. The broad stakeholder agreement and common what needs to be achieved in that category. assessment process results in a vision statement objectives. For instance, to build resilience in the area of that will guide cities throughout the multi-year Leadership and Strategy, our research suggests project of building resilience. The CWRF encourages a model of best two key areas—long-term strategic vision and practice for urban water management based coordinated and collaborative governance. on research and examples of best practice from Hybrid goals are used where goals could logically diverse cities around the world. be placed in more than one dimension and suggest how critical elements of water resilience often fall within multiple areas of influence.
12 Sub-goals identify the critical elements for GOALS realizing each goal. They provide additional detail and are referred to in guiding concrete actions that help realize their respective goals. Because The CWRF diagram identifies four distinct but connected each city confronts unique challenges, solutions dimensions of resilience, and a series of increasingly specific appropriate to one city are not necessarily requirements (goals and sub-goals) for building resilience in each appropriate to another. As a result, sub-goals Empowered Communities represent aspirations but do not stipulate specific us St ro rat dimension. e s eg sp itie Vi ic ro un sio P m n solutions. For instance, while the framework om C L G EA IN D affirms a universal need for “transparent E C E R B S o The lens can be read as a process diagram that moves clockwise L o L H r n I d a E P G b W in r & o v a financial decision-making procedures,” it allows U s & t e S e e y H T r d from the top of the circle, following a rough timeline for project c h R n a T a lt B p L A n a a S A T c e s e E E i for a variety of strategies and mechanisms H n H G planning. The sequence of decisions begins with highest order
Y for achieving that aim (through participatory
d goals related to empowering communities as a prerequisite for
f n
o a
s
n n y
e
t o budgeting, regular auditing, legal statutes, etc.)
o i
c i
i l
i t i s all resilience measures undertaken and ends with goals related
v
i a
b r l
v
a
e u t
o g
S
r
n
e l
P based on what might be most appropriate given u
a
R i o
e
t l to neighbourhood-level interventions that benefit city residents.
c
e n
b c
v
e i a
t A
t s i
c
s u local context. The outermost layer of the CWRF e
E f
q f Moving along the circle, the framework continues to long-term 53
E E
I N wheel consists of indicators, a list of metrics F SUB-GOALS R vision and strategy as a necessary pre-condition for planning g A P n i r S d n o T n t E a n used to measure how each city performs in E e R a l n c U C e and finance of water resilience programs. These goals result t v P v e C N i i d A t d r T p o N e n N U I a t m a R F d a each category. In answering indicator prompts, r t E A e u & g e INTERPRETING THE CWRF in effective implementation around critical infrastructure and n ra & t ts l E G n C IN I O N S N individual cities identify areas for improvement in Y A ST PL ecosystems and the enactment of green and grey infrastructure. EM g E S in ff d ec un cities’ own water governance, measure their own tiv F M e le ce an As ab n Finally, the cycle concludes with goals related to health and ag se ain ina em t st F e Su nd nt a progress over time, and make comparisons with Effective Disaster y wellbeing, a dimension that describes how interventions Response and Recover manifest to help individuals survive and thrive. peers around the world. 50 CITY WATER RESILIENCE FRAMEWORK 51 THE CITY WATER RESILIENCE FRAMEWORK
Table 5: CWRF value proposition
KEY STAKEHOLDERS COMMON CHALLENGES POTENTIAL GAINS VALUE
The CWRF brings together diverse stakeholders to agree upon a shared vision of urban water resilience in their city. The framework provides High-level decision-makers in: -- Competing actors/interests make it difficult to a clear definition for resilience, and the specific prioritize critical actions -- Unified, shared vision agreed upon by normally elements that contribute to water resilience. Rather -- City Government -- Difficulty communicating benefits of resilience competing interests than prescribe specific solutions, the CWRF helps to constituents for buy-in (citizens, corporate cities identify the range of potential strategies that -- Regional/national Government -- Vision statement developed from profile to stakeholders, board of directors, etc.) might be appropriate for them. The assessment -- Catchment/Basin authorities articulate outcomes and holistic benefits -- Difficulty understanding and framing city water process results in a vision statement that will guide -- Private Sector resilience from a holistic perspective cities throughout the multi-year project of building resilience.
The CWRF allows cities to measure progress through key indicators associated with each sub- goal. By evaluating performance against quantitative and qualitative indicators, cities can identify specific areas of strength to support, weakness that should be addressed. The assessment baselines cities’ ongoing Department/organizational heads in: efforts against future actions, to measure progress over time. -- City Government -- Complex, time-consuming process required to -- Resource for identifying and convening relevant -- Utilities agree on a shared plan for building resilience stakeholders and coming to consensus on shared The CWRF results in a Water Resilience Profile -- Multi-National Government Organizations vision plan -- Lack of available tools to measure city performance that helps cities identify and prioritize key actions -- Private Sector in clear / objective ways -- City Water Resilience Profiles benchmarks city and the actors best positioned to implement those -- Regional/national Government -- Little agreement around action plan for project performance actions. Based on detailed assessment of each city’s -- NGOs implementation strengths and weaknesses, this profile helps translate -- Community Organizations a shared vision into an implementation plan based upon broad stakeholder agreement and common -- Development Banks objectives.
The CWRF encourages a model of best practice for urban water management based on research and examples of best practice from diverse cities around -- New opportunities to participate in vision- End users -- Limited opportunities to participate in shaping the world. making through broad and diverse stakeholder water resilience planning in their city participation -- Residential Users -- Poor coordination between water providers results -- Better coordination among actors results in -- Commercial Users in lower quality of water service for end users improved water service 52 CITY WATER RESILIENCE FRAMEWORK 53 THE CITY WATER RESILIENCE FRAMEWORK
CWRF GOVERNING PRINCIPLES MULTI-DIMENSIONAL URBAN FOCUSED Our research suggests a need for a holistic Because water systems are part of complex, and multi-dimensional approach to building overlapping and interdependent urban systems, water resilience. The four dimensions of the efforts to build water resilience should extend The result of the research process—combining a CWRF – leadership and strategy, planning and beyond the household or neighbourhood finance, infrastructure and ecosystems, health level. The CWRF is designed for urban scale review of literature, interviews and workshops with and well-being – propose a new approach to interventions, understanding that water key stakeholders, input from outside experts and measuring and building resilience. Similarly, resilience requires influencing the myriad the goals and sub-goals identified through systems that impact water service delivery, Arup observations of field conditions—is the City our research process touch on elements of and that natural hydrological processes do Water Resilience Framework, which is presented in governance, planning, finance, infrastructure, not always align with strict administrative or the environment, place-making and community political boundaries. detail in the following section. The framework distils development. a set of critical themes identified in our research, and is guided by four key principles:
ACTION-ORIENTED MULTI-SECTORAL
The CWRF helps identify specific, concrete The CWRF is not intended for specific sectors and meaningful areas of intervention that or types of user: both the assessment process can lead directly to project road-mapping. and the actions informed by the assessment The framework is embedded within a larger may be carried out by a range of partners, approach (the CWRA) that outlines a process of including city government, local water utilities, planning and realising interventions. Moreover, civil society, private sector organizations and in developing the framework, we recognize other actors capable of exerting influence at the that cities need comprehensive evaluative urban scale. At the same time, a set of principles tools but often operate in resource-constrained embedded into the framework—stipulating the environments: they may lack the technical need for collaborative approaches, meaningful support, funding or time required to complete citizen participation, transparent governance an exhaustive evaluation. As an action-oriented and other elements we understand to be framework, the CWRF prioritises key issues fundamental in building resilience—means that related to water resilience, limits the number of the approach will not be unintentionally (or indicators required for baseline assessments, intentionally) biased by the local partner. and feeds directly into city action-planning. 54 CITY WATER RESILIENCE FRAMEWORK 55 THE CITY WATER RESILIENCE FRAMEWORK
DIMENSIONS OF RESILIENCE
emergency savings for households and businesses Promotion of water-related hazard insurance and The framework is structured around four high-level dimensions that describe the resilience of an urban water system. Dimensions organise the resilience assessment Provision of suf cient water quality and
and guide future action. They describe a fluid relationship between key elements of quantity for industry and commerceclimate-related displacement the water system and illustrate how each element relates to the others. Support for improved mobility through Protections around
water-based transportation
programmes and policies around water around policies and programmes Support for civil society institutions working
Effective communication of government ofgovernment communication Effective on water issues
participation around water issues water around participation Support for social cohesiveness and Active community engagement and and engagement community Active strong community networks Application of water sensitive design The first dimension outlines the need for effective leadership and strategy Incorporation of expert and technical knowledge Support for livelihoods into decision-making around water issues
Incorporation of local knowledge and culture into decision-making
that drive long-term decision-making around water resources and services, and Incorporation of social, environmental and economic bene ts into decision-making around water around water Empowered principles to buildings Long-term strategy development and collaborative decision-making between key actors. This dimension overlaps with Introduction and enhancement of Communities action planning around water s St ou ra Political leadership around r te water resilience issues pe ies g planning and finance s it Vi ic , which describes integrated processes around designing, urban water amenities ro un si P m on Proactive coordination around om downstream impacts C regulating and funding water programmes and projects. These elements focus Introduction of blue and green infrastructure to neighbourhoods LE Proactive coordination between and within NG AD government agencies EI E C on coordination across interdependent urban systems to plan for and respond to B R o L S o Proactive coordination between government, Urban land development and place-making n L H r a E I d private sector and civil society P G i b W & o n shocks and stresses, including the need for effective disaster response, a shared goal r a v U s & S t e e e Proactive coordination with y H T r around water landscapes c n d h T R relevant upstream stakeholders t a a l L A B with the dimension infrastructure and ecosystems. Infrastructure and ecosystems p n a a S A T c e s E E e i Promotion of clear stakeholder Provision of mental health services to H H G n roles and responsibilities describes the natural and man-made elements that make up the water system, reduce trauma around water hazards Y Dissemination of including natural features such as water sources and ecosystems, as well as water accurate data
Provision of physical health services to n
f
y
o
o t s i
reduce trauma around water hazards i l
t Effective regulation and enforcement e
treatment plants, distribution networks and all the various grey infrastructure that n i a
c
l o b i
i around quality of water service provision a
v u
s t
i r
g n v e
helps cities provide, protect and connect citizens through water. e u
o
Provision of safe S Enforcement of design guidelines and construction R
r o
l P
c standards for water infrastructure
drinking water e a
i
v c
t e
i l
t A n
b
c e Enforcement of land use
d a
s e t
f n i
s regulations and zoning f
a
u Such elements are critical in ensuring the health and wellbeing of city residents E
Provision of sanitation services E q
E Enforcement of transparent and accountable I and relate to the final dimension on the framework wheel, describing the basic N decision-making procedures F Universal affordabilitysanitation of water services and R A Active monitoring and P g conditions that sustain human life—access to water, sanitation and healthcare—and S r n evaluation of programmes o T d i E t R E n n e a n n C c U a Incorporation of redundancy into water the ways water can be a driver of attractive, vibrant and prosperous communities. In v t C N e l i e v environmental resources r A i P sources, networks and assets Active monitoring and evaluation of o d T t U N d n N I p m R F a e a E t Integrated planning across its emphasis on empowered local communities as a key ingredient of resilience, this e t & d a n u & A r interdependent urban systems Promotion of sustainable t r G g commercial water use s a E e l C IN t O N In Integrated planning with agriculture dimension overlaps with leadership and strategy, completing the circle. S N YS A and food supply chains T PL Promotion of sustainable E g household water use MS in Promotion of culture, processes and E d f n resources to enable innovation fe u c F M ti e e The goals that constitute each dimension and the sub-goals that make up each goal a ve bl nc Holistic assessment of social and environmental na A na a impacts of water programmes g ss tai in Protectionhabitats of critical and ecosystems aquatic em et us F e S nd Promotion of transparent nancial decision-making nt a procedures and disbursement are described in detail in the following pages. Effect isaster ive D Provision of suf cient nancial resources for R ry maintenance and upkeep of water infrastructure surface water resources esponse and Recove Protection of groundwater and ood protection Provision of suf cient nancial resources for new water programmes and projects
Water and sanitation pricing for cost
recovery and demand management
preparedness and response to water hazards water to response and preparedness Comprehensive hazard monitoring,
Promotion of community capacity for for capacity community of Promotion forecasting and early warning systems government for disaster recovery disaster for government response disaster ofCoordination
Ensuring adequate funds to to funds adequate Ensuring andpreparationrecovery
Promotion of diverse infrastructure for water infrastructure
operations and implementation
Ensuring adequate human capacity for water infrastructure
Promotion of reliable supply Active monitoring and evaluation of
chains for water infrastructure
Routine maintenance and upgrade of 56 CITY WATER RESILIENCE FRAMEWORK 57 THE CITY WATER RESILIENCE FRAMEWORK
emergency savings for households and businesses Promotion of water-related hazard insurance and
EMPOWERED STRATEGIC COORDINATED
Provision of suf cient water quality and COMMUNITIES VISION BASIN GOVERNANCE
quantity for industry and commerceclimate-related displacement
Support for improved mobility through Empowered communities are This goal refers to the need for Coordination among decision- Protections around
water-based transportation situated at the top of the wheel, consistent strategic vision that guides makers is a requirement for effective
programmes and policies around water around policies and programmes Support for civil society institutions working Effective communication of government ofgovernment communication Effective on water issues
participation around water issues water around participation Support for social cohesiveness and suggesting their essential role as all decisions around water resources. governance. This goal describes Active community engagement and and engagement community Active strong community networks
Application of water sensitive design Incorporation of expert and technical knowledge Support for livelihoods into decision-making around water issues Incorporation of local knowledge a pre-condition for urban water Water resilience is often included as the need for collaboration between and culture into decision-making
Incorporation of social, environmental and economic bene ts into decision-making around water around water Empowered resilience. This goal describes a an afterthought in political decisions government agencies working at principles to buildings Long-term strategy development and Introduction and enhancement of Communities action planning around water need for strong community input or incorporated late in planning different scales (local, municipal, s St ou ra Political leadership around r te water resilience issues pe ies g s it Vi ic to guide decisions around water, to processes. The goal of Strategic regional, national, etc.), and agencies urban water amenities ro un si P m on Proactive coordination around om downstream impacts assess decisions made and provide Vision focuses on government’s role or departments functioning in parallel C Introduction of blue and green infrastructure to neighbourhoods LE Proactive coordination between and within NG AD government agencies meaningful feedback on actions. in incorporating water resilience roles at the same scale. Coordinated EI E C B R o L S o Proactive coordination between government, Urban land development and place-making L H r Empowered communities are into long-term urban planning, with and Collaborative Governance also n I d a E P G private sector and civil society b W in r & o v a U s & S t necessary to inform and provide substantial and meaningful input refers to the need for partnerships e e e Proactive coordination with y H T r around water landscapes c n d h T R relevant upstream stakeholders t a a l L A B feedback on all decisions made from other stakeholder partners. between diverse stakeholders, and p n a a S A T c e s E E e i Promotion of clear stakeholder Provision of mental health services to H H G n towards improving urban water meaningful avenues of knowledge- Y roles and responsibilities reduce trauma around water hazards Incorporation of expert and technical Dissemination of management. sharing between government, civil accurate data knowledge into decision-making around
Provision of physical health services to n society and the private sector.
f
y
o
o t s i
reduce trauma around water hazards i water issues l
t Effective regulation and enforcement e
n i Active community engagement and a
c
l o b i
i around quality of water service provision a
v u Key decision-makers and technical staff involved
s t
i r
g participation around water issues n Proactive coordination between and within v
e
e u o in water resilience planning and implementation
Provision of safe S Enforcement of design guidelines and construction R
r o
l Mechanisms exist and are used by citizens government agencies P
c standards for water infrastructure
drinking water e a
i have access to knowledge resources. Avenues
v c
t e i
l to push for resilience initiatives, actively
t A n
b exist for sharing technical knowledge between Communication and coordination exists c e Enforcement of land use
d a s e
t participate in decision-making activities and
f n i
s regulations and zoning f subject matter experts to ensure programmes between different government agencies
a u E Provision of sanitation services E
q to provide feedback and challenge decisions
E Enforcement of transparent and accountable make use of best technical knowledge. operating at various administrative levels I related to water resilience through grassroots N decision-making procedures (including local, municipal, state and national F or citizen-led initiatives, including design and Universal affordabilitysanitation of water services and R agencies) and within government agencies A Active monitoring and Incorporation of local knowledge and P g S implementation of projects. r n evaluation of programmes o T d i (including between managerial and technical E t R E n n culture into decision-making Local, e a n n C c U a Incorporation of redundancy into water staff) to define and implement water priorities. v t C N e l indigenous knowledge and cultural attitudes are i e v environmental resources r A i P sources, networks and assets Effective communication of government Active monitoring and evaluation of o d T t U N d n N I p incorporated into decision-making to ensure m R F a e a E t Integrated planning across programmes and policies around water e t & d a Proactive coordination between n u & A r interdependent urban systems that planning practices are fully informed, Promotion of sustainable t r G g commercial water use s a E e l C IN t Updated and accurate information about water effective and appropriate to local contexts. government, private sector and civil society O N In Integrated planning with agriculture S N YS A and food supply chains use best practices, programmes and projects, T PL Mechanisms and platforms exist and are used Promotion of sustainable E g household water use MS in Promotion of culture, processes and and disaster preparedness is made available to E d to promote dialogue and deliberation between f n resources to enable innovation Long-term strategy development and action fe u residents through different channels, in local c F M ti e e government and non-government water related a ve bl nc Holistic assessment of social and environmental planning around water 1na A na a impacts of water programmes languages, gender-sensitive and reader friendly g ss tai in actors (including civil society, business and the Protectionhabitats of critical and ecosystems aquatic em et us F e S nd Promotion of transparent nancial decision-making formats. A shared vision for long-term goals and nt a procedures and disbursement private sector) around water and resilience Effect isaster ive D Provision of suf cient nancial resources for priorities is established to guide projects and R ry maintenance and upkeep of water infrastructure issues. surface water resources espon ecove ood protection se and R Protection of groundwater and Provision of suf cient nancial resources Support for civil society institutions working programmes that build water resilience with for new water programmes and projects
Water and sanitation pricing for cost
recovery and demand management on water issues consistency over time.
preparedness and response to water hazards water to response and preparedness Comprehensive hazard monitoring, Promotion of community capacity for for capacity community of Promotion Promotion of clear stakeholder roles and
LEADERSHIPforecasting and early warning systems & government for disaster recovery disaster for government response disaster ofCoordination Ensuring adequate funds to to funds adequate Ensuring andpreparationrecovery Support in the form of financial and information responsibilities ood protection Incorporation of social, environmental and Promotion of diverse infrastructure for resources and broad public engagement exists STRATEGY economic benefits into decision-making Laws, policies or norms exist to clearly define operations and implementation for local non-government institutions (civil roles and responsibilities among relevant water Ensuring adequate human capacity for society, academia, media) working on water around water water infrastructure stakeholders. Promotion of reliable supply issues, to generate debate around policies, Long-term strategic planning takes into account Promotion of diverse infrastructureThischains for for water infrastructuredimension relates to the need for effective leadership and long-term implement initiatives and programmes around a range of potential benefits from increased Proactive coordination with relevant strategies that drive decisions around water resources and services. local water issues, and inform public policy. water resilience, including gains to society and Routine maintenance and upgrade of upstream stakeholders natural environment. Because elements of the water cycle are frequently managed across Support for social cohesiveness and strong Mechanisms are in place for communication community networks Political leadership around water resilience and coordination between city stakeholders a fragmented landscape of governance and regulation, integrated and relevant upstream stakeholders to mitigate issues Communities are socially cohesive, with support impacts from upstream water, energy and land and evidence-based decision-making is essential. Leadership around for strong ties between residents that help Strong political leadership around water uses and other activities. disseminate information and resources, and resilience issues exists to push resilience as a water resilience is often, but not necessarily, the domain of government enables them to learn from each other, self- priority issue in government decision-making. Proactive coordination around downstream organize and collectively act in times of need. operating at the municipal, regional or national level, and the goals and impacts sub-goals outlined in this dimension consider the need for inputs from a Mechanisms are in place to assess and mitigate negative effects of urban water use range of stakeholders. on downstream areas, including through coordination with relevant downstream stakeholders, monitoring and reporting, environmental impact assessments and stakeholder consultation. emergency savings for households and businesses Promotion of water-related hazard insurance and
Provision of suf cient water quality and
quantity for industry and commerceclimate-related displacement
Support for improved mobility through
Protections around
water-based transportation
programmes and policies around water around policies and programmes Support for civil society institutions working
Effective communication of government ofgovernment communication Effective on water issues
participation around water issues water around participation Support for social cohesiveness and Active community engagement and and engagement community Active strong community networks
Application of water sensitive design Incorporation of expert and technical knowledge Support for livelihoods into decision-making around water issues
Incorporation of local knowledge and culture into decision-making
Incorporation of social, environmental and economic bene ts into decision-making around water around water Empowered principles to buildings Long-term strategy development and Introduction and enhancement of Communities action planning around water s St ou ra Political leadership around r te water resilience issues pe ies g s it Vi ic urban water amenities ro CITYun WATER RESILIENCE FRAMEWORKsi THE CITY WATER RESILIENCE FRAMEWORK 58 P m on Proactive coordination around 59 om downstream impacts C Introduction of blue and green infrastructure to neighbourhoods LE Proactive coordination between and within NG AD government agencies EI E C B R o L S o Proactive coordination between government, Urban land development and place-making L H r n I d a E P G private sector and civil society b W in r & o v a U s & S t e e e Proactive coordination with y H T r around water landscapes c n d h T R relevant upstream stakeholders t a a l L A B p n a a S A T c e s E E e i Promotion of clear stakeholder Provision of mental health services to H H G n roles and responsibilities reduce trauma around water hazards Y Dissemination of accurate data
Provision of physical health services to n
f
y
o
o t s i
reduce trauma around water hazards i l
t Effective regulation and enforcement
e
n i a
c
l o b EFFECTIVE ADAPTIVE AND SUSTAINABLE i
i around quality of water service provision a
v u
s t
i r
g n v
e
e u
o
Provision of safe S Enforcement of design guidelines and construction R
r o
l REGULATION AND INTEGRATED FUNDING AND P
c standards for water infrastructure
drinking water e a
i
v c
t e
i l
t A n
b
c e Enforcement of land use
d a
s e ACCOUNTABILITY PLANNING FINANCE t
f n i
s regulations and zoning f
a u E
Provision of sanitation services E q
E Enforcement of transparent and accountable I N decision-making procedures The goal of Effective Regulation and This goal refers to strategies for This goal refers to the need for F Universal affordabilitysanitation of water services and R A P Active monitoring and Accountability describes the need integrated programme and project sufficient funding for programs and g S r n evaluation of programmes o T d i E t R E n n e for a clear set of enforceable rules planning that can adapt to change projects related to building water a n n C c U a Incorporation of redundancy into water v t N e l i C r e v P environmental resources T A i sources, networks and assets Active monitoring and evaluation of o d t and regulations around activities and which allows for transformation resilience, and processes that ensure U N d n N I p m R F a e a E t Integrated planning across e t & d a n u & A r interdependent urban systems that affect water resources within in the wake of shocks and stresses. that money is raised and spent in Promotion of sustainable t r G g commercial water use s a E e l C IN t O N In Integrated planning with agriculture S N the urban water basin, including The goal encompasses coordination a transparent and efficient way. YS A and food supply chains T PL Promotion of sustainable E g the pollution, land-use planning between organizations and sectors While typically led by government, household water use MS in Promotion of culture, processes and E d f n resources to enable innovation fe u c F M ti e e and technical standards. A hybrid related directly and indirectly to how innovative approaches to project a ve bl nc Holistic assessment of social and environmental na A na a impacts of water programmes g ss tai in Protectionhabitats of critical and ecosystems aquatic em et us F goal, it bridges the two dimensions water services are provided in the finance should allow for private e S nd Promotion of transparent nancial decision-making nt a procedures and disbursement Effective Disaster of Leadership and Strategy, and urban area. and civil society stakeholders to Provision of suf cient nancial resources for R ry maintenance and upkeep of water infrastructure surface water resources esponse and Recove Protection of groundwater and ood protection Provision of suf cient nancial resources for new water programmes and projects Planning and Finance. participate in funding and financing
Water and sanitation pricing for cost
recovery and demand management
preparedness and response to water hazards water to response and preparedness Comprehensive hazard monitoring, Promotion of community capacity for for capacity community of Promotion Active monitoring and evaluation of
forecasting and early warning systems initiatives. government for disaster recovery disaster for government response disaster ofCoordination Ensuring adequate funds to to funds adequate Ensuring andpreparationrecovery programmes ood protection Dissemination of accurate data Promotion of diverse infrastructure for Accurate data is made available to key decision- Active monitoring and evaluation tracks ongoing Holistic assessment of social and operations and implementation makers in government, private sector and programme implementation and outcomes, to Ensuring adequate human capacity for environmental impacts of water water infrastructure civil society to inform programmes, policies allow for course corrections to programmes as Promotion of reliable supply needed, evaluate outcomes and provide lessons programmes Promotion of diverse infrastructurechains for for water infrastructure and research and establish current baseline conditions. learned for designing future programmes. Proposed water projects and programmes are evaluated using holistic cost-benefit
Routine maintenance and upgrade of Enforcement of design guidelines Incorporation of redundancy into water analysis that considers a range of social and environmental impacts. and construction standards for water sources, networks and assets infrastructure Water-related infrastructure assets and Promotion of transparent financial decision- networks are made sufficiently redundant Clear technical standards and design guidelines making procedures and disbursement for critical infrastructure assets and buildings so that assets can continue to function when Open financial procedures ensure that funds are are determined based on accepted best practices individual components are damaged or disbursed and used in a clear and transparent with input from technical experts, to ensure destroyed. Where appropriate, diverse sources way, including clear procurement processes high performance, efficiency and resistance to of water supply are developed to ensure that ensure water infrastructure contracts are natural hazards. redundancy in the type, location and scale of water supply sources, and to minimize the awarded fairly and efficiently. impact of threats to individual sources. Enforcement of land use regulations and Provision of sufficient financial resources 2 zoning Integrated planning across interdependent for maintenance and upkeep of water Regulations exist and are enforced to control urban systems infrastructure land use and urban expansion, specifically to reduce growth in high-exposure and water-poor Coordination exists between water agencies Adequate funds are made available in a PLANNING & areas. and other critical urban systems such as energy, timely and efficient way to support ongoing telecommunications, waste management water projects and programmes, including and transportation for information sharing Enforcement of transparent and maintenance of critical infrastructure. FINANCE and cooperation on topics related to water accountable decision-making procedures resilience, resulting in actions that reduce risk Provision of sufficient financial resources for Governance procedures are made clear and from shocks and stresses. new water programmes and projects This dimension relates to the need for integrated processes around open to all stakeholders, with disclosure about who makes decisions, what actions will be Integrated planning with agriculture and Adequate funds are made available in a timely and efficient way to finance new capital projects planning, regulating and funding water resilience programmes and implemented as a result, why decisions have food supply chains been made, and how they will be decided and and programmes that support water resilience. projects. Flexible and efficient processes are required to encourage implemented. Coordination between water agencies and Financial planning ensures that costs and actors involved in food production and supply funding are consistent over time. collaboration across interdependent urban systems, to regulate and — including agriculture and aquaculture — for Effective regulation and enforcement information sharing and cooperation on topics enforce rules, and to ensure that programmes aimed at building water around quality of water service provision Water and sanitation pricing for cost related to water resilience, to reduce the impact recovery and demand management resilience are sustainable over the long-term. Regulations exists and are enforced to ensure of water-related shocks and stresses on urban delivery of water services, including continuous food supply. Water pricing is in place to ensure both provision of sufficient quantity of high-quality affordability for vulnerable people and cost water for consumption and other uses, and Promotion of culture, processes and recovery for long-term system maintenance, and manage demand by discouraging excessive use. effective communication between service resources to enable innovation providers. Mechanisms and resources encourage innovative programmes and projects across government and non-government sectors related to water, including rapid prototyping and pilot programmes. emergency savings for households and businesses Promotion of water-related hazard insurance and
Provision of suf cient water quality and
quantity for industry and commerceclimate-related displacement
Support for improved mobility through
Protections around
water-based transportation
programmes and policies around water around policies and programmes Support for civil society institutions working
Effective communication of government ofgovernment communication Effective on water issues
participation around water issues water around participation Support for social cohesiveness and Active community engagement and and engagement community Active strong community networks
Application of water sensitive design Incorporation of expert and technical knowledge Support for livelihoods into decision-making around water issues
Incorporation of local knowledge and culture into decision-making
Incorporation of social, environmental and economic bene ts into decision-making around water around water Empowered principles to buildings Long-term strategy development and Introduction and enhancement of Communities action planning around water s St ou ra Political leadership around r te water resilience issues pe ies g s it Vi ic CITY WATER RESILIENCE FRAMEWORKurban water amenities ro un si THE CITY WATER RESILIENCE FRAMEWORK 60 P m on Proactive coordination around 61 om downstream impacts C Introduction of blue and green infrastructure to neighbourhoods LE Proactive coordination between and within NG AD government agencies EI E C B R o L S o Proactive coordination between government, Urban land development and place-making L H r n I d a E P G private sector and civil society b W in r & o v a U s & S t e e e Proactive coordination with y H T r around water landscapes c n d h T R relevant upstream stakeholders t a a l L A B p n a a S A T c e s E E e i Promotion of clear stakeholder Provision of mental health services to H H G n roles and responsibilities reduce trauma around water hazards Y Dissemination of
accurate data
Provision of physical health services to n
f o o
reduce trauma around water hazards s i
t y Effective EFFECTIVEregulation and enforcement EFFECTIVE ASSET PROTECTED
e
n
t
a
c i
o l i l
i around quality of water service provision i
v u
s
i r b g
v
e a
e t DISASTER MANAGEMENT NATURAL
o
Provision of safe S Enforcement of design guidelines and construction R
r n
l
u P standards for water infrastructure
drinking water e a
i
o
v
t e
i l c
t
n RESPONSE AND ENVIRONMENTS
c b
c e Enforcement of land use This goal describes the need to build
a A
s e t
f i
s regulations and zoning f
u E
Provision of sanitation services E and maintain high-quality man made q RECOVERY
E Enforcement of transparent and accountable This goal speaks to the need to I N decision-making procedures and natural assets, including grey, F harness the natural environment Universal affordabilitysanitation of water services and R Cities must be able to respond in blue and green infrastructure. It A Active monitoring and P g S as a resource for ensuring water r n evaluation of programmes o T d i a quick and effective manner to E t R E n n outlines best practices around design e a n n U C and sanitation services, high quality c a Incorporation of redundancy into water v t C N e l i e v minimize the impact of disaster environmental resources r A i P sources, networks and assets and upkeep to ensure that assets Active monitoring and evaluation of o d T t U N d amenities, and protection against n N I p m R F a e a E t Integrated planning acrossevents. This goal lists the elements continue to function in the face of e t & d a n u & A r interdependent urban systems water shocks and stresses. Promotion of sustainable t r G g commercial water use s a E e that contribute to this aim by l C IN t shocks and chronic stress. O N In Integrated planning with agriculture S N YS A and food supply chains ensuring coordination across T PL Promotion of sustainable E g Active monitoring and evaluation of household water use MS in Promotion of culture, processes and E d Active monitoring and evaluation of water f n resources to enable innovation actors, and describing effective fe u environmental resources c F M ti e e infrastructure a ve bl nc Holistic assessment of social and environmental disaster management and recovery na A na a impacts of water programmes Active monitoring and evaluation of natural g ss tai in Protectionhabitats of critical and ecosystems aquatic em et us F Active monitoring and evaluation of hydro- e S nd Promotion of transparent nancial decision-making practices. As a function of both assets and the environment ensures data is nt a procedures and disbursement Effect isaster infrastructural assets and networks ensures current, accurate and widely available. ive D Provision of suf cient nancial resources for R ry maintenance and upkeep of water infrastructure effective planning and robust physical surface water resources esponse and Recove data is current and accurate to help improve Protection of groundwater and ood protection Provision of suf cient nancial resources for new water programmes and projects infrastructures, this is a hybrid goal performance and reduce likelihood of failure. Water and sanitation pricing for cost Promotion of sustainable commercial water
recovery and demand management
preparedness and response to water hazards water to response and preparedness Comprehensive hazard monitoring,
Promotion of community capacity for for capacity community of Promotion forecasting and early warning systems government for disaster recovery disaster for government response disaster ofCoordination Ensuring adequate funds to to funds adequate Ensuring andpreparationrecovery bridging Planning and Finance and use Ensuring adequate human capacity for Infrastructure and Ecosystems. Programmes exist to encourage sustainable Promotion of diverse infrastructure for operations and implementation water infrastructure water use for significant commercial users operations and implementation Sufficient numbers of trained and including agriculturalists, energy suppliers, Ensuring adequate human capacity for Comprehensive hazard monitoring, water infrastructure knowledgeable staff exist to operate key manufacturers, tourism industries and others. Promotion of reliable supply Active monitoring and evaluation of forecasting and early warning systems infrastructure, including for both technical and chains for water infrastructure Hazard monitoring and modelling, forecasting managerial responsibilities. Promotion of sustainable household water and risk assessment predicts the likelihood use Routine maintenance and upgrade of of hazards and anticipate their potential Promotion of diverse infrastructure for Households and businesses use water resources impact, including spatial analysis of where flood protection in an efficient manner including, where impacts are most likely to be felt. Early warning Built (“grey”) and natural (“green”) flood appropriate, by adopting water-saving measures systems provide adequate advanced warning protection infrastructure protect key such as water-saving appliances, water to government, institutions, businesses and infrastructural assets, neighbourhoods, rationing, and use of recycled water for non- residents so they can evacuate or prepare for residences and businesses by reducing or essential purposes that do not include human hazards in-situ. eliminating the impact of fluvial, pluvial, consumption. reservoir and coastal flooding. Coordination of disaster response and Protection of critical aquatic habitats and recovery preparation 3 Promotion of reliable supply chains for ecosystems Detailed disaster response and recovery water infrastructure Policies and programs exist to protect critical coordination exist, with plans and procedures Supply chains servicing key water infrastructure natural ecosystems such as wetlands and forests that are current (have been updated recently), can withstand and recover from shocks and related to water supply, water retention, water collaborative (integrating all relevant city prolonged stresses, to ensure availability of quality management, and flooding attenuation. INFRASTRUCTURE & agencies and emergency responders), well- mechanical equipment, chemicals and other rehearsed and properly funded. materials. Protection of groundwater and surface ECOSYSTEMS water resources Ensuring adequate funds to government for Routine maintenance and upgrade of water disaster recovery infrastructure Protections exist to reduce or eliminate pollution and discharge into surface and This dimension relates to the infrastructure and ecosystems that enable City and local authorities, government Existing infrastructure is regularly maintained groundwater sources, reduce groundwater departments and agencies and other public and upgraded as needed to reduce likelihood of depletion and permit aquifer recharge to ensure cities to provide critical water services and that protect residents from authorities have access to funding or to failure. high quality water for human consumption, affordable disaster insurance sufficient to allow recreation and other needs. water-related hazards. Infrastructure and Ecosystems describes efforts recovery and continuation following shock to protect and enhance man-made and natural assets, and to ensure events or persistent stresses. assets are properly operated, maintained and monitored for optimal Promotion of community capacity for performance. preparedness and response to water hazards Mechanisms exist and are used to support and engage local institutions, civil society organisations, and communities in early warning systems and response to shocks and stresses. 62 CITY WATER RESILIENCELorem ipsum FRAMEWORK 63 THE CITY WATER RESILIENCE FRAMEWORK
emergency savings for households and businesses Promotion of water-related hazard insurance and
Provision of suf cient water quality and EQUITABLE HEALTHY URBAN PROSPEROUS
quantity for industry and commerceclimate-related displacement
Support for improved mobility through PROVISION SPACES COMMUNITIES Protections around OF ESSENTIAL
water-based transportation The goal of Healthy Urban Spaces This goal refers to a need to focus
programmes and policies around water around policies and programmes Support for civil society institutions working
Effective communication of government ofgovernment communication Effective on water issues participation around water issues water around participation describes the need for initiatives on the health of local economies,
Support for social cohesiveness and Active community engagement and and engagement community Active SERVICES strong community networks
Application of water sensitive design Incorporation of expert and technical knowledge Support for livelihoods into decision-making around water issues that foster safe and attractive urban support for diverse livelihoods, and Incorporation of local knowledge and culture into decision-making Incorporation of social, environmental and economic Essential water services include spaces for a range of users through access to economic opportunity for bene ts into decision-making around water around water Empowered principles to buildings Long-term strategy development and affordable water and sanitation, as Introduction and enhancement of Communities action planning around water water. It refers to the influence of those living and working in urban s St ou ra Political leadership around r te water resilience issues well as protections against water- pe ies g water as a driver of place-making and communities. This goal differs from s it Vi ic urban water amenities ro un si P m on Proactive coordination around related shocks and stresses such as urban regeneration, and as a vehicle “Sustainable Funding and Finance” in om downstream impacts C Introduction of blue and green flooding and drought. This hybrid infrastructure to neighbourhoods LE Proactive coordination between and within for improving the physical fabric of its emphasis on building prosperity NG AD government agencies EI E C B R o goal relates to the need to ensure urban communities and access to key for local residents and its focus L S o Proactive coordination between government, Urban land development and place-making L H r n I d a E P G private sector and civil society b W in that services are widely available to r & o amenities. on community-scale economic v a U s & S t e e e Proactive coordination with y H T r around water landscapes c n d all users relying on the urban water h T R relevant upstream stakeholders development initiatives rather than t a a l L A B p n a a S A T c e s system. Application of water sensitive design E E e infrastructure and programme i Promotion of clear stakeholder Provision of mental health services to H H G n Y roles and responsibilities principles to buildings reduce trauma around water hazards finance. Dissemination of Provision of mental health services to Design principles are broadly adopted to accurate data
incorporate considerations of water supply,
Provision of physical health services to n
f reduce trauma around water hazards o o Promotion of water-related hazard
reduce trauma around water hazards s i wastewater treatment and runoff into building
t y Effective regulation and enforcement
e
n
t
a
i In the wake of a shock or ongoing hazard events,
c o l
i l insurance and emergency savings for
i around quality of water service provision i design, in order to increase water efficiencies
v u
s i r b
g mental health services are made available to
v e a
e and minimize environmental degradation. households and businesses t
o
Provision of safe S Enforcement of design guidelines and construction R
r n residents to reduce psychological impacts.
l
u P standards for water infrastructure
drinking water e a
i Households and businesses have access to
o
v
t e
i l c
t n Introduction and enhancement of urban c b sufficient savings, accessible and affordable c e Enforcement of land use
a A
s e Provision of physical health services to t
f i
s regulations and zoning
f water amenities disaster insurance or relief funds to allow
u E
Provision of sanitation services E q reduce trauma around water hazards
E Enforcement of transparent and accountable Recreational facilities that enhance quality of recovery and continuity following shock events I N decision-making proceduresIn the wake of a shock or ongoing hazard events, or persistent stresses. F life—including pools, beaches, wetlands, vistas, Universal affordabilitysanitation of water services and R health services are made available to residents A Active monitoring and fountains, and other natural water features—are P g S r n evaluation of programmes to reduce impacts on health, including treatment o T d i made accessible to all residents. Protections around climate-related E t R E n n e a n of disease, malnutrition, contact with polluted n U C c a Incorporation of redundancy into water displacement v t C N e l i e v environmental resources r A i P sources, networks and assets water, etc. Active monitoring and evaluation of o d T t U N d n N I p Introduction of blue and green Policies exist that minimize displacement of m R F a e a E t Integrated planning across e t & d a n u & A r interdependent urban systems infrastructure to neighbourhoods vulnerable populations resulting from water- Promotion of sustainable t r G g Provision of safe drinking water commercial water use s a E e l C IN t related shocks and stresses (including climate O N In Integrated planning with agriculture Blue and green infrastructure is introduced to S N Households, business and institutions have YS A and food supply chains gentrification). When displacement is necessary, T PL help enhance existing natural assets’ ability to Promotion of sustainable E g continuous access to safe drinking water household water use MS in Promotion of culture, processes and policies ensure that resettlement is equitable, E d mitigate impact of shocks and stressors and f n resources to enable innovation fe u irrespective of season, time of day or geographic c F fair and adequately compensated. M ti e e improve quality of neighbourhood spaces. a ve bl nc Holistic assessment of social and environmental location within the urban area. na A na a impacts of water programmes 4 g ss tai in Protectionhabitats of critical and ecosystems aquatic em et us F e S nd Promotion of transparent nancial decision-making Provision of sufficient water quality and nt a procedures and disbursement Urban land development and place-making Effective Disaster Provision of sanitation services Provision of suf cient nancial resources for quantity for commercial uses R ry maintenance and upkeep of water infrastructure surface water resources esponse and Recove around water landscapes Protection of groundwater and ood protection Provision of suf cient nancial resources Households, business and institutions have for new water programmes and projects Businesses and industry have access to enough Water and sanitation pricing for cost Water is incorporated as an element in place- recovery and demand management access to improved sanitation (hygienically
preparedness and response to water hazards water to response and preparedness Comprehensive hazard monitoring, water, at an appropriate level of quality, to
HEALTH & for capacity community of Promotion forecasting and early warning systems making to enhance physical environments, government for disaster recovery disaster for government response disaster ofCoordination Ensuring adequate funds to to funds adequate Ensuring andpreparationrecovery separating human excreta from human contact) function and grow. ood protection and households do not need to share facilities. catalyse investment and help create public WELL-BEINGPromotion of diverse infrastructure for spaces that promote health, happiness and operations and implementation Support for improved mobility through Universal affordability of water and well-being. Ensuring adequate human capacity for water infrastructure water-based transportation
Promotion of reliable supply sanitation services Water is used as a means of transportation, This dimension relates to the healthPromotion of diverse and infrastructurechains forwell-being for water infrastructure of people and the role Safely managed water and sanitation services increasing urban mobility and connecting of water in ensuring that all urban residents can survive and thrive. It are made affordable to all users regardless of residents to opportunities and resources. Routine maintenance and upgrade of economic status. addresses the basic conditions that sustain human life—access to water, Support for livelihoods around water sanitation and healthcare—but also describes opportunities to harness Jobs and skills are developed, and new opportunities created for developing livelihoods water as a driver of attractive, vibrant and prosperous communities. around water. 64 CITY WATER RESILIENCE FRAMEWORK 65 THE CITY WATER RESILIENCE FRAMEWORK
SELECTING RESILIENCE INDICATORS
Selecting appropriate indicators is critical for ensuring that the CWRF represents an effective assessment of city water resilience. As part of the team’s research, we reviewed current best practices around the use of indicators in creating tools and frameworks for assessing resilience. These guidelines inform how specific indicators for each CWRF sub-goal are selected. For the full review of the use of indicators in measuring resilience and bibliography see Annex B: Indicators Review and Best Practices.
WHAT ARE INDICATORS?
Indicators are a means of “encapsulating a through official census records as well as surveys. complex reality in a single construct” (Vincent, Alternatively, subjective indicators record •• Binary—that represent a “yes” or “no” In addition to objective and subject indicators, 2004) by measuring related conditions or responses from individuals to survey questions. answers as a zero or one. other indicators include measurements of component parts when direct measurement is Subjective indicators of resilience “make use of •• Likert Scale—where numbers between one functionality as a binary yes/no, which are often not possible. They “provide information either on people’s knowledge of their own resilience and and five are assigned to responses depending used to describe infrastructure, including, for matters of wider significance than that which is the factors that contribute to it” (Jones 2018) on whether respondents feel “strong instance, whether infrastructure can continue actually measured, or on a process or trend that and “therefore [relate] to an individual’s cognitive agreement,” “strong disagreement”, etc. to perform a function in the wake of a disaster otherwise might not be apparent (Hammond and affective self-evaluation of their household’s (Crown Agents, 2016); and cost-based indicators et al, 1995)” (Vincent, 2004). Indicators may capabilities and capacities in responding to risk” •• Bounded ranges—that describe specific such as “cost of resilience” or Cost Benefit scenarios describing best and worst come from pre-existing data sources (e.g. census (Jones and Tanner, 2017). These indicators can Analysis that measure resilience through scenarios, assigning scores to each (e.g. information) or be collected by surveyors (e.g. be used independently, or in combination with totalling the financial impacts of disasters and/ 1-5), and ask participants to choose which surveys, interviews and focus groups), and may objective indicators. or putting monetary value on cost improvements scenario best describes their current state. describe information collected for the household, for resilience activities (Crown Agents, 2016). community, or national levels. Subjective responses can be translated into •• Thresholds—in which responders answer Using this approach, a higher cost reflects lower numerical values for inclusion in an index in open questions about current conditions overall resilience (Bene, 2013). Indicators can be either objective or subjective. multiple ways (CRI Vol. 4): (e.g. “to what extent does your city provide Objective indicators typically use quantitative flood mitigation measures…”) with a measurements such as economic or demographic score corresponding with worst and best information related to employment, income, age, outcomes, respectively, but with no specific access to education, etc. and may be gathered scenarios defined for scores. 66 CITY WATER RESILIENCE FRAMEWORK 67 GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS
GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS
City Water Resilience Approach (CWRA) – Governance – The management of a system that all people living and working there survive certain groups more heavily impacted by shocks A five-step process to building the resilience of or organization, including the actors, rules, and thrive in the face of shocks and stresses and stresses than others including, for instance, urban water systems. The approach includes a and norms involved. Water governance refers related to climate change. A resilient water socio-economic conditions such as poverty, sequence of actions that begins with initiatives specifically to the mechanisms through which system is one with the capacity to provide high low educational attainment, limited access to understand and assess the system, and water services are provided to users, and implies quality water services, protect against water- to healthcare and limited access to critical continues through developing, implementing and the organizational structures, relationships, related hazard and connect citizens through infrastructure. monitoring an action plan. norms and actors involved, including water-based transportation and initiatives. stakeholders involved indirectly in water services Water Basin – The geographic area in which City Water Resilience Framework (CWRF) – through interdependent urban systems. Shocks – A sudden or unexpected hazard event precipitation collects and drains to a common A framework used within the City Water that has the potential to disrupt normal urban outlet. Communities within a water basin are Resilience Approach to assess the city’s current Hybrid Goal – Within the CWRF lens, hybrid functions and threatens human life and property tied together by natural hydrological processes, resilience. The CWRF uses a set of indicators to goals are goals that relate to more than one irrespective of administrative or political help cities identify strengths and weaknesses dimension of resilience and so overlap two Stresses – Chronic conditions, including both distinctions. in their water management, and guides action different dimensions. socioeconomic realities such as poverty, urban planning based on this assessment. The CWRF is expansion and pollution, and persistent climactic OurWater – A digital tool developed as part deployed during Step 2 of the CWRA. Indicator – An indicator helps evaluate a complex conditions that can reduce services and impede of the City Water Resilience Assessment, reality or condition by measuring related quality of life over time. OurWater helps cities understand and map their Dimension – The four critical areas under conditions through the use of specific, qualitative water systems by recording and visualizing the which resilience initiatives can be categorized. or quantitative questions. Sub-goal – Sub-goals describe the most specific relationships between key stakeholders and Dimensions of resilience are represented in the elements of resilience, the most granular infrastructural assets. innermost ring of the CWRF lens. Interdependencies – Interdependencies objectives, which are critical to achieving the describe the relationship between related urban aspirations articulated as goals. Sub-goals are Watershed – see Water Basin. Factors of Resilience – As part of the research systems and infrastructural assets. For instance, represented in the third layer of the CWRF lens, behind developing the wheel, stakeholders in the bi-directional impacts of energy systems on sitting beneath both dimensions and goals. eight cities were asked to describe the positive water service delivery is one example of system and negative factors that contributed to or interdependencies. Tool – Tools are used to reduce the time or detracted from resilience in their respective city. cost required to achieve a defined objective or Methodology – a system of defined methods or outcome. Framework – An overarching system of ideas or activities which serve to solve a specific problem. concepts that are used to assess, plan or decide Urban – Related to the city or surrounding something. Qualities of Resilience – Resilient systems territories directly dependent on the city. Urban exhibit seven critical qualities: reflectiveness, water systems include all territories and actors Goal – The twelve objectives to be achieved as robustness, redundancy, flexibility, involved in the provision, treatment, distribution cities work towards resilience. Goals represent resourcefulness, inclusiveness, integration. of water for urban stakeholders. the second ring of CWRF lens, sitting beneath dimensions and above sub-goals. Resilience – The capacity of cities to function so Vulnerability – The conditions that makes 68 CITY WATER RESILIENCE FRAMEWORK 69 BIBLIOGRAPHY
BIBLIOGRAPHY
100 Resilient Cities. (2017). Greater Miami and the City of Cape Town (2018). Water Services and the Cape Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Sahely, H. R., Kennedy, C. A., & Adams, B. J. (2005). Beaches, Preliminary Resilient Assessment. url: http://www. Town Urban Water Cycle. url: https://resource.capetown. (2001). Climate change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation and Developing sustainability criteria for urban infrastructure mbrisingabove.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/City- gov.za/documentcentre/Documents/Graphics%20and%20 Vulnerability, Summary for Policymakers, WMO. systems. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 32(1), 72- Context.pdf educational%20material/Water%20Services%20and%20 85. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2012). Urban%20Water%20Cycle.pdf Adger, W. N., Brooks, N., Bentham, G., Agnew, M., & Eriksen, Annex, I. (2012). Managing the risks of extreme events and Schlör, H., Venghaus, S., & Hake, J. F. (2018). The FEW-Nexus S. (2005). New indicators of vulnerability and adaptive Crichton, D. (1999). The risk triangle. Natural disaster disasters to advance climate change adaptation. Sciences, city index–measuring urban resilience. Applied Energy, 210, capacity. Norwich: Tyndall Centre for Climate Change management, 102, 103. 10, 97-104. 382-392. Research. Cobb, C. W., & Rixford, C. (1998). Lessons learned from Jiménez, A. (SIWI), Deunff., H. (SIWI), Avello, P. (SIWI)., Sherrieb, K., Norris, F. H., & Galea, S. (2010). Measuring Allan, J. A., & Allan, T. (2002). The Middle East water the history of social indicators (Vol. 1). San Francisco: Scharp., C. (UNICEF) (2016). Enabling Environment and capacities for community resilience. Social indicators question: Hydropolitics and the global economy (Vol. 2). Ib Redefining Progress. Water Governance. UNDP/WGF SIWI, UNICEF publication. research, 99(2), 227-247. Tauris. Crown Agents (2016). Measuring Resilience. London: UK Jayaratna, N. (1994). Understanding and evaluating Simpson, D. M., & Katirai, M. (2006). Indicator issues and Arup and The Rockefeller Foundation. (2014a). City Department for International Development. methodologies: NIMSAD, a systematic framework. proposed framework for a disaster preparedness index Resilience Index. Research Report Volume 1: Desk Study. McGraw-Hill, Inc. (DPi). University of Louisville, 49. Cutter, S. L. (2016). The landscape of disaster resilience Arup and The Rockefeller Foundation. (2014b). City indicators in the USA. Natural hazards, 80(2), 741-758. Jones, L. (2017). New methods in resilience measurement: Spiller, M. (2016). Adaptive capacity indicators to assess Resilience Index. Research Report Volume 3: Urban early insights from a mobile phone panel survey in Myanmar sustainability of urban water systems–Current application. Cutter, S. L., Barnes, L., Berry, M., Burton, C., Evans, E., Measurement Report 3. using subjective tools. Overseas Development Institute. Science of the Total Environment, 569, 751-761. Tate, E., & Webb, J. (2008). A place-based model for London: UK. Available here. Arup and The Rockefeller Foundation. (2016). City understanding community resilience to natural disasters. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs Resilience Index. Research Report Volume 3 Urban Global environmental change, 18(4), 598-606. Jones, L., & Tanner, T. (2017). ‘Subjective resilience’: using (2018, May 16) 68% of the world population projected to Measurement Report 4: Measuring City Resilience. perceptions to quantify household resilience to climate live in urban areas by 2050, says UN. Cutter, S. L., Burton, C. G., & Emrich, C. T. (2010). Disaster extremes and disasters. Regional Environmental Change, Arup and The Rockefeller Foundation. (2016). Research resilience indicators for benchmarking baseline conditions. Retrieved from https://www.un.org/development/desa/en/ 17(1), 229-243. Report Volume 5: Lessons from the Pilots 5. Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, news/population/2018-revision-of-world-urbanization- 7(1). Kaly, U. L., Pratt, C., & Mitchell, J. (2005). Building resilience prospects.html Bahadur, A. V., Peters, K., Wilkinson, E., Pichon, F., Gray, in SIDS: the environmental vulnerability index. Final Report. K., & Tanner, T. (2015). The 3As: Tracking resilience across Da Silva, J., Kernaghan, S., & Luque, A. (2012). A systems United Nations International Strategy for Disaster SOPAC, UNEP. BRACED. London: Overseas Development Institute (ODI). approach to meeting the challenges of urban climate Reduction (UNISDR). (2015). Disaster Resilience Scorecard change. International Journal of Urban Sustainable Leichenko, R. M., & O’brien, K. L. (2002). The dynamics of for Cities. The United Nations Office for Disaster Reduction, Bahri, A. (2012). Integrated urban water management. Development, 4(2), 125-145. rural vulnerability to global change: the case of southern Version 2.2: 56. The Background Papers. Global Water Partnership (GWP) Africa. Mitigation and adaptation strategies for global Technical Committee (TEC), Stockholm, Sweden. Diffenbaugh, N. S., Giorgi, F., Raymond, L., & Bi, X. (2007). United Nations International Strategy for Disaster change, 7(1), 1-18. Indicators of 21st century socioclimatic exposure. Reduction (UNISDR). (2004). Living with Risk: A Global Béné, C. (2013). Towards a quantifiable measure of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(51), Mercy Corps and USAID. (2016). Urban Resilience Review of Disaster Reduction Initiatives, Volume 1. United resilience. IDS Working Papers, 2013(434), 1-27. 20195-20198. Measurement: An Approach Guide and Training Curriculum. Nations. Béné, C., Wood, R. G., Newsham, A., & Davies, M. (2012). Eriksen, S. H., & Kelly, P. M. (2007). Developing credible Meerow, S., Newell, J. P., & Stults, M. (2016). Defining urban Vincent, K. (2004). Creating an index of social vulnerability Resilience: new utopia or new tyranny? Reflection about the vulnerability indicators for climate adaptation policy resilience: A review. Landscape and urban planning, 147, to climate change for Africa. Tyndall Center for Climate potentials and limits of the concept of resilience in relation assessment. Mitigation and adaptation strategies for global 38-49. Change Research. Working Paper, 56(41). to vulnerability reduction programmes. IDS Working change, 12(4), 495-524. Papers, 2012(405), 1-61. Milman, A., & Short, A. (2008). Incorporating resilience into Walker, J., & Cooper, M. (2011). Genealogies of resilience: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations sustainability indicators: An example for the urban water From systems ecology to the political economy of crisis Blair, E. (2015). A reflexive exploration of two qualitative (2016). Resilience Index Measurement and Analysis (RIMA- sector. Global Environmental Change, 18(4), 758-767. adaptation. Security dialogue, 42(2), 143-160. data coding techniques. Journal of Methods and II). Rome. Measurement in the Social Sciences, 6(1), 14-29. Proag, V. (2014). The concept of vulnerability and resilience. Füssel, H. M. (2010). Review and quantitative analysis of Procedia Economics and Finance, 18, 369-376. Brooks, N. (2003). Vulnerability, risk and adaptation: A indices of climate change exposure, adaptive capacity, conceptual framework. Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Quinlan, A. E., Berbés‐Blázquez, M., Haider, L. J., & sensitivity, and impacts. Research Working Paper, 38(38), 1-16. Peterson, G. D. (2016). Measuring and assessing resilience: Holling, C. S. (1973). Resilience and stability of ecological broadening understanding through multiple disciplinary Cardona, O. D., van Aalst, M. K., Birkmann, J., Fordham, M., systems. Annual review of ecology and systematics, 4(1), perspectives. Journal of Applied Ecology, 53(3), 677-687. McGregor, G., & Mechler, R. (2012). Determinants of risk: 1-23. exposure and vulnerability. 70 CITY WATER RESILIENCE FRAMEWORK 71 ANNEX A: DATA ANALYSIS
ANNEX A DATA ANALYSIS
This document describes the methods used to analyse data collected as part of fieldwork for the City Water Resilience Approach (CWRA), with missions undertaken in five cities between April and June, 2018. This annex outlines the steps taken to ensure rigor and consistency during this process.
Section 1 describes how the project team analysed data from fieldwork collected during missions. The Arup team used observations from these missions to develop a draft City Water Resilience Framework (CWRF), a resource developed as part of this project to help cities assess current actions and identify priority areas for future action.
Section 2 describes the Global Knowledge Exchange 2018 (GKE), a three-day event hosted by Arup with support from the Resilience Shift and the Rockefeller Foundation, and held at the Lloyd’s Register Foundation in London from August 21-23rd 2018. This document details two validation workshops facilitated during the GKE, and how the results from those exercises shaped future iterations of the City Water Resilience Framework (CWRF) following the GKE. For an overview of the event, including a full list of attendees and lessons learned, see the Reflections on the Global Knowledge Exchange 2018 report. 72 CITY WATER RESILIENCE FRAMEWORK 73 ANNEX A: DATA ANALYSIS
1. FIELDWORK DATA 1.2 DATA 1.3.1 GROUPING FACTORS INTO re-evaluated and grouped into their best fit THEMES AND SUB-THEMES theme and/or sub-theme, or combined into new Arup and SIWI facilitators recorded and ANALYSIS sub-themes. observations in all in-country engagements in For each record in the spreadsheet, we added Section 1 of this report describes data collection a single ‘master’ spreadsheet, which contained one theme and one sub-theme as new columns, based on the positive and negative factors 1.3.2 DERIVING SUB-GOALS FROM SUB- and analysis for fieldwork undertaken between information about the location of engagements, THEMES April and August 2018. participants, and the positive and negative recorded for that record. Where there was not factors of resilience associated with various enough information to determine positive or The team combined overlapping or redundant shocks and stresses, i.e. the issues that contribute negative factors, a null value was entered. sub-themes and, where diverse factors 1.1 OBJECTIVES to, or inhibit, resilience in each city. The initial All records were categorised according to a list were grouped into a single sub-theme, data set consisted of 1,577 separate records, of twelve themes identified through a literature split sub-themes into smaller groups. We The overarching objective of the data analysis of which 1,348 records contained information review (a priori coding). Themes were value- renamed the resulting sub-themes as “sub- process was to use fieldwork data to draw about factors of resilience. neutral, describing current conditions (positive or goals” – measurable, positive factors that comparisons across cities about common negative) rather than aspirations (“stakeholders” contribute towards the resilience of urban approaches and obstacles to improving urban rather than “empowered stakeholders”) (see water governance (e.g. “effective mechanisms water resilience, by aggregating individual 1.3 METHODOLOGY “Table 1”). Themes were not used in subsequent for community engagement” is a sub-goal observations into generalized principles. These stages of the analysis, but were useful to help of “empowered stakeholders”). This process principles include groupings of factors (‘sub- The method of analysis uses a combination organize and expedite the grouping of sub- resulted in 61 sub-goals. goals’) and groupings (‘goals’). of ‘emergent thematic’ and ‘a priori’ coding themes. Records were grouped by city and techniques to identify key themes. In emergent completed sequentially, with one member of the Fieldwork engagements consisted of workshops, thematic coding, the coder identifies categories team assigned to each city. (1) Sub-goals were initially called “indicators” during the process. However, we found that this terminology was focus groups and interviews conducted in Hull, on-the-fly through the process of reviewing raw confusing, and have changed it subsequently for the sake Mexico City, Cape Town, Amman and Miami. data, while in a priori coding, the coder defines Separately, we assigned a sub-theme to each of clarity. Indicators is now used exclusively to refer to the Arup staff facilitated engagements, working with categories before data is reviewed, and each lowest level of analysis, i.e. the metrics used to measure sub- record (emergent thematic coding). These were goals. the Stockholm International Water Institute record assigned its best fit (Blair, 2015). Coupling not predetermined but reflected loose buckets (SIWI), 100 Resilient Cities and local city a priori and emergent qualitative analytic created for each record. This process ultimately 1.3.3 VALIDATING SUB-GOALS partners. methods enabled the work to build on previous resulted in 77 different sub-themes derived as research insights while also remaining open to part of the factors database review. Sub-themes The analysis methodology borrows from the the possibility of new themes revealed through were identified in a new column Sub-Theme 1 in City Resilience Index (CRI) tool in both the data exploration. the spreadsheet. way observations were aggregated, and the terminology used to describe groups of factors The following methodology describes how When all records had been reviewed and tagged, at various scales (i.e. ‘indicators’, ‘goals’, and the team developed an initial list of sub-goals records tagged with an “other” sub-theme were ‘dimensions’). The CWRA builds on knowledge and goals (Section 2.1 – 2.4) from stakeholder generated and refined in developing the CRI, engagements, and how we then combined this which has been disseminated widely, and that list with other data sources – including a) lessons uses similar terminology to reduce the learning learned from a review of literature, b) expertise curve needed for cities to employ the CWRF. from Arup facilitators – to develop a draft version Table 1 Goals and sub-goals that were identified in of goals, sub-goals and dimensions (2.5 – 2.6) to Initial list of themes -- Management of assets -- Multi-stakeholder governance and used to classify collaboration this process were incorporated into the City incorporate into the CWRF. factors in a priori -- Community role in resilience Water Resilience Framework assessment tool, coding -- Data and forecasting -- Other which was tested through workshopping with -- Effective regulation -- Politics and leadership representatives from each city during the Global -- Solution design Knowledge Exchange (GKE) hosted by Arup from -- Emergency preparedness and response August 21-23, 2018. -- Financial resilience -- Governance -- Interdependencies between critical systems 74 CITY WATER RESILIENCE FRAMEWORK 75 ANNEX A: DATA ANALYSIS
To ensure that each sub-goal contributes to stakeholders”). Table 2: overall resilience of the system, groups were List of refined -- Accurate baseline data -- Equal provision of basic services 1.3.5 VALIDATING GOALS AND SUB-GOALS sub-goals, mapped against the “seven qualities of resilience” derived from sub- -- Adequate disaster insurance or savings for -- Expanded capacity through new (integrated, inclusive, reflective, resourceful, The team reduced a combined pool of 105 themes households and business infrastructure robust, redundant, flexible) (Arup and the sub-goals (the result of the factors database -- Adequate financial resources -- Flexible and innovative project planning Rockefeller Foundation, 2014). processing, and including new sub-goals -- Adequate human capital and technical -- Forecasting and modelling introduced during the workshop) to 72 sub-goals knowledge -- Horizontal communication and Finally, we validated one quarter of all records by eliminating overlapping or redundant sub- -- Adoption of water catchment and storage coordination across government (assigned randomly, excluding null values) against goals and/or breaking apart overly broad sub- the original dataset to ensure that each factor goals. -- Adoption of water recycling and savings -- Illegal use of water resources could reasonably be assigned to one of the 56 -- Affordable water supply and basic services -- Implementation of resilience measures consolidated sub-goals. A full list of final sub- Similarly, we reduced a combined pool of 39 -- Appropriate pricing to ensure cost recovery -- Incorporation of local knowledge and goals is provided in Table 2. goals to a final list of 12 goals. The initial “long and manage demand cultural attitudes list” of goals was developed with reference to -- Collaboration across political parties -- Initiatives to reduce psychological impact 1.3.4 DERIVING GOALS FROM SUB-GOALS CRI goals, which had been discussed at length on residents During two internal workshops the team during city engagements. At the same time, -- Communication of project co-benefits to reviewed the initial list of sub-goals and grouped these goals were validated in internal exercises users -- Innovative financing and efficient use of them into broader buckets, which would in which teams grouped sub-goals into logical -- Community engagement with resilience funds ultimately become ‘goals’. In the first workshop, categories, and were allowed to modify or issues -- Innovative technical knowledge sharing participants grouped the initial set of sub- eliminate goals or propose entirely new goals to -- Coordination with agriculture and food -- Long-term planning and continuity of goals into twelve buckets (without referring best match the group of sub-goals. These and the production systems planning programmes to themes). In the second workshop, a similar additional goals provided later by SIWI reflect a -- Coordination with business and economic -- Maintenance and upgrade of existing exercise was undertaken. However, this time sub- combination of fieldwork, literature and previous development infrastructure goals from the database analysis were combined project experience. - Coordination with energy systems -- Management, protection and expansion of with new sub-goals derived two other sources: - natural assets field experience from the Arup subject matter At this point, SIWI introduced an additional 8 -- Coordination with housing systems experts, and conclusions from the literature goals and 32 sub-goals, developed based on the -- Coordination with multiple urban systems -- Measures to reduce groundwater depletion and permit aquifer recharge review. Workshop participants then grouped initial database master list, their own experiences -- Coordination with public safety sub-goals into larger categories. Again, without facilitating engagements as part of the CWRF -- Minimized urban displacement due to -- Coordination with regional security reference to the initial themes, the workshop and elsewhere, and in consultation with Arup’s water shocks and stressors systems teams produced 12-14 category buckets, roughly initial list of sub-goals. Again, the SIWI list of -- Monitoring and evaluation consistent with the results from the earlier goals and sub-goals combined with Arup’s own -- Coordination with telecommunications -- Political leadership around resilience issues exercise, and aligned with the 12 goals described list, with similar or redundant goals eliminated, systems in the CRI. and sub-goals regrouped into the appropriate -- Coordination with transportation systems -- Presence of empowered institutions with clear resilience mission category. A full list of sub-goals provided by SIWI -- Coordination with waste management Finally, these buckets were renamed as goals, is described in Table 3. systems -- Prevention and management of water- describing positive or desired characteristic related disease -- Data sharing, public access to information contributing to resilience (e.g. the theme of and dissemination -- Prioritization of key projects “stakeholders” becomes a goal of “empowered -- Diverse sources of water supply -- Public education around water resilience issues -- Effective policies to minimize deprivation and risk in vulnerable communities -- Robust technical standards and design guidelines -- Effective regulation of land use and development -- Stakeholder engagement, public participation and inclusive decision making -- Effective regulation of pollution -- Transparent and accountable governance -- Effective regulation of water supply and environmental impact -- Vertical collaboration within government -- Efficient government bureaucracy -- Emergency preparedness and response enforcement of regulations 76 CITY WATER RESILIENCE FRAMEWORK 77 ANNEX A: DATA ANALYSIS
Table 3: List of sub-goals -- Adequate human resources and capacity -- Inclusive citizen’s participation (across from SIWI for citizen participation groups, age, inclusion of minority, 1.3.6 DERIVING DIMENSIONS FROM -- Authorities are accountable to citizens for vulnerable people) in different stages of GOALS their actions and decisions taken decision-making process Finally, we assigned goals to one of four -- Budget allocated to include vulnerable -- Increase and improve citizen capacity to dimensions (health and well-being, leadership groups in participation processes plan, self-organize and cope with disasters/ and strategy, planning and finance, and uncertainties infrastructure and ecosystems), aligned with the -- Citizens are included in the process of City Resilience Index. designing the participatory procedures -- Information systems and platforms to access information by public -- Clear technical standards and design Where goals could reasonably be grouped -- Long term strategic planning guidelines into multiple dimensions, we situated them in -- Communication and dissemination of -- Mechanisms in place to enforce compliance overlapping or ‘hybrid’ dimensions. For example, project co-benefits to users of rules and regulations the goal “empowered stakeholders”, which -- Deliberation platforms to reach a -- Mechanisms in place to impose sanctions describes community inputs into governing consensus among stakeholders on authorities if the implemented action is processes, contributes both to community deemed inappropriate -- Diagonal communication and collaboration “health and well-being” and to “leadership and between government private sector and -- Mechanisms that enable citizens to get strategy” decisions, and therefore occupies a civil society feedback and challenge decisions space between the two. -- Education for active/meaningful -- Policies targeted to include vulnerable participation groups in participation processes 1.4 CONCLUSION -- Emergency, immediate response, post- -- Presence of participatory advisory councils disaster recovery plans in place or committee The resulting list of sub-goals, goals and dimensions are the direct result of aggregating -- Equity in access to information -- Public hearings take place between and refining factors database, along with some (information are available in different local governments and users, or service additional sub-goals from a previous literature languages, gender friendly tools, etc.) providers and users. review and expert input from Arup and SIWI. -- Recognition of local indigenous knowledge -- Established local administrative units to These were validated at the Global Knowledge towards improved decision making facilitate citizen’s participation Exchange. -- Established strong community networks -- Sanctions in place for efficient use of water resources -- Established strong stakeholder networks (between government and citizen’s) -- There are decision making units at different governance level -- Established strong stakeholder networks (within the government) -- Experiential and experimental learning to improve understanding and ability to better response to disasters -- Feedback systems/platforms available and accessible by public 78 CITY WATER RESILIENCE FRAMEWORK 79 ANNEX A: DATA ANALYSIS
2. GLOBAL KNOWLEDGE Exercise 1: Recording Process: EXCHANGE DATA Quadrant During the event, facilitators captured the results from Workshop each round, or dimension, by taking a photograph of the ANALYSIS Relevance Grid after all indicators had been placed, this would inform the quantitative element of the results. Section 2 outlines data collection and analysis 1.2 GKE DATA VALIDATION In addition, each group was assigned a rapporteur who undertaken between August and November EXERCISES captured comments, feedback and discussion which took 2018. It describes the exercises facilitated by place during the exercise, this would contribute to the qualitative results of the workshop. In some instances, Arup at the GKE to validate a draft of the CWRF, During the conference, two workshops facilitated the evaluation of the current framework and indicators were excluded from the grid as the group how those workshops were analysed to inform felt they were unnecessary, in cases such as these the changes to the framework, and subsequent steps indicators. The workshops were conducted in rapporteur’s qualitative notes would support this decision four groups defined by the cities represented: taken to analyse and refine the CWRF. Objectives: by capturing why this decision had been made. The objectives of this exercise were to identify which •• Group 1: Kingston upon Hull indicators participants felt were more valuable and how Challenges: realistic they were to measure. While some teams had understood the exercise as 4 1.1 OBJECTIVES •• Group 2: Miami and the Beaches, Greater separate grids, others interpreted it as a spectrum. This Manchester and Rotterdam meant some of the value couldn’t be captured or indicators The GKE introduced the City Water Resilience Description: The CWRF has a three tiered approach: were put on borders between quadrants. Additionally, some Approach (CWRA), a process for guiding cities •• Group 3: Cape Town, Mexico City and individuals stacked indicator cards, making them invisible Amman • 4 dimensions, which contain from assessment to actions to build urban water • 12 goals, which contain to the camera. Finally in some instances teams found the language on the indicators unclear and discounted them, or resilience. The CWRA has been developed •• Group 4: Global (consisting of • 84 indicators. misunderstood them. While this is valuable feedback on the in partnership with eight cities, the five cities representatives from organizations with This workshop was conducted in 4 rounds, in which groups language, it meant some themes which were valuable were previously mentioned, plus as an additional three interests in multiple regions) placed the indicators of each dimension (printed onto cards) not considered as they weren’t properly explained. cities —Thessaloniki, Greater Manchester and into quadrants against 2 axis – measurability and relevance. Rotterdam—that were engaged remotely. The These two exercises, the Quadrant Workshop and the Wheel Workshop, are described in detail The quadrants represented one of 4 positions: event reaffirmed a customer value proposition • High relevance, high measurability; below. and participants’ general interest in project • High relevance, low measurability; outputs. By creating a forum for city stakeholders • Low relevance, high measurability; to share best practices and reflect on common • Low relevance, low measurability. challenges, the event also advanced a global network of water resilience practitioners and knowledge sharing.
More specifically, workshops held during the Exercise 2: Description: Wheel Workshop In this workshop participants aligned indicators with the GKE validated an early draft of the City Water goals they felt best represented them. Indicators were Resilience Framework (CWRF), a tool for helping printed on cards, being placed under the 12 goals, seen as cities define a vision for resilience, and measure the white and grey ring around the CWRF. the current status of water projects in their respective cities. This document describes those Recording Process: As with the first exercise, results were documented by workshops and summarizes how the output taking a photograph at the end. In addition, participants from the conference were captured, processed were invited to write any additional indicators they felt and incorporated into an updated version of the were missing on blank cards and include them in the CWRF. relevant goal. Objectives: The objective of the workshop was to identify how Challenges: indicators were interpreted by stakeholders with respect In this workshop, there was less discussion and so to context and scope but also the vernacular of differing qualitative feedback was more difficult to capture about specialists. the reasoning behind the locations of certain indicators or why some indicators were excluded. Additionally, some The wheel helped reveal how indicators could be better participants placed indicators in the centre of the circle placed to assist understanding of their purpose, but also indicating cross-cutting indicators that could be assigned to served to reveal goals which were more important to multiple goals or dimensions. This did not fit with the initial participants. intention of the exercise but was useful in understanding how indicators were interpreted. 80 CITY WATER RESILIENCE FRAMEWORK 81 ANNEX A: DATA ANALYSIS
Table 2: Criteria used to define placement of sub-goals in goals.
1.3 METHODOLOGY This resulted in each indicator having four CRITERIA ACTION be relevant, meaningful and not redundant to scores (one from each group) unless it had existing sub-goals. This section describes how information provided been deliberately excluded, hidden underneath If more than 2 groups agreed on Place in as part of the GKE data validation exercises was placement in Goal X Goal X another card or otherwise not present. Indicators 1.3.3.4 Changes to Goal and Sub-Goal Names collected and analysed and then used to modify status as being deliberately or unintentionally If 2 or fewer groups agreed on Proposed changes to existing goals and sub- the draft CWRF presented at the GKE. Because Revisit excluded was concluded from the notes taken by placement in Goal X goals were evaluated individually and some GKE validation feedback was provided in the the rapporteur where possible. were renamed in keeping with comments from form of verbal comments and/or notes from participants, and according to the following participants, some subjectivity was unavoidable The average, mode, minimum and maximum was principles, which ensure consistent naming of in this process. However, by establishing a set of 1.3.3 GKE EXERCISE 2: WHEEL WORKSHOP calculated from each indicators four scores. both goals and sub-goals. rules for interpreting and processing comments, Following consolidation, sub-goals from we attempted to introduce rigour to the process 1.3.2.2 Changes to Sub-Goals Based on Results of Exercise 2 were scored and validated to ensure •• Normative – names should describe ideal of interpreting this qualitative data. Exercise 1 methodological rigour and sub-goals/goals were or aspirational conditions rather than Rules were established to determine which sub- evaluated based on a set of rules decided before general categories. For instance, rather 1.3.1 CONSOLIDATING FEEDBACK FROM goals were removed from the framework based the workshop. than proposing “Urban Planning” as a goal, GKE on participant feedback, and which were kept in the framework suggests “Adaptive and As a first step, all photos and notes taken by the the framework or revisited with the possibility 1.3.3.1 Scoring and Validating Results of Exercise 2 Integrated Planning.” facilitators and rapporteurs were consolidated of modifying. Because feedback was subjective, Sub-goals were associated with a corresponding •• Concise – names should be concise. into one folder structure, organised according rules were written so that the majority of sub- parent goal based on where each group believed While the goal / sub-goal should be easily to group. An Excel spreadsheet was created goals were marked for further interrogation that sub-goal belonged (without seeing Arup’s understood from the name alone, additional to serve as a library of results, arranged by the based on comments by participants. own proposed placement of sub-goals). From information about each sub-goal can be 84 indicators listed as rows, and with columns the four goals assigned by the participants, contained in the description provided for referring to group and workshop. The comments Table 1: the most common was noted, along with the each. were extracted from the rapporteur’s notes and Criteria used to define actions for discarding, keeping level of agreement for each sub-goal. The level or revisiting indicators according to how relevant and •• Descriptive – where possible, names entered into the cells of the spreadsheet with of agreement was scored from 0-4 based on measurable GKE participants believed them to be. should favour descriptive adjectives such as respect to the indicator they concerned and the number of groups who voted for the most “accurate” and “transparent” over generic group they originated from. common goal. This common goal was then CRITERIA ACTION adjectives such as “good” or “adequate.” compared to the initially proposed goal and In some cases, it may be difficult to agree 1.3.2 GKE EXERCISE 1: QUADRANT If more than one group scored as a 0 or 1 Remove highlighted if there was disagreement between on wording that is both descriptive and WORKSHOP If more than one group scored as a 2 Revisit how the sub-goal had been initially categorized, applicable across multiple cities. Still, and how GKE participants categorized it. Following consolidation, sub-goals from If two or more cells are missing Revisit descriptive language is more easily measured Exercise 1 were scored and validated to ensure through indicators. If no agreement between groups about 1.3.3.2 Changes to Sub-Goal Location Based on Exercise 2 methodological rigour and sub-goals/goals were Revisit Two additional criteria were used specifically in how to score A similar set of criteria guided how sub-goals evaluated based on a set of rules decided upon naming sub-goals: before the workshop. If more than one group scored as a 3 and were placed within goals, i.e. whether they were Revisit another group marked as a 0 or1 kept in their original locations along the wheel or •• Specific – sub-goals should refer to specific 1.3.2.1 Scoring and Validating Results of Exercise 1 moved elsewhere. If more than one group scored as a 3 and Keep topics, instead of including multiple related In the spreadsheet, indicators were assigned other groups marked as a 2 topics. Specificity helps make the goal more a score based on the quadrant each group Typically, if there was no clear agreement on action-oriented by limiting the potential placed them in as part of Exercise 1: Quadrant In most cases, where sub-goals were revisited as where the sub-goal belonged, but agreement number of indicators associated with each Workshop. Indicators were scored as described a result of GKE comments, they were renamed, that the goal itself was relevant and should be sub-goal. For example, “affordable and below: or combined with other sub-goals. In other kept within the CWRF, the team kept the sub- high quality water services” is less specific instances, they were kept as written or removed goal in the most commonly chosen goal, or else than “affordable water services” and will •• 3 = High Relevance/High Measurability entirely if thought to be redundant, confusing or in its originally proposed location if there was no therefore require indicators that measure agreement between groups regarding which goal both the affordability and quality of water, •• 2 = High Relevance/ Low Measurability less relevant than other sub-goals. In all cases, the action – keep, remove or modify – was noted it belonged in. and may necessitate action from multiple •• 1 = Low Relevance/ High Measurability in the spreadsheet document, and reviewed with actors involved in different aspects of water 1.3.3.3 Adding New Sub-Goals provision. •• 0 = Low Relevance/ Low Measurability the larger group in later workshops. Additional sub-goals were proposed by •• Action-oriented – an action is included •• 1/2 scores (I.e. 2.5) = Borderline between participants during Exercise 2. These were or implied for each sub-goal. This makes quadrants reviewed individually and added to the full list it easier to link each sub-goal to an of sub-goals when they were determined to 82 CITY WATER RESILIENCE FRAMEWORK 83 ANNEX A: DATA ANALYSIS
intervention, and suggests potential actors These questions guided the team as it developed to be involved in redressing the problem. a series of iterations of the framework, commenting on drafts of the CWRF that were Using feedback from Exercise 2, goals and circulated within the team over the course of sub-goals goals were renamed according to the three weeks. principles described above. A third validation mapped each sub-goal against A full review of all goals and sub-goals was then the “seven qualities of resilience” (integrated, carried out to ensure that all were renamed inclusive, reflective, resourceful, robust, according to the principles outlined above. redundant, flexible) to ensure that each sub-goal Because the framework was developed through contributes to overall resilience of the system. an iterative process, and the wheel continued Finally, the draft was reviewed by the full project to change after initial GKE feedback was team, including both Arup and project partners, incorporated, sub-goals and goals were often the Stockholm International Water Institute renamed multiple times. (SIWI), who reviewed the framework with specific emphasis on goals and sub-goals related directly to water governance. 1.4 FURTHER CWRF REFINEMENT GKE feedback represents one critical validation 1.5 CONCLUSION exercise in developing the framework, but not The version of the City Water Resilience the final step in refining the CWRF. After GKE Framework (CWRF) presented in December feedback was incorporated into the framework, 2018 and detailed in the City Water Resilience an updated version of the framework was Approach report document is the final version validated by the CWRF team through a series of developed through this process, which builds on formal and informal internal reviews. During this fieldwork data, validated and refined through a process, multiple iterations of the CWRF “wheel” series of internal and public workshops. were proposed, commented upon and revised.
First, following our analysis of the GKE comments, an Arup team validated results in an internal sub-goal review of all original and new sub-goals generated as a result of the GKE feedback. These were either approved, removed, combined, renamed or tabled for later discussion. A final set of goals and sub-goals were included into the draft framework based on this feedback.
A second internal validation occurred in the form of multiple iterative framework reviews that looked at the draft CWRF in its entirety to resolve the following questions:
-- Is the framework comprehensive and complete (i.e. are there any gaps to be filled)? -- Is each goal / sub-goal as important to building resilience as all other goals / sub- goals? -- Are sub-goals correctly assigned to each goal or are they better placed in a different goal? -- Are goals and sub-goals described in a clear, consistent and specific manner? 84 CITY WATER RESILIENCE FRAMEWORK 85 ANNEX B: INDICATORS FOR RESILIENCE
ANNEX B INDICATORS FOR RESILIENCE 86 CITY WATER RESILIENCE FRAMEWORK 87 ANNEX B: INDICATORS FOR RESILIENCE
Resilience — like other conditions such as Indices summarize resilience using a number TYPES OF INDICATORS •• Thresholds – in which responders answer happiness, vulnerability and well-being – that aggregates multiple individual indicators. open questions about current conditions (e.g. Indicators are a means of “encapsulating a is difficult to measure directly, but as the Indices are the most common way of combining “to what extent does your city provide flood complex reality in a single construct” (Vincent, concept has become established in the fields indicators, used in approximately two thirds of all mitigation measures…”) with a score ranging 2004) by measuring related conditions or of international development and disaster risk frameworks (Arup, 2013). Indices can be used in from 1 to 5 corresponding with worst and component parts when direct measurement is reduction, there is increasing need to assess “determination of baseline conditions, prediction best outcomes, respectively, but with no not possible. They “provide information either on resilience to prioritize resources and action, and of future trends, and as monitoring and warning specific scenarios defined for scores. matters of wider significance than that which is benchmark change over time. Given how little systems. Indicators can also be used for making actually measured, or on a process or trend that In addition to objective and subjective indicators, agreement there is regarding how to define comparisons (across time and space or with otherwise might not be apparent (Hammond indicators that measure functionality as a binary resilience, it’s not surprising that there are few targets), performance review, and improving et al, 1995)” (Vincent, 2004). Indicators may yes/no are often used to describe infrastructure, widely used ways for measuring the concept. scientific understandings” (Milman and Short, come from pre-existing data sources such including, for instance, whether infrastructure While there are many examples of measurement 2008). as census information or gathered through can continue to perform a function in the wake approaches, “there is no systematic or consistent surveys, interviews and focus groups, etc. A of a disaster (Crown Agents, 2016). Though this representation of community resilience, nor Indicators can be selected using either of mix of indicator types may be used, and can judgement may be subjective, it does not relate the concepts that comprise it “ (Cutter, 2016). two approaches: deductive i.e. theory-driven describe information collected for the household, to “self-evaluation” and so is considered here as Existing assessment approaches, which fall into indices use indicators that are chosen based community, or national levels. a separate indicator category. Another category, three general categories – tools, scorecards and on a theory about what constitutes resilience, cost-based indicators such as “cost of resilience” indices -- can be used a) to summarize a system’s whereas inductive i.e. evidence-based/data- Objective indicators typically rely on quantitative or Cost Benefit Analysis, measure resilience current performance, and make comparisons driven indices test a large number of potentially measurements such as economic or demographic through totalling the total financial impacts of b) of performance over time, and c) between relevant indicators through statistical methods information related to employment, income, age, disasters and/or putting monetary value on cost different geographic areas. to see which indicators most contribute to that access to education, etc. and may be gathered improvements for resilience activities. (Crown outcome, ultimately landing on a small number through official census records as well as surveys. Agents, 2016). Using this approach, a higher cost Tools include models or equations used to of meaningful indicators. An essential weakness Subjective indicators record responses from reflects lower overall resilience (Bene, 2013). conceptualise resilience, or instruments that in the inductive approach lies in the difficulty of individuals to survey questions. Subjective outline processes, procedures or resources that defining what is meant by resilience in the first indicators of resilience “make use of people’s can be used to assess resilience. They are often place. When an outcome is directly measurable, knowledge of their own resilience and the “ready-made mechanisms for assessing resilience statistical analysis can predict the relationship factors that contribute to it” (Jones, 2018) and through the provision of data, models or specific between variable and outcome with some “therefore relates to an individual’s cognitive procedures” (Cutter, 2016). certainty, yet in the case of “resilience,” there and affective self-evaluation of their household’s is no clear definition of resilience to measure capabilities and capacities in responding to risk” Scorecards prompt respondents with questions against (Fussel, 2008; Vincent, 2004; Eriksen and (Jones and Tanner, 2017). These indicators can gauging levels of risk and responsiveness to Kelly, 2007; Adger et al, 2004). be used independently, or in combination with disaster events. For example, one prompt used objective indicators. Subjective responses can be in the UNISDR Disaster Resilience Scorecard translated into numerical values for inclusion in for Cities asks “to what extent are risk factors an index in multiple ways (CRI Vol. 4): considered within the City Vision/Strategic Plan,” which respondents answer with scores ranging •• Binary – that represent a “yes” or “no” from 0 to 5, describing how much or little the answers as a zero or one strategic plan considers risk. Scorecards provide “an evaluation of performance” towards a goal •• Likert Scale – where numbers between one and include checklists, scorecards, and provide and five are assigned to responses depending a grade or ranking, typically based on answers on whether respondents feel “strong to qualitative questions (whereas indicators are agreement”, “strong disagreement.” etc. often quantitative based) (Cutter, 2016). •• Bounded ranges – that describe specific scenarios describing best and worst scenarios, assigning scores to each (e.g. 1-5), and ask participants to choose which scenario best describes their current state 88 CITY WATER RESILIENCE FRAMEWORK 89 ANNEX B: INDICATORS FOR RESILIENCE
BEST PRACTICES FOR indicators that suggest changing levels of economic access 6. Ensure statistical and methodological rigour in or wealth or health can be included (Eriksen and Kelly, CHOOSING INDICATORS 3. Allow for flexibility when developing an index / normalizing, aggregating and weighting indicators / sub- 2007; Leichenko and O’Brien, 2002). Static indicators Choices about which indicators are chosen and scorecard that will be used in diverse contexts. indices. may still useful in identifying current baselines but offer a how they are aggregated can result in vastly The same community characteristic may be more or less In addition to clear documentation of the process used different perspective than dynamic indicators that measure change over time. different index results. For example, different important in helping communities cope with change, to choose indicators, methodological rigour is needed depending on local context. If a measurement approach will when combining sub-indices, specifically related to how indices of national disaster vulnerabilities often be applied in diverse contexts, it should be sensitive to these indicators are normalized, scaled and weighted. For show different indexed scores for the same realities when selecting indicators. Flexibility around which example, combining a global “country poverty” sub- 9. Limit or eliminate potential for bias by respondents. country, suggesting methodological differences indicators are incorporated and how they are weighted index that assigns a value to each country based on total Especially in the case of “report card” type evaluations, around how indices are developed and what may make the method more universally applicable (Fussel, population living below $1 per day (not normalized), with respondents may deliberately represent their city or underlying data is used (Fussel, 2009). In some 2010). a global “country wealth” sub-index that describes wealth organization in flattering light (Center For Hazard Research per capita (normalized) would mean mixing two types of and Policy Development, 2008). Subconscious bias may cases, decisions around how to choose and index, each calculated differently (Fussel, 2010). A similar alter how data is collected; for instance, government will aggregate indicators can also directly contradict 4. Balance data needs—including trade-offs between data methodological problem results from combining indicators have bias in whom they count for census, or how they findings from key experts (Gall, 2007 cited in accuracy and availability—and limit the tendency to bias that have been normalized using different methods (e.g. as conduct their counts or sampling, and this may influence Fussel, 2009). To help avoid this eventuality, the indicators based on data availability. nominal scales, ordinal scales or ratio scales). the data used (Center For Hazard Research and Policy following best practice principles are proposed Data quality varies between countries, and (where Development, 2008). To correct for this, the index can for guiding how indicators are chosen and indicators are used in multiple contexts) it can be difficult to Where weights are used, they should be considered specify types of data and sources to be used, encouraging carefully to reflect the relative importance of each regular reviews of the index, outline steps taken to combined, specifically related to measurement of agree upon a universal list of indicators to be applied across different countries. indicator, as defined by the study team, local experts, key aggregate indicators, and limit respondents’ abilities to resilience and vulnerability: stakeholders, etc. Techniques such as analytic hierarchy mask results through aggregation. A related problem is the high costs associated with process (AHP) and budget allocation (BA) stipulate gathering sufficient data (BRACED, 2018). While it may participatory approaches to weighting indicators through 1. Be specific about how the index will be used. be tempting to select indicators for which data is available transparent, agreed upon processes (Saisana, Saltelli and 10. Choose indicators that refer to causes rather than Tarantola 2005). symptoms. Clarification should be provided around what scale the or where costs of gathering data are low, this may bias index or scorecard will be applied (municipal, national, results. For instance, “ease of measurement may explain Identifying indicators that relate to underlying causes To test results related to how indicators are normalized and international, etc.), what systems or attributes it evaluates, why there are considerable indicators regarding physical will help identify areas for future action. For example, an weighted, techniques such as uncertainty analysis (UA) and and how it will be implemented (Fussel, 2010). Questions of characteristics of a community, but far fewer measurements indicator that documents underlying causes of poor water sensitivity analysis (SA) may be used (Saisana, Saltelli and scale are especially important to consider, as aggregation for human and social characteristics” (Center For Hazard service such as lack of investment in infrastructure (which Tarantola 2005). may smooth over variations within individual communities, Research and Policy Development, 2008). In developing leads to poor quality water and ultimately higher water and hide pockets of vulnerability (Eriksen and Kelly, 2007). good indicators, a combination of data sources will be costs) is preferable to one that documents its effects, needed, with particular focus on the household. For including high rates of customer dissatisfaction. Choosing instance, data on the use of infrastructure, hygiene 7. Choose independent and non-overlapping indicators. causal indicators will point to potential solutions, whereas 2. Agree on a conceptual model used to choose indicators behaviour, health and well-being, and equity can only be Careful selection of indicators based on a well-defined “if indicators just tell about existing conditions without and create indices. collected at this level. Available data from census or existing conceptual model will reduce the risk of choosing adding some insight into how they got to be that way, then information sources may not allow for an adequate analysis dependent or overlapping indicators. Selecting dependent the reports will not easily lead to action.” (Cobb and Rixford, A first step in measurement is to determine how of these issues. On the other hand, conducting a household indicators such as household income and household tax 1998). theoretical concepts are to be measured (Adger et al, survey is often resource intensive. There is thus a trade-off rate effectively double-counts the same phenomenon 2004). Agreement on a conceptual model entails common between data accuracy and data availability (Fussel, 2010). Indicators may also be inversely correlated, understanding of what is meant by resilience, what for example, by measuring an area’s median income and 11. Incorporate testing and validation of indicators/indices qualities or capacities constitute resilience and what types poverty rate, as high income will signify low poverty. after they’ve been selected. of indicators are suitable for measuring it (Fussel, 2010; 5. Be transparent about how indicators are chosen and Another way to reduce redundant or overlapping indicators Eriksen and Kelly, 2007; Cobb and Rixford, 1998). For Indicators should be validated, for example by testing combined. is through inductive indices that use the statistical methods instance, if vulnerability is understood to be a function a predictive model against past disaster events. Case of Factor Analysis (FA) or Principal Component Analysis of human ecology, expanded entitlements and political Because choices about which indicators are chosen and how studies, expert opinion and in-depth interviews can also (PCA) (Eriksen and Kelly, 2007). Without careful selection economy, indicators measuring food availability, GNP per they are weighted will influence index results, these choices be used to validate indices (Center For Hazard Research of independent variables, there is a risk of circular analysis capita, and infant mortality might be chosen to measure should be clearly documented to ensure transparency and Policy Development, 2008). Incorporating these forms in which “resilience” is defined according to a set of vulnerability (Downing et al, 1995 cited in Adger et al, (Fussel, 2010). To improve transparency, index scores can of validation can remedy “a serious deficiency in existing community characteristics, and those same characteristics 2004). The lack of a clear link between indicators and their be represented as multiple sub-indices. For instance, an studies” related to limited verification of indicators and are, in turn, used as indicators to measure resilience. underlying theoretical basis is a common shortcoming in index that illustrates overall vulnerability might also show underlying theoretical frameworks, as well as decisions indicator selection (Adger et al, 2004). Because resilience system vulnerabilities in social, technical, environmental about how indicators have been weighted and normalized encompasses multiple related elements, indicators should or economic vulnerabilities as individual sub-indices. By (Brooks et al cited in Fussel, 2010). For example, an index 8. Include indicators that capture a dynamic picture. describe a variety of conditions to account for the multi- ensuring transparency, decisions about what indicators are that shows overly high levels of economic vulnerability dimensional nature of resilience. In her study of community chosen and how they are aggregated may be challenged Indicators often capture a snapshot in time, measuring may be overly influenced by the choice to represent resilience, for example, Cutter identifies indicators and revisited over time to make sure assumptions are still current levels of poverty, education, ecological health, etc. impoverished population numbers in absolute terms, rather corresponding with community resilience, including accurate (Eriksen and Kelly, 2007). Yet societies are dynamic and constantly changing, and than as percentages of total population. economic, institutional, transportation and regulatory resilience may fluctuate significantly over relatively short attributes (Cutter, 2008). periods of time. In addition to static indicators that measure current state (e.g. of a society or infrastructure), dynamic 90 CITY WATER RESILIENCE FRAMEWORK 91 ANNEX B: INDICATORS FOR RESILIENCE
PROPOSED METHOD FOR ANNEX BIBLIOGRAPHY Da Silva, J., Kernaghan, S., & Luque, A. (2012). A systems Quinlan, A. E., Berbés‐Blázquez, M., Haider, L. J., & approach to meeting the challenges of urban climate Peterson, G. D. (2016). Measuring and assessing resilience: CHOOSING INDICATORS change. International Journal of Urban Sustainable broadening understanding through multiple disciplinary Adger, W. N., Brooks, N., Bentham, G., Agnew, M., & Eriksen, Development, 4(2), 125-145. perspectives. Journal of Applied Ecology, 53(3), 677-687. The following steps can help guide indicator S. (2005). New indicators of vulnerability and adaptive selection for use in an index, based on the best capacity. Norwich: Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Diffenbaugh, N. S., Giorgi, F., Raymond, L., & Bi, X. (2007). Sahely, H. R., Kennedy, C. A., & Adams, B. J. (2005). practices described above: Research. Indicators of 21st century socioclimatic exposure. Developing sustainability criteria for urban infrastructure Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(51), systems. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 32(1), 72- Arup and The Rockefeller Foundation. (2014.) City 20195-20198. 85. 1. Articulate goals and uses of the indicators/index, Resilience Index. Research Report Volume 1: Desk Study. including how it will be used, at what scale, and Eriksen, S. H., & Kelly, P. M. (2007). Developing credible Saisana, M., Saltelli, A., & Tarantola, S. (2005). Uncertainty Arup and The Rockefeller Foundation. (2014.) City whether it will be re-purposed for alternative uses. vulnerability indicators for climate adaptation policy and sensitivity analysis techniques as tools for the quality Resilience Index. Research Report Volume 3: Urban 2. Research focus area to understand underlying assessment. Mitigation and adaptation strategies for global assessment of composite indicators. Journal of the Royal Measurement Report 3. causes and key contextual information that will guide change, 12(4), 495-524. Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society), 168(2), selection of indicators. Arup and The Rockefeller Foundation. (2014.) City 307-323. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Resilience Index. Research Report Volume 3 Urban 3. Determine whether an inductive or deductive research (2016). Resilience Index Measurement and Analysis (RIMA- Schlör, H., Venghaus, S., & Hake, J. F. (2018). The FEW-Nexus Measurement Report 4: Measuring City Resilience. approach will be used, and whether subjective or II). Rome. city index–measuring urban resilience. Applied Energy, 210, objective indicators are selected. Arup and The Rockefeller Foundation. (2016.) Research 382-392. Füssel, H. M. (2010). Review and quantitative analysis of 4. Define resilience in the context of the study, and apply Report Volume 5: Lessons from the Pilots 5. indices of climate change exposure, adaptive capacity, Sherrieb, K., Norris, F. H., & Galea, S. (2010). Measuring a theoretical framework to define what you are trying Bahadur, A. V., Peters, K., Wilkinson, E., Pichon, F., Gray, sensitivity, and impacts. capacities for community resilience. Social indicators to measure. The framework will ultimately provide the K., & Tanner, T. (2015). The 3As: Tracking resilience across research, 99(2), 227-247. basis for identifying the processes that contribute to Holling, C. S. (1973). Resilience and stability of ecological BRACED. London: Overseas Development Institute (ODI). resilience, defining why certain indicators are selected systems. Annual review of ecology and systematics, 4(1), Simpson, D. M., & Katirai, M. (2006). Indicator issues and over others, and weighting and aggregating indicators Béné, C. (2013). Towards a quantifiable measure of 1-23. proposed framework for a disaster preparedness index (Vincent, 2004; Eriksen and Kelly, 2007). resilience. IDS Working Papers, 2013(434), 1-27. (DPi). University of Louisville, 49. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 5. Identify indicators using justification from extant Béné, C., Wood, R. G., Newsham, A., & Davies, M. (2012). (2001). Climate change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation and Spiller, M. (2016). Adaptive capacity indicators to assess literature on its relevance to resilience, and availability Resilience: new utopia or new tyranny? Reflection about the Vulnerability, Summary for Policymakers, WMO. sustainability of urban water systems–Current application. of consistent quality data from sources. To this end, potentials and limits of the concept of resilience in relation Science of the Total Environment, 569, 751-761. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2012). the researcher may borrow from existing indices and/ to vulnerability reduction programmes. IDS Working Annex, I. (2012). Managing the risks of extreme events and United Nations International Strategy for Disaster or sources (Vincent, 2004). Papers, 2012(405), 1-61. disasters to advance climate change adaptation. Sciences, Reduction (UNISDR). (2015). Disaster Resilience Scorecard 6. Identify methods for collecting relevant data. Blair, E. (2015). A reflexive exploration of two qualitative 10, 97-104. for Cities. The United Nations Office for Disaster Reduction, 7. Review indicators to ensure independency. data coding techniques. Journal of Methods and Version 2.2: 56. Jones, L. (2017). New methods in resilience measurement: 8. Collect data for indicators. Measurement in the Social Sciences, 6(1), 14-29. early insights from a mobile phone panel survey in Myanmar United Nations International Strategy for Disaster 9. Transform raw data values into comparable scales Brooks, N. (2003). Vulnerability, risk and adaptation: A using subjective tools. Overseas Development Institute. Reduction (UNISDR). (2004). Living with Risk: A Global for aggregating within an index. For instance, similar conceptual framework. Tyndall Centre for Climate Change London: UK. Available here. Review of Disaster Reduction Initiatives, Volume 1. United indicators might be normalized using percentages, Research Working Paper, 38(38), 1-16. Nations. or per capita rates. Variables are then analysed for Jones, L., & Tanner, T. (2017). ‘Subjective resilience’: using significantly high correlation between individual Cardona, O. D., van Aalst, M. K., Birkmann, J., Fordham, M., perceptions to quantify household resilience to climate Vincent, K. (2004). Creating an index of social vulnerability variables and eliminated from consideration when McGregor, G., & Mechler, R. (2012). Determinants of risk: extremes and disasters. Regional Environmental Change, to climate change for Africa. Tyndall Center for Climate such high correlations are found. exposure and vulnerability. 17(1), 229-243. Change Research. Working Paper, 56(41). 10. Aggregate indicators into an index. Ensure sub-indices Crichton, D. (1999). The risk triangle. Natural disaster Kaly, U. L., Pratt, C., & Mitchell, J. (2005). Building resilience Walker, J., & Cooper, M. (2011). Genealogies of resilience: are preserved throughout this process so that these management, 102, 103. in SIDS: the environmental vulnerability index. Final Report. From systems ecology to the political economy of crisis can be evaluated individually. SOPAC, UNEP. adaptation. Security dialogue, 42(2), 143-160. Cobb, C. W., & Rixford, C. (1998). Lessons learned from 11. Verify index results through case studies, the history of social indicators (Vol. 1). San Francisco: Leichenko, R. M., & O'brien, K. L. (2002). The dynamics of measurement against historic events, or through Redefining Progress. rural vulnerability to global change: the case of southern expert opinions of knowledgeable actors working in Africa. Mitigation and adaptation strategies for global Crown Agents (2016). Measuring Resilience. London: UK relevant fields and/or community stakeholders. change, 7(1), 1-18. Department for International Development. Mercy Corps and USAID. (2016). Urban Resilience Cutter, S. L. (2016). The landscape of disaster resilience Measurement: An Approach Guide and Training Curriculum. indicators in the USA. Natural hazards, 80(2), 741-758. Meerow, S., Newell, J. P., & Stults, M. (2016). Defining urban Cutter, S. L., Barnes, L., Berry, M., Burton, C., Evans, E., resilience: A review. Landscape and urban planning, 147, Tate, E., & Webb, J. (2008). A place-based model for 38-49. understanding community resilience to natural disasters. Global environmental change, 18(4), 598-606. Milman, A., & Short, A. (2008). Incorporating resilience into sustainability indicators: An example for the urban water Cutter, S. L., Burton, C. G., & Emrich, C. T. (2010). Disaster sector. Global Environmental Change, 18(4), 758-767. resilience indicators for benchmarking baseline conditions. Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, Proag, V. (2014). The concept of vulnerability and resilience. 7(1). Procedia Economics and Finance, 18, 369-376. 92 CITY WATER RESILIENCE FRAMEWORK 93 ANNEX C: CWRA FIELDWORK REPORT
ANNEX C CWRA FIELDWORK REPORT 94 CITY WATER RESILIENCE FRAMEWORK 95 ANNEX C: CWRA FIELDWORK REPORT
1. BACKGROUND 2 FIELDWORK STRATEGY The principal selection criteria were: The City Water Resilience Approach - Fieldwork Report describes (i) fieldwork Fieldwork activities built an evidence base for the CWRA, in particular by focusing gaps •• Awareness of city relationship with its urban undertaken in the five partner cities, (ii) the analysis of information and (iii) the key identified during the research stage. Further, water basin and urban water risks findings from this work. As part of this work, Arup partnered with local city partners through fieldwork activities, the team engaged •• Resources within the city to engage with to define city water basins, characterise resilience and assess decision-making that is with partner cities to ensure that it is grounded and contribute development of CWRF to applicable to cities at various scales with diversities of water challenges. in the practical experiences of cities and their maximise benefit of the CWRF to the wider stakeholders. city network •• Relationship between City Resilience Office The draft version of the CWRF developed during This work was undertaken by Arup and The findings from the fieldwork analysis filled and wider city stakeholders Stockholm International Water Institute (SIWI), gaps identified in the literature review to improve the research stage represents a snapshot in time Additionally the team considered the following with support from the Rockefeller Foundation upon the CWRA. Additionally, fieldwork helped and forms the foundation of the approach for characteristics: and The Resilience Shift, as part of the City the project team validate and refine the an early co-design work with partner cities. The findings Water Resilience Approach (CWRA), a project draft of the City Water Resilience Framework of subsequent phases of work will continue to •• Diversity of challenges faced by cities in to develop a common understanding of the (CWRF), a resource that has been designed to shape the framework throughout the project. relation to water characteristics of a resilient urban water system help city stakeholders identify the most salient and provide a global standard for water resilience issues of their water system and assess current •• Arup’s experience and relationship with the planning. The CWRA helps cities assess complex strengths and weaknesses. 2.1 SELECTION PROCESS city urban water systems and build resilience against Arup held an open competition was held for all •• Existing relationships between the city and a wide range of risks in the face of an unknowable Figure 1 outlines how the fieldwork fits within members of the 100 Resilient Cities (100RC) members of the CWRF steering committee future. the overall process for the development of a City network inviting cities to collaborate in the (in particular World Bank programmes) Water Resilience Approach. development of the CWRA. Separately, Hull was Figure 2 gives an overview of the cities that invited apply to be part of the project based on applied to be a CWRF partner city and those that previous collaborations, and the belief that Hull were selected. would be a good partner based on its knowledge Figure 1 THEORY of water resilience, ongoing programmes, and the CWRA water-related challenges the city faces. Methodology Desk based analysis to: • Synthesise existing literature review from CRI, Welsh Water etc. • Additional desk study to fill missing gaps Figure 2 • Revision of the City Water Resilience Framework v.1 An overview of • Test findings against initial hypothesis the cities that were selected to be either a Wave PRACTICE 1 or Wave 2 city
Fieldwork: • Develop fieldwork methodology based on gap analysis • Partner City engagement – SYNTHESIS OF THEORY AND PRACTICE • Governance mapping • Basin mapping • Revision of the City Water Resilience Approach / • Workshops Framework • Interviews • Test findings against starting hypothesis • Focus groups
PHASE TWO - CWRA => DECISION MAKING
CWRA / CWRF 96 CITY WATER RESILIENCE FRAMEWORK 97 ANNEX C: CWRA FIELDWORK REPORT
Table 1: Fieldwork Objectives
2.2 FIELDWORK OBJECTIVES OBJECTIVE To ensure that the desired outcomes of the 1 Defining the city water basin fieldwork strategy resulted in successful delivery 1a Define the urban water system, the natural basin that the city relates to and their common water cycle of the outputs, a number of objectives were defined for the fieldwork approach through a 1b Map all stakeholders within the city basin and water cycle. (Roles, responsibilities etc.) logical framework. A summary of the principal 1c Identify and assimilate relevant knowledge and data to support urban water resilience objectives is shown in Table 1. 1d Identify interdependencies between systems and stakeholders
2 Understanding urban water resilience
2.3 APPROACH AND 2a Understand what stakeholders perceive by water resilience and the needs for city water resilience ACTIVITIES 2b Identify further factors that contribute to defining ‘city water resilience’ A series of collaborative activities were identified and carried out during the fieldwork. These 2c Update CWRF v1.0 based on the knowledge obtained from the cities activities helped to foster a strong collaborative 3 Co-designing a CWRF concept methodology for implementation relationship between the city partner team 3a Understand the decision-making process in cities for water and the Arup team whilst exploring the water Understand the way in which CWRF can be implemented in its most effective way, aligned with the decision- resilience needs, knowledge and skills from 3b different stakeholders. making process 3c Embed knowledge and data in the CWRF and its implementation The activities were organised in a chronological order and divided in three main phases:
•• Preparatory Analysis: remote work done prior to the field mission •• Field Mission: two weeks of work in the city •• Post-Mission: analysis and reporting done after the field mission Table 2: Fieldwork Stages
The majority of activities were planned to inform 1.1 Draft water system maps the five-step CWRA and, more specifically, 1. Mapping and data gathering 1.2 Shocks and stresses to refine an early version of the CWRF (the framework “wheel”), through workshops, 1.3 Data and knowledge
interviews and focus groups. The project team 2.1 Stakeholder mapping ≥ 4 Weeks ANALYSIS approached these with open minds to facilitate 2. Stakeholder identification PREPARATORY PREPARATORY rich and valuable conversations that will 2.2 Review attendance and logistics enable the team to understand stakeholders’ 3.1 Briefing / Maps review perceptions and needs in relation to water 3. City team workshops 3.2 Implementation Methodology resilience and identify additional water resilience factors most representative of the each city’s 3.3 Debrief / Next steps
water system. 4.1 Interviews
4. Meetings with stakeholders 4.2 Focus Groups 10 Days
FIELD MISSION 4.3 Workshops
5. Site visits
6. Analysis of Information gathered
7. Reporting POST- ≥ 8 Weeks MISSION 8. City testing and feedback 98 CITY WATER RESILIENCE FRAMEWORK 99 ANNEX C: CWRA FIELDWORK REPORT
Table 3: Fieldwork Engagement
AMMAN MIAMI CDMX CAPE TOWN HULL TOTAL Focus group discussions were targeted at new themes revealed through data exploration. specialist and technical groups, community By aggregating factors of resilience, the project People engaged 112 164 146* 139 150 711 organisations, etc. team identified 12 key goals and 53 sub-goals, Interviews 6 7 2 9 14 38 which were tested and refined through a series Questions were open and aimed to invoke candid of internal and external workshops between July Focus Groups 6 7 5 5 11 34 responses rather than leading the stakeholder to 2018 and October 2018. For more detail on data Site Visits 3 5 1 5 2 16 a preconceived answer based on the team’s prior analysis following fieldwork, see Annex A and knowledge. During both interviews and focus Annex B. Workshops 2 2 2 2 2 10 group discussions, engagements were structured in three parts, though there was some flexibility on the structure of type of questions asked from 3 CONCLUSIONS city to city: 2.3.2 FIELD MISSION Within the workshops, participants were A particular goal for the fieldwork was to test Three different types of activities were carried presented with a flow chart representation of the 1. Defining the city water basin (Objective 1) how well both the CWRA and the CWRF out during the field mission: i) workshops, ii) water system and asked to annotate the chart via the review of the maps created and its could be applied in different physical systems. stakeholder interview and focus groups and iii) and add the key stakeholders involved in each population with the identified shocks and Whilst some partners cities lie at sea-level and site visits. component of the system. The exercise resulted stresses during the first part of the meeting. in the organogram and stakeholder commentary rely on ports (Thessaloniki, Hull, Miami-Dade, 2. Understanding urban water resilience Cape Town, and Rotterdam), others (Amman, Workshops section of the report discussed earlier. (Objective 2) which was formed by a series of Mexico City) are landlocked. Similarly there Workshops were held with higher numbers open questions. The joint exercise of mapping the water system are differences between shocks and stresses of attendants and a diverse set of stakeholder and identifying the institutional arrangement of 3. Understanding the decision-making process encountered in each city. Whilst Amman, Mexico groups. These provided the base to interrogate the water system helped all present (including in cities around water and how the CWRA City and, recently, Cape Town, face intense water perceptions of resilience, stress test both the project team and participants) might be most useful in improving decision- scarcity and rely on limited water resources, understanding of the city water basin and the understand the water system and various making (Objective 3). others rely on diverse water sources and interdependencies of the systems within it. confront persistent threats from coastal flooding institutional arrangements influencing the city Two types of workshops were held in each city: and sea level rise. Differences also exist in the water system. It was also seen as the first step in Site visits aligning the objectives of different institutions. governance structures of the partner cities, Quick Water Resilience Assessment workshop The project team undertook a number of site These activities helped participants understand and factors contributing to and detracting from Objectives were to: visits to provide the CWRF team with additional the interlinkages of the system as well as how resilience. understanding around the type of challenges and shocks and stresses could impact those linkages. •• Discuss relevant water shocks and stresses opportunities present in each city. In attempting to create a universal approach to each city Outputs from the Water Governance workshop that can be used by cities around the world, 2.3.3 POST-MISSION •• Identify interdependencies between the informed creation of OurWater, a digital tool the CWRA has been developed to account for water system and other systems developed as part of the CWRA, to help city Data Analysis these differences whilst articulating a common •• Identify the most relevant goals for each city stakeholders improve coordination around Following the fieldwork, the records and approach to building resilience. and assess them water issues. In some cities, early versions of the observations from the engagements with the five OurWater app was presented to stakeholders for partner cities were compiled into a single ‘master’ Water Governance workshop: feedback around both the purpose of the tool, spreadsheet which contained information about Objectives were to: and its graphic interface. the location of engagements, participants, and the positive and negative factors of resilience •• Discuss what constitutes governance Focus groups and interviews associated with various shocks and stresses, i.e. for resilient water systems, who relevant the issues that contribute to, or inhibit, resilience stakeholders are, and how governance issues The appropriate format for different in each city. The initial data set consisted of matter to the city; stakeholders and groups of stakeholders was agreed with each city during the pre-work 1577 separate records, of which 1348 records •• Understand how the City Water Resilience stakeholder mapping exercises. contained information about factors of resilience. Framework can be a process that helps the city to improve water resilience; Individual interviews were targeted at The method of analysis used a combination of •• Get feedback from the participants on how stakeholders who hold strategic roles and high emergent thematic and a priori coding techniques to design the implementation process in the responsibilities in the city or water related to identify key themes. Coupling a priori and most useful way. authorities. emergent qualitative analytic methods enabled the work to build on previous research insights while also remaining open to the possibility of 100 CITY WATER RESILIENCE FRAMEWORK 101 ANNEX C: CWRA FIELDWORK REPORT
3.1 WATER GOVERNANCE 3.2 CRITICAL 3.3 KEY SHOCKS AND to inadequate infrastructure during the INTERDEPENDENCIES STRESSES recent floods as well as staff shortages to One of the interesting points of comparison was run the infrastructure. For Mexico City, the around governance structures in each city, which The urban water system does not exist in a Cities face different shocks and stresses based concern was lack of maintenance on the vary significantly in which level of government is vacuum. In fact, one of the main focuses of the on their location, climate, city morphology and infrastructure. The issue for Miami-Dade is chiefly responsible for providing water (national, City Water Resilience Approach is how the resources available. Still, commonalities exist that funding and monitoring practices do not subnational, municipal) and how organisations water system within the city engages not just between cities: account for the full reality of the situation: involved in water governance relate to one with the full basin it belongs to but also the other salt water intrusion, inflow, and other another. sectors that rely on water and that influence •• Governance challenges were mentioned as a changing operating conditions. the use of water. Despite differences between stress specifically by Cape Town, Rotterdam, •• Water stress or scarcity was a concern •• Most cities saw responsibilities for water cities engaged, each with different governance Hull, Miami-Dade, Amman, Thessaloniki, stemming from other shocks and stresses, governance shared across different levels of and Mexico City. While the specifics of what structures and physical settings, a number of specifically called out as a shock/stress for government: national, subnational, and local was inadequate varied in each location, it interdependencies were significant for multiple Amman, Thessaloniki, Cape Town and Mexico in a variety of ways. Often aspects relating to was clear that many participants in CWRF cities: City. In Amman’s case, the sheer limitation environmental protection were national or activities, interviews, and surveys felt that of water availability overshadows all aspects included national-level ministries for some of not enough was being done in governance •• The connection between water and energy of its water system. The study of Mexico the work. to prevent and/or respond to the key shocks came up for Amman, Thessaloniki, Mexico City particularly looked at water scarcity or stresses that the area faced. A common •• Because Mexico City Metropolitan Area City, and Miami-Dade County. Both the need in informal settlements and vulnerable theme was the lack of collaboration and (MCMA) is almost like a state within Mexico, for water to generate electricity and the communities within the area. Thessaloniki is coordination among different governance it has a lot more power than a traditional need for electricity to transport water were concerned about the availability of water to stakeholders in decision-making, information municipality within the country. On the other highlighted. meet the needs of different groups including sharing, and implementation. hand, Thessaloniki is a more typical city •• Transport was a critical issue for Amman, industry and nearby agriculture in addition with much of the decisions around its water Hull, and Rotterdam. Amman mentioned •• Flooding in its various forms was a serious to city residents. Specifically, groundwater supply and its interdependencies being that flooding could impact transport roads issue for Cape Town, Rotterdam, Hull, depletion or aquifer over-exploitation was decided at the subnational level, which also while Rotterdam was more concerned about Thessaloniki, Miami-Dade, and Amman. Hull, mentioned as a stress in Cape Town and controls the budget. rail lines and the port. Hull was likewise Thessaloniki, and Rotterdam face fluvial, Mexico City. Drought was mentioned as an pluvial and coastal flooding while Miami- •• Cities with government-owned utilities concerned about any limitations to the port issue in Rotterdam and Cape Town. Dade faced all those and groundwater include Cape Town, Rotterdam, and Miami- running smoothly. •• Water quality was a listed stress for Amman, flooding. Cape Town faces pluvial and Dade while Thessaloniki, Amman, and Mexico City, and Miami-Dade. Concerns •• Livelihoods and the Economy was a fluvial flooding during the wet season with Hull had private sector service providers. about the municipal utility’s water quality highlighted interdependency for Cape Town, particular concern in informal settlements Inhabitants of Mexico City receive most has made Mexico one of the highest bottled Rotterdam, Miami-Dade County, and Hull, built on flood plains. Flash floods are a of their water through government water consumers globally, with 71-98% of all of which are port cities that rely on water concern in Amman due to steep hills and high organisations though private companies are the country’s inhabitants consuming bottled transportation for moving goods. However, runoff. contracted to provide support services. water transport was not the only concern instead of tap water. For Amman this issue •• Given concerns around governance, it is not •• In all cities, a lack of coordination and related to livelihoods and economy. In Cape was limited to high turbidity issues after surprising that concerns around budgeting collaboration across sectors and between Town the drought affecting farming, tourism, heavy rainfall though during those periods and financial resources follow for many of actors resulted in less effective water and other businesses caused this linkage sometimes water and sanitation services did the cities completing the CWRF. Lack of governance, including lower quality services to come to the forefront of discussions. not work for up to a week. Investment came up in conversations in Cape for residents, and less effective planning Miami-Dade also needs water quantity for its Town, Rotterdam, Thessaloniki, Miami-Dade, around water infrastructure and protections agriculture and urban development. and Amman. In some cases it was an issue of for residents and businesses against shocks •• Housing, particularly concerns around financial coordination among stakeholders and stresses. flooding of personal property was a theme that led to issues funding agreed upon for both Thessaloniki and Rotterdam. projects. In others, it was lack of interest in •• Cape Town was focused on urban funding water resilience issues, and in still planning and water interdependencies, other locations there seemed to be interest particularly given flooding. Inadequate but no budget. solid waste management in Cape Town •• Three cities’ participants focused on creates blockages for the combined sewer/ shortfall of critical infrastructure: stormwater system. Urban planning also Thessaloniki, Miami-Dade, and Mexico City. came up for Mexico City particularly Thessaloniki felt its poor regulations of regarding informal settlements. historic urban development—resulting in a combined sewer/stormwater system—led 102 CITY WATER RESILIENCE FRAMEWORK 103 ANNEX C: CWRA FIELDWORK REPORT
3.4 FACTORS OF RESILIENCE 3.5 SELECTED CASE STUDIES Cape Town Day Zero 2018: Mobilizing Three months later (March 2018) despite the Collective Action absence of rain, the date for Day Zero had been While the shocks and stresses highlighted what delayed till 2019. This delay was due to many factors were hindering cities moving towards Rainwater Harvesting in Mexico City In January 2018, the threat of the city running changes in water demand. First, the catchment’s being more resilient, equally interesting were out of water soon became a real possibility. On Because half the world’s population now live in commercial agricultural users were shut down conversations about what participants saw 18 January, the city announced the imposition cities, creating sustainable urban water systems once their water allocation was reached. Then, as helping to build resilience. In some cases, of severe water restriction, warning that Day has a great impact on environmental and social thanks to the Day Zero campaign, a large participants could point to work already being Zero—the day when taps would be turned issues. To ensure a future with access to clean majority of citizens trusted that there were very done to build resilience. In others, they had a off and Cape Town residents would have to water, innovative water saving technologies need few free-riders consuming water above their clear vision of what was needed to make their start queueing for water rations—was now to be enacted on a large scale now. allocation, which led to a shift in mentality that cities stronger to enhance resilience. These virtually unavoidable, with the predicted date set at 21 April 2018. This concern led to the everyone could contribute to positively impact factors include both those already in place Rainwater harvesting systems promote ‘Day Zero’ campaign to raise awareness of the the crisis. Water consumption was reduced from and those that could strengthen the city if sustainable water management practices, issue and drive down consumer demands. The 930 million litres/day in December 2016, to 630 implemented. mitigate the city’s flooding problems, relieve communication was multi-channel including TV, million litres/day in July and to 520 million litres/ poverty, reduce carbon emissions, and provide a day in March 2018 (CCT, 2018b; CCT, 2018d). •• Cape Town, Rotterdam, Amman were local radio, local newspapers, social media and reliable source of water for Mexico City and rest This drastic decrease in water consumption, very focused on the importance of via loud hailer cars. Credibility was provided to of the country. along with farmers of a Water Users Association increasing community awareness, the information provided by the alignment of messages from experts of the Section 80 Water donating 10 billion litres of water to the city, improved communication, and community Isla Urbana is a local NGO that has designed engagement. Cape Town had successful Resilience Advisory committee, who spoke on TV and water production from alternative sources an environmentally, socially, and economically experience building community awareness and the radio and wrote articles for newspapers. coming on stream. Overall, the campaign resulted sustainable rainwater harvesting system that during the recent drought. A focus for The campaign successfully conveyed a sense of in widespread engagement of citizens, hydro- collects and cleans rainwater for households, Rotterdam was to ensure its citizens are urgency—that all citizens would be extremely solidarity, and a shift to collective prioritisation of schools, and health clinics. The system is aware of the work being done to make the negatively affected if the city reached Day Zero. water for human consumption. city ‘climate-proof’ by 2025. inexpensive, easy to install, and provides individual residences with about 40% of their However, the ‘Day Zero’ campaign also had •• Improving water governance and water The campaign was backed-up by concrete water supply year-round. Implemented on a unintended consequences. The campaign was planning strategy came up as key ways to data and information easily understood by large scale throughout Mexico City, this simple picked up by international media and as a result, improve resilience in conversations in Cape Capetonians. It included: technology could provide 30% of the city’s water there were negative impacts on tourism numbers Town, Rotterdam, Hull, and Amman. The supply and could help give a sustainable source of -- A dashboard updated weekly to show the and foreign direct investment queries in Cape important of collaboration and information water to the 12 million Mexicans with no access sharing between all stakeholders involved anticipated date of Day Zero along with Town. to clean water. in water governance were other key points. current dam levels and water consumption These issues also came up in Miami-Dade (CCT, 2018b); Since 2009, Isla Urbana has installed more in discussions about how different aspects than 7,600 systems, with more than 53,500 -- Widespread information on how to consume of governance need to integrate to better only 50 litres per person per day, including manage the situations as they arise. beneficiaries and over 330 million of litres harvested. posters, a household water usage guide, and •• Creating innovative and/or stable funding an online water use calculator; sources was cited as a critical element in Isla Urbana’s goal is not only to install systems -- A Water Outlook report that identified key Hull, Miami-Dade, and Amman. This was a but also to make sure people are empowered to CCT interventions in the short and medium focus for Miami-Dade and Amman because use the system to access a clean and constant term to build trust and certainty with of the feeling from the key shocks and water supply. The NGO’s success depends residents and the business community (CCT, stresses that they had more work to do contextual and social adaptation as much as its 2018d); to obtain the needed levels of investment formal design of the product. to create urban water resilience. In Hull, -- A city water usage map showing individual participants expressed interest in finding properties meeting or exceeding restriction investment at the catchment level to benefit targets creating incentives for behavioural both rural and urban groups. change (City Water Map, 2018). •• Other common factors of resilience cited in all eight cities were the need for resilient infrastructure and routine maintenance and upgrade of infrastructure to ensure continued high functioning of the water system. 104 CITY WATER RESILIENCE FRAMEWORK 105 ANNEX C: CWRA FIELDWORK REPORT
Figure 3 3.6 REFLECTING ON THE -Amman, Jordan CITY WATER RESILIENCE FRAMEWORK (CWRF) Many participants felt the CWRF added clarity to discussions around water systems and ultimately helped to create consensus by building a shared vision with everyone working towards a common goal. Facilitating conversations, breaking down silos, and enhanced understanding between diverse stakeholders was one valuable result of the workshop.
Participants found that the CWRF allowed them to share learning and building collaboration with other stakeholders. They said the framework also helps create consensus because everyone works towards a common goal—building a shared vision of resilience. Participants expressed interest in bringing in a wide breath of stakeholders and in mapping out the stakeholders within the water cycle.
Two main questions came up in multiple Wave 1 Jordan’s Samra Wastewater Treatment Plant The project continues to be hailed as a regional cities: Al-Samra Wastewater Treatment Plant, and global exemplar of successful Public–private operated by Suez, treats all of Amman’s collected partnership financing. The deal aligned the 1. Who would ‘own’ the process of wastewater and 71% of all wastewater collected interests of all the parties involved, transferring implementing the framework? in Jordan.3 Treated wastewater discharges into much of the risk to the private sector. The project 2. How to get the work done given limited irrigation canals, 90% of which is recycled for sponsors, Suez International and Morganti, resources? agricultural purposes.6 The treatment plant is raised $175 million USD in debt and equity world class, operating at 80% self-sufficiency in within the context of extreme political and social Additionally, participants expressed the need terms of energy consumption. turmoil in the region. A lender syndicate led by for a flexible approach that would allow the the Arab Bank offered a 20-year tenure on the CWRA to be included into ongoing programmes, Phase One of the plant was completed in 2008 commercial loan, the longest a Jordanian bank projects, and policies. under a build-operate-transfer (BOT) finance has ever offered for a limited recourse dinar loan. mechanism backed by the Jordanian government Financing of the project under local financing through USAID funding. Only two years after offered reassurance to the Ministry of Water and opening, the plant reached capacity, initiating Irrigation, which did not have to take on foreign Phase Two of the project, which was completed exchange risk. in 2015 backed by Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) funding. The project earned the World Finance Infrastructure award and the WEX Global Award for Innovation in 2013. 106 CITY WATER RESILIENCE FRAMEWORK 107 ANNEX D: REFLECTIONS ON GKE 2018
ANNEX D REFLECTIONS ON GKE 2018 108 CITY WATER RESILIENCE FRAMEWORK 109 ANNEX D: REFLECTIONS ON GKE 2018
Presenting the CWRA at the GKE 2018
REFLECTIONS ON THE GLOBAL KNOWLEDGE EXCHANGE 2018
The Global Knowledge Exchange (GKE) hosted by Arup, in partnership with the Stockholm by The Resilience Shift and held at the Lloyd’s International Water Institute, OECD and Register Foundation in London from 21 August 100 Resilience Cities and is supported by The to 23 August 2018 brought together partners Rockefeller Foundation and The Resilience of the City Water Resilience Approach (CWRA) Shift. It has been developed in partnership with including the eight partner cities and the CWRA eight cities: Cape Town, Greater Miami and the steering group. The GKE was facilitated by Arup Beaches, Amman, Kingston upon Hull, Mexico and the Stockholm International Water Institute City, Greater Manchester, Rotterdam and (SIWI). The aim of the Global Knowledge Thessaloniki. Exchange was to bring together project partners to ensure the utility and quality of the CWRA and OurWater projects and to build a global network OBJECTIVES of water resilience practitioners to share The aim of the GKE was to bring together city challenges and best practice. stakeholders to ensure the quality and utility of the City Water Resilience Framework and AUDIENCE ACTIVITIES This document describes overall event objectives, OurWater projects and to build a global network information collected and reflections gathered The event was attended by over 40 experts in An overview of the agenda is included below: of water resilience practitioners to share from the three-day event. city water resilience including specialists from challenges and best practice. The objectives of Hull, Mexico City, Cape Town, Amman and Miami. DAY ONE GKE 2018 were to: For further detail on how the analysis of the City level organisations represented at the The focus of Day One was on: data collected at the GKE informed subsequent conference included: •• Identify the value cities derive from the iterations of the CWRA, see Annex A. •• Setting the context of the resilience CWRA and associated CWRF and OurWater -- Hull City Council and Yorkshire Water; tool and establish a customer value challenges cities are facing in relation to - City of Cape Town; proposition. - water: -- Mexico City; INTRODUCTION •• Validate the CWRA, associated CWRF and •• Understanding the challenges facing our -- City of Amman; eight global cities and their response: Water is a key driver for urban resilience and OurWater tool. -- Miami-Dade Water and Sewer Department; the City Water Resilience Approach has been •• Co-develop Phase 2 of the CWRA project. •• Providing an introduction into the CWRA, launched to respond for the demand for tools to -- Association of Greater Manchester; CWRF and OurWater tool. •• Begin to build a global network of water diagnose and design for water resilience. Authorities Civil Contingencies and resilience practitioners created by sharing Resilience Unit and United Utilities; and The agenda for Day One was: The City Water Resilience Approach supports best practices and common water challenges. cities to build the capacity of city water systems -- City of Rotterdam. •• Arrival and registration. to endure, adapt and transform in the face of •• Welcome presentations. change. It is designed to help diverse actors – National and global level organisations included: including city government agencies, civil society, •• Water resilience in an urban context – private sector organizations and academic -- Ofwat - Water Services Regulation perspectives from around the world: institutions – to better understand the relative Authority; presentations and moderated panel strengths and vulnerabilities of water systems, discussions. -- 100 Resilient Cities; identify opportunities to build resilience into all •• Walking the path to a more resilient water aspects of water management and paths forward -- World Economic Forum future: Workshop session to co-develop -- World Bank; for achieving better outcomes. It represents a decision support framework with delegates. step forward in helping cities to ensure that their -- Alliance for Global Water Adaptation; citizens survive and thrive in the face of water- -- Stockholm International Water Institute; related shocks and stresses. -- The Resilience Shift; The City Water Resilience Approach is led -- Lloyd’s Register Foundation; -- OECD. 110 CITY WATER RESILIENCE FRAMEWORK 111 ANNEX D: REFLECTIONS ON GKE 2018
Key Session 1: Water resilience in an urban The session began with presentations by Arup context – perspectives from around the world and SIWI on the approach to assessing and The exchange of knowledge started with improving water governance and the OurWater presentations from Cape Town, Miami, governance tool. City groups were then taken Amman, Hull and Mexico regarding the critical through Step 1 of the City Water Resilience interdependencies in water resilience in their Approach for their city, including: cities. They are subject to a variety of shocks and stresses, ranging from severe drought to sea •• Convening a multi-stakeholder group to level rise and flash flooding. This session set the undertake the approach; context for the GKE and aligned perspectives •• Developing an objective for the multi- of city water system challenges, outlined stakeholder group; Ruth Boumphrey, Director of Research at the Lloyd’s Register Value proposition workshop Foundation, presenting at the opening session of the GKE 2018 approaches to resilience and provided best •• Mapping the water system and the practice examples. stakeholders; and The five cities shared inspiring success stories. •• Understanding stakeholders control- projects. makers would be implementing it already’. influence context to determine with which 5. Assessing the resilience of the city using Key Session 3: Assessing Water Resilience – -- Cayley Green explained how the Day Zero partners to engage. quantitative and qualitative indicators. Shaping the Tool campaign in Cape Town managed to reduce They were also taken through the governance 6. Assessing the governance of the city The focus of Day Two was on reviewing the City water consumption by 50% in 3 years. aspect of Step 2 of the City Water Resilience using the Organisation for Economic Co- Water Resilience Framework. In city groups, -- Hull’s Alex Codd highlighted the successful Approach, the Resilience Assessment. This operation and Development (OECD) Water participants reviewed and edited the goals multi-agency collaboration between Hull involved identifying the gaps within the Governance Indicator Framework. and sub-goals of the City Water Resilience City Council, Yorkshire Water and the governance functions for different shocks Framework and selected the goals and the Environment Agency. and stresses by analysing the stakeholder’s Feedback was provided by participants on each sub-goals which were relevant to their city. The role within each governance function. The of the functionalities. Preference was expressed -- Debbie Griner from Miami set out how their definitions of goals and sub-goals are: robust system to monitor salt front migration governance functions analysed included: for: approval, accountable, leading, contributor works in almost real time. •• Goal –The twelve objectives to be achieved and informed. The details of the City Water •• Function 1 to improve the understanding -- Participants heard from the Resilience as cities work towards resilience. Goals Resilience Framework in step 2 were covered in of the water system and the stakeholders Shift’s Alexa Bruce about the remarkable represent the second ring of CWRF lens, key session 3: Assessing water resilience on Day involved. capacity of individuals working in the Amman sitting beneath dimensions and above sub- Two. water sector to respond to cascading •• Function 4 to ensure that existing plans and goals. interdependencies. programmes were built on. The session ended with a plenary presentation •• Sub-goal – Sub-goals describe the most •• Function 5 and 6 to improve the data -- Finally, Arnoldo Matus Kramer from Mexico and feedback session on OurWater, the online specific elements of resilience, the most handling resource needed by cities. granular objectives, which are critical to City shared their water strategy for urban governance mapping tool. We are Telescopic achieving the aspirations articulated as development. It will allow them to balance presented five possible functionalities of the goals. Sub-goals are represented in the third the needs and growth of other basins that OurWater tool: There was a general agreement that there layer of the CWRF lens, sitting beneath both Mexico relies on, and recognise trade-offs of needs to be a consideration of the value of the dimensions and goals. different actions. 1. Water cycle stakeholder mapping, including function versus the time taken to input the data This was followed by a lively panel discussion, stakeholders impact by different shocks in selecting and designing functions. chaired by Fred Boltz, that also included Diego and stresses and the different governance Each group was provided with a set of Rodriguez (World Bank) and Tariq Kaawash functions each stakeholder is responsible for. DAY TWO proposed sub-goals and asked to place each (Amman). of the proposed indicators on a graph with 2. Understanding the strength of the The focus of Day Two was on reviewing the City four quadrants relating to varying degrees of relationships between different Water Resilience Framework. Key Session 2: Walking the path to a more stakeholders. relevance and measurability. From these graphs, resilient water future participants were asked to select the sub-goals 3. A RACI (responsible, accountable, The agenda for Day Two was: The afternoon session was a workshop to that they would like to include on the Framework contributor, informed) table to map the for their city. test the approach to step 1 of the City Water responsibilities of each stakeholder on •• Assessing water resilience: Workshop to Resilience Approach, “Engage with stakeholders programmes and identify governance gaps. develop the goals and indicators of the water and understand their water system” and review resilience assessment tool. Following this exercise, participants were asked the OurWater governance tool. 4. Assessing the preliminary resilience of the to align indicators with goals to help ascertain city based on existing programmes and •• Evening debate: ‘If resilience had real the strength of the connection of the indicator economic and societal value then decisions with the proposed goals for positive resilience 112 CITY WATER RESILIENCE FRAMEWORK 113 ANNEX D: REFLECTIONS ON GKE 2018
Participants mapping out Phase 2 of the City Water Resilience Approach Participants in the Day 2 evening debate Global Knowledge Exchange participants at the Thames Barrier
contribution. They were also asked to review •• Dr Mark Fletcher, Global Water Leader, 3. What are the specific results from applying by Steve East, the Engineering Manager at the the wording of the sub-goals and annotate any Arup; the framework that deliver value to the city? Thames Barrier, on the genesis of the project, its changes relevant for their city. •• Dr. Ruth Boumphrey, Director of Research, The city groups were asked to map out the engineering design and the future of the Barrier. Lloyd’s Register Foundation; methodology for Steps 3 and 4 of the CWRA, Each group’s selection of goals and sub-goals related to action plan development and KEY LESSONS were recorded. In data processing following the •• Cayley Green, Senior Resilience Analyst, implementation. They were asked to consider the The GKE demonstrated a growing recognition Global Knowledge Exchange, the recorded goals City of Cape Town; following questions: of the importance of water in cities. Participants and sub-goals were used to: •• Dr. Diego Juan Rodriguez, Senior Water validated the need for the City Water Resilience Resources Management Specialist, World 1. Who needs to be engaged and how? Approach, and validated the team’s findings •• Determine the chosen sub-goals for the Bank. in each city and reviewed and commented on City Water Resilience Framework and their 2. How do we validate the outputs? the City Water Resilience Approach (CWRA). position relative to the goals: DAY THREE 3. How do we ensure the continuity and utility For more specific account of how inputs from •• Update the language of the goals and sub- of the efforts? the workshop informed the CWRF, please see The focus of Day Three was on the co-creation of goals to ensure that the correct meaning is 4. How to connect the plan to the financing Appendix B: Data Processing (Post GKE). communicated: Phase 2 of the City Water Resilience Framework. Phase 2 addresses how we move from the options? There was general acknowledgement around •• Develop our approach to indicator assessment using the City Water Resilience 5. Are there other key activities driving value? the need for a network of stakeholders to share development, for example, whether there Framework to a prioritised, fundable action plan. is any choice of indicators for cities and Exploring these questions collaboratively with experiences around water resilience. Knowledge whether indicators should be qualitative or The agenda for Day Three was: the diverse selection of experts present at the sharing at a global level, including between cities quantitative or both. GKE allowed for a much deeper understanding of working in similar geographic settings, facing •• From assessment to action – value the value created by the frameworks and created similar challenges and/or operating in similar opportunity for Phase 2 to be shaped for the political or cultural landscapes, was highlighted as Key Session 4: Evening Debate proposition workshop. end-user. one of the key benefits of the Global Knowledge On the evening of the second day, there was a •• Site visit to Thames Barrier. Exchange and there was a desire for this to lively debate of the motion: “If resilience had any The outputs of this session informed two aspects continue and strength moving forwards. real economic and societal value, then decision of the City Water Resilience Approach. Firstly, makers would be implementing it already.” The Key Session 5: Value Proposition Workshop brainstorming around the value of the CWRA ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS debate featured: In this session, the value to cities of applying informed our value proposition to share with The workshopwas held at the Collcutt Building the CWRA and Governance for Resilient Water cities and funders. Secondly, the process maps by kind permission of the Lloyds Register •• Trevor Bishop, Director of Strategy and Systems was explored via facilitated discussion for Phase 2 were analysed to develop the CWRA Foundation. The UK’s Environment Agency Planning, Ofwat; around the following questions: methodology. provided access to and information about •• Dr. Juliet Mian, Technical Director, London’s Thames Barrier. Resilience Shift; 1. Why are the city and/or other players Key Session 6: Site Visit to the Thames Barrier interested? •• Dr. Fred Boltz, CEO Resolute Development On the afternoon of day 3, Global Knowledge Solutions, and Chair, City Water Resilience 2. What should be accomplished and why is this Exchange participants went on a site visit to visit Framework; important for the city? For other key players? the Thames Barrier, a project that demonstrates ‘resilience in action’. A presentation was provided 114 CITY WATER RESILIENCE FRAMEWORK 115 ANNEX E: REFLECTIONS ON BELLAGIO
ANNEX E REFLECTIONS ON BELLAGIO INTRODUCTION
The City Water Resilience Approach (CWRA) Foundation’s Bellagio Centre at Lake Como for has been launched to respond for the demand for a Forum on ‘Improving city water resilience.’ tools to diagnose and design for water resilience. The Forum was convened by Arup, Resolute Development Solutions and the Netherlands’ The CWRA supports cities to build the capacity Special Envoy for Water as part of the City Water of city water systems to endure, adapt and Resilience Approach initiative. transform in the face of shocks and stresses. It is designed to help diverse actors—including Organisations represented at the forum city government agencies, civil society, private included: sector organizations and academic institutions— Over the past year, Arup has worked closely to better understand the relative strengths •• 100 Resilient Cities with the Resilience Shift (TRS), the Rockefeller and vulnerabilities of water systems, identify Foundation and other partners in developing •• Arup opportunities to build resilience into all aspects Phase 1 of the City Water Resilience Approach of water management and chart paths forward •• Carbon Disclosure Project that will help cities grow their capacity to plan for achieving better outcomes. The CWRA works and implement projects to improve water •• City of Cape Town Resilience Department to strengthen all aspects of the water system, resilience. not only physical assets but also including those •• Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH encompassed by the six capitals (human, social, Throughout this process, we have relied on the political, economic, physical and natural). It •• Global Environmental Facility (GEF) insights of experts committed to addressing represents a step forward in helping cities to cities’ most pressing water needs. These insights •• Global Resilience Partnership ensure that their citizens survive and thrive in have been key to the success of our work, and the face of water-related shocks and stresses, •• Indian National Institute of Urban Affairs will continue to be as we progress the City Water and that water systems can 1) provide access to Resilience Approach into Phase 2 and beyond. •• International Water Association high quality water resources for all residents, 2) protect residents from water-related hazards •• Miami-Dade County Office of Resilience I would like to thank all attendees of the and 3) connect residents through water-based •• Stockholm International Water Institute ‘Improving City Water Resilience Forum’ forum transportation networks (“provide, protect, for joining us at the Rockefeller Foundation’s •• Miami-Dade County Water and Sewer connect”). Bellagio Centre, and for contributing their Department (WASD) insights and experiences. The discussions around The CWRA is led by Arup, in partnership with the •• Netherlands Enterprise Agency water resilience held during the event will Stockholm International Water Institute, OECD benefit our collective efforts moving forward, •• Organisation for Economic Co-operation and and 100 Resilience Cities and is supported by and contribute to the partnerships that are key Development (OECD) The Rockefeller Foundation and The Resilience to developing pathways to more resilient water Shift. It has been developed in partnership with •• Resolute Development Solutions future. eight cities: Cape Town, Greater Miami and the •• The Kresge Foundation Beaches, Amman, Kingston upon Hull, Mexico •• The Resilience Shift City, Greater Manchester, Rotterdam and Thessaloniki. •• UK Department for International MARK FLETCHER Development Arup Global Water Leader Between Monday 5 – Friday 9 November 2019, •• The World Bank 22 water and resilience practitioners from 19 global organisations convened at the Rockefeller 118 CITY WATER RESILIENCE FRAMEWORK 119 REFLECTIONS ON BELLAGIO
The five-step CWRA process
1 The CWRA derives from a mixed-method The objectives of the forum include: UNDERSTAND research approach that included desk studies to THE SYSTEM identify current trends in thinking on the subject, and field engagement to better understand
the challenges and needs of city partners. It 2 Understand the City Water Review and validate Phase 1 of the describes an implementation methodology, a
1 Resilience Approach. 2 City Water Resilience Approach series of activities designed to achieve a city ASSESS URBAN and associated Framework and water resilience by understanding the wider WATER RESILIENCE urban water system and identifying and engaging Tools. the responsible actors, then assessing resilience actions, prioritising actions and developing 3 and action plan, implementation of proposed PLAN DEVELOP AN initiatives, and finally evaluation, learning and ACTION Build partnerships, link Co-create the next steps (Phase adapting the plan. The step-by-step approach of 3 programmes and mobilize our 4 2) of the City Water Resilience CWRA provides guidance on what steps to take, collective work to advance city Approach how to perform those steps and why those steps should be taken. 4 resilience through the City Water
IMPLEMENT THE Resilience Approach and related The CWRA provides a clear vision of what ACTION PLAN efforts. urban water resilience means for cities, including what specific conditions must be accomplished to achieve this vision, what efforts 5 In this document, we describe the City Water Resilience Approach and associated resources, will be required to build resilience and what including the City Water Resilience Framework and OurWater. We also summarise the reflections actors are involved in this project. that we gathered from the ‘Improving City Water Resilience’ forum and outline next steps. EVALUATE,AND ADAPT LEARN It provides a detailed plan for prioritizing key actions in cities and implementing them to achieve the city’s water resilience plan. Based on an assessment of each city’s strengths and weaknesses, the CWRA describes a process for translating shared vision into reality. 1. UNDERSTAND THE It provides resources that will help cities carry CITY WATER RESILIENCE out each step of the process by reducing the new partnerships between a range of users and APPROACH time and cost for cities. These tools include a funders through new learning platforms. mix of analogue and digital tools—including the The result of an 18-month research process— City Water Resilience Framework (CWRF) and RESOURCES FOR RESILIENCE Resilience Framework (CWRF), OurWater and combining a review of literature, interviews OurWater. other governance analysis resources, along To help cities enact the multi-step CWRA and workshops with key stakeholders, input process, Arup has developed a suite of resources, with workshop and programming activities to It establishes an extensive and continuously from outside experts and observations of including digital and analogue tools and develop an improved understanding and build growing body of knowledge on urban water field conditions—is the City Water Resilience frameworks, with additional resources planned urban water resilience. The approach recognizes resilience that cities can draw on to share Approach (CWRA). for the following steps of the approach. the need to understand urban water system experiences, identify innovative new approaches, from a holistic perspective, and the need for a and advance a community of practitioners at The CWRA emphasises five key steps, with The City Water Resilience Framework (CWRF) multi-stakeholder approach to achieve better all stages of the resilience approach. As the activities under each step, including the assessment aligns with the second step of the outcomes for urban water resilience. CWRA develops even further, it will include methodologies and resources to be used in each CWRA approach, helping cities assess strengths experiences of new cities, and ultimately catalyse step. These resources include the City Water and weaknesses in their water systems, and 120 CITY WATER RESILIENCE FRAMEWORK 121 REFLECTIONS ON BELLAGIO
2. REVIEW AND VALIDATE PHASE 1 OF THE CITY WATER generate a framework of understanding of water RESILIENCE APPROACH
Empowered resilience to guide future action. The framework Communities
us St ro rat e s eg sp itie V ic ro un isi P m on brings together diverse stakeholders to agree om C LE NG AD EI E C B R o L S o L H r upon a shared vision of urban water resilience n E I d a P G b W in r & o a U s & v t e S e e y c H T r d h R n a T a lt B p L A n a a S A T c e s e in their city. It helps cities measure progress in E E i H n H G
Y VALUE OF PHASE 1 OF CITY WATER
building local resilience, and prioritize key actions d n
f a
o
s
n y
n e
o t
i c i
o
l i t
i i
v
a RESILIENCE APPROACH s
b
i r l
v a e u
and identify actors. t
o g
S n
r
e l
u
P a
R
i o
t e
c
l e n
c
v
b e i
t a A
s t
c i
s The value proposition of the City Water
e u
E f
q f E E
I N
F R Resilience Approach was explored through the Another resource, the OurWater digital A P g S r n o T d i E t R E n n e a n n C c U a v t C N e l ir e A iv P o d T t question: U N d tool is designed to help cities improve water n N I p m a e a R F t e E d a tu & A r n r & g ts a G e l E N t C I In Table 1: Value O N S N governance though better understanding of YS LA
TE P g MS in E d proposition for ff un ec F M tiv le ce an e ab n a As in ina What is the added value of the City Water Resilience local water systems and the role of key decision- g s ta F e et us me S nd the City Water nt a Effective Disaster y makers. This means improving awareness around Response and Recover Approach to current resilience diagnosis, design and Resilience the types of shocks and stresses confronted, planning processes? Approach the impact of these shocks and stresses on infrastructure systems, and the interaction between key stakeholders involved in urban The City Water water management. OurWater allows users Resilience Improves understanding of Influences and inspires a Supports collaboration between multiple Drives action to improve to input information about the infrastructure Framework the city water system and best practice approach to stakeholders to take a coordinated approach the resilience of water and governance processes they participate in, the shocks and stresses it water management to planning and implementation systems in cities and urban and to map relationships between stakeholders faces areas throughout the entire water system. By • Identifies and manage • Expands the boundaries • Gain a comprehensive understanding of the • Assess and test our answering key questions about the interactions future challenges; of current water stakeholders involved in the water system current plans and between assets and actors that make up the • Provides a framework resilience thinking; and their objectives; processes; water system, the tool addresses a fundamental of understanding for • Supports becoming • Encourage cross-sector collaboration on • Identify gaps in current challenge in most cities, where water governance water resilience; an exemplar city that water resilience and breaks down silos; plans functions are often siloed. • Share knowledge of the thrives in relation to • Have common goals and a common plan • Create a portfolio of water system; and water; • Have a stronger, more co-ordinated voice; bankable projects; • Maps governance • Has the potential to • Different jurisdictions working together to • Develop evidence-based across the water cycle. inspire a 21st century attract funding; action plans through approach to water; and • Learn from others, both locally and globally / a globally recognised • Captures and shares Be part of a global network of water resilient process case studies and cities; • Incorporate resilience / examples of resilience • Extend ownership and responsibility beyond adaptation in decision- A prototype best practice. the public utility; making; version of the OurWater digital • Present one clear, aligned message to the • Identify and fill funding tool public; gaps; • Take account of interdependencies between • Enables a holistic critical systems and reduce the risk of approach to stakeholder cascading failures; engagement, • Credible approach during to collaboration institutional mapping between the current partners including Arup, and resilience Rockefeller Foundation, The Resilience Shift, assessment and action; SIWI, OECD, 100 Resilient Cities, `World • Incorporates additional Bank and University of Massachusetts benefits (e.g. social and Amherst; natural capital) into • Aligns with existing activities in the cities, solutions; and for example, the City Resilience Framework • Facilitates monitoring and Index and the OECD Water Governance progress using Principles and Indicator Framework; indicators. • Facilitates city to city, peer to peer learning on water management and resilience; • Seamless integration between catchment, city and utility governance to ensure that the right decisions are made; and • Additional actors outside the utility at the table in a mixed stakeholder environment. 122 CITY WATER RESILIENCE FRAMEWORK 123 REFLECTIONS ON BELLAGIO
PHASE 1 OF THE CITY WATER 3. CO-CREATE THE NEXT PHASE 2 STRATEGY FOR THE CITY RESILIENCE APPROACH FOR WATER RESILIENCE APPROACH DEVELOPMENT STEPS (PHASE 2) OF The Phase 2 Strategy for the City Water A peer-review of the City Water Resilience CITY WATER RESILIENCE Resilience Approach set out five objectives: Approach and associated tools was undertaken APPROACH focusing on the question: Implement the City Water Resilience The Phase 2 Strategy was co-created through Approach Step 2 (Assess Urban Water What are the important areas of Phase 1 of the City? two main questions: Resilience) for all eight partner cities. This Water Resilience Approach for further development includes re-engaging with Wave 1 and Wave 2 and how might they be addressed? What value do you hope to gain from the Phase city partners and carrying out Step 2 in each city, 2 effort? How might we strengthen the Phase 2 entailing testing and improving the City Water The aspects of Phase 1 of the City Water Strategy to fulfil our expectations? Resilience Framework and OurWater tool. Resilience Approach identified by Bellagio participants for further development are outlined Co-develop the approach for Step 3 (Develop below. The areas for further development will Action Plans) with the Wave 1 cities. This be incorporated in the City Water Resilience includes analysing resulting from the City Approach at the start of Phase 2 in early 2019. Water Resilience Framework, co-developing a methodology for developing and prioritising Table 2: Areas of the City plans and programmes, and co-creating City Water Resilience Approach for further development Action Plans for cities.
Engage new Wave 3 cities to identify city champions, introduce the approach, and begin to VALUE PROPOSITION • Establish the value proposition for the City Water Resilience Approach including understanding implement Steps 1-2. the audience, the incentives of undertaking the process and the end goal. • Identify the hooks that donors need to prioritise this initiative. • Identify the differentiators between the CWRA and other tools. Refine and update OurWater digital tool based • Set out the incentives for undertaking the City Water Resilience Approach. Is there the on user testing with cities, to incorporate new opportunity to frame the approach in relation to project donors? functions into the tool and help cities improve • For donors, knowledge and reassurance that the investments are the right thing to do. local water governance. • Show other city interests (for example, investors and credit rating agencies) that the city understands its future Promote water resilience learning by setting CITY WATER RESILIENCE • Develop a manual to support the approach up a knowledge sharing and learning community APPROACH • Is any preparation need for stakeholder meetings to get a common understanding? between partner cities and a Global Knowledge • Explore the incorporation of scenario planning Exchange between partner cities and steering • Provide an outline of the city resource requirement for completing the approach. group members to share challenges, experiences • Inclusion of a manual of the process and learning from the resilience journey. • Establish the entry point • Include an explicit step in the approach of sharing knowledge and lessons learnt with other cities. • Include the step of spatially mapping water-related shocks and stresses and infrastructure, not The proposed programme for 2019 for the Table 3: Proposed just governance. programme of work for Phase 2 of the City Water Resilience Approach is • Incorporate a step to baseline the score to reflect existing projects and programmes. This could CWRA development in described in Table 3. use the Arup actions inventory. 2019 • Incorporate reflection and adaptation step into the approach.
CITY WATER RESILIENCE • Include informality in the framework FRAMEWORK • Is city an inclusive term? Commonality of language/ Language clarification (framework vs.. tool vs.. JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC approach) / Globally speaking the right language between sectors as well as within. Review • Strengthen the narrative around the contribution of the goals and sub-goals to resilience. Add a Review Phase 1 and develop CWRF CWRA Development Action plan methodology co-creation and testing following city golden thread of uncertainty and adaptive management, resilience to the process in sub-goals indicators • Include best practice examples for each sub-goal to encourage best practice for water engagement management. Ensure that the framework inspires adoption of best practice. City (Re) Engagement and Water Resilience Wave 1 Cities Action Plan Co-Creation Assessment OURWATER • Peer review and test the OurWater Governance Tool City Re- • Change the name of the tool to reflect governance rather than water resources management. Wave 2 Cities Water Resilience Assessment Action Plan Co-Creation • Explicitly clarify how OurWater contributes to the approach Engagement
Resilience Learning IMPLEMENTATION • Partner or network cities to improve their cross-fertilisation of ideas. • Demonstrate implementation of the City Water Resilience Approach OurWater v2.0
Wave 3 Cities City Engagement 124 CITY WATER RESILIENCE FRAMEWORK 125 REFLECTIONS ON BELLAGIO Table 4: The value of the Phase 2 strategy and aspects that were identified to be strengthened include:
Topic Value Areas to Strengthen
WAVE 1 AND 2 • Widespread uptake of • Set up an advisory group including the partner cities to provide feedback on the CITIES systematic approach. indicator approach and indicators developed. 4. BUILD PARTNERSHIPS, -- The Resilience Shift • Implement in Wave 1 and 2 • Implement in five Wave 1 and three Wave 2 cities in 2019. For the five Wave -- The 100 Resilient Cities network; cities to provide credibility to 1 cities, use the information that was collected in the fieldwork and align any LINK PROGRAMMES - The Global Platform for Sustainable Cities the process and confidence in subsequent fieldwork and feedback with city schedules. AND MOBILIZE OUR - scalability and applicability (supported by the Global Environment Fund, COLLECTIVE WORK World Bank, Inter-American Development COMMUNITY OF • Broaden and strengthen our • Discuss with other tool developers on alignment (e.g. CRC Water Sensitive Bank, United Nations Environment PRACTICE AND community of practice. Cities, OECD Water Governance Indicator Framework). Workshop in Brisbane TO ADVANCE CITY Programme and the Asian Development RESILIENCE • Knowledge exchange (peer to to align CRC WSC. RESILIENCE THROUGH Bank), which currently includes 28 cities; LEARNING peer) • Align with the Sustainable Development Goals. • Develop partner’s pack for potential project partners. The partners pack should FUTURE CITY WATER -- The Carbon Disclosure Project Company include a clear proposal of how support can be provided, an outline of the value and Investor Network. RESILIENCE APPROACH proposition of the City Water Resilience Approach, an outline of the approach, •• Integration with existing plans and framework and tools and articulation of the phase 2 and 3 strategy and the AND RELATED EFFORTS programmes, including: visionary end goal. The ‘Improving City Water Resilience’ forum at -- Water as Leverage programme; CWRF AND • Improved resources for • Align with the OECD Water Governance Indicators -- Asian Development Bank Technical OURWATER coordination between • Support other aspects of the City Water Resilience Approach Rockefeller Foundation’s Bellagio Center offered organizations for better water • Map existing available indicators for quantitative and qualitative indicators from the opportunity for new partnerships and for Assistance programme, which includes 25 governance. existing frameworks and data that cities collect. links between programmes to be developed to cities in 8 countries; and • Assessment of city progress to • Develop comprehensive indicators (qualitative and quantitative indicators) mobilize our collective efforts to improve city -- National Institute of Urban Affairs Water- date and prioritization of key • Include flexibility in the framework, pick from a list of indicators water resilience. centric Master planning project. actions in partner cities • Include the rationale behind the indicators • Explore the approach to indicators including flexibility, quantitative vs. •• Opportunities for further discussion of qualitative and weightings. During the event, it was agreed upon that a assistance with The Resilience Shift, UK community of practice with participation by Department for International Development, DEVELOPMENT • Action plans that are complete • Have a clear monitoring methodology the Bellagio participants would be set up. This 100 Resilient Cities, World Bank and the OF CWRA and well-informed. • Develop a ‘simple and rapid’ or ‘lite’ version for cities with limited resources. community of practice would need to define its International Water Association. • Ability to measure and monitor • Prioritise how we act to capture the resilience value/dividend terms of reference, but they could include active using the tool to determine • Total value evaluation, including natural and social capital We expect that this support, along with other review of outputs and dissemination of the City progress and adapt approach • Incorporate impact chains insights shared during the event, will greatly Water Resilience Approach. The International • Efficient use of funds (within • Incorporate multi-criteria analysis approach benefit the CWRA and increase the project’s the water system) to create • Insert an activity of getting initial feedback from the cities on the approach. Water Association has offered to support the impact going forward. resilience. • Clarify what cities do and what facilitators do. community of practice. It was also suggested • Promote 21st century approach • Raise the profile of the wider benefits of some resilience solutions. that we should invite other experts to join the to water resilience. Case Community of Practice, for example, American studies to show what good looks like. Water Work Association, World Economic • Comprehensive identification of Forum and the Utility Climate Alliance, and that strengths and gaps. we should approach other audiences for the City Water Resilience Approach, for example, insurance companies and credit rating agencies. WAVE 3 AND • Greater certainty of cost of • Implement in African cities and Asian cities/global south, which are under- ROLL-OUT application to cities represented in the current cities. Support for the City Water Resilience Approach • Develop a business plan going forward including resource requirements for the implementation of the framework, how much do cities contribute, where does was offered by participants at the Forum. These the remaining funding come from. include: • Communicate, publish and engage the City Water Resilience Approach and tools widely. •• Leveraging existing networks for the piloting • Step by step document for facilitators and cities explaining the approach. and roll-out of the City Water Resilience • Raise profile for new cities and define entry point for new cities Approach. These networks include: • Define the entry points for new cities joining the initiative. • Capitalise on advantage of overlap with the City Resilience Framework and City Resilience Index. • Develop a financial strategy for city involvement.