Integrative approaches to urban resilience: Evaluating the efficacy of resilience strategies in mitigating climate change vulnerabilities

Abstract

The successful implementation of urban resilience strategies is of utmost importance in order to reduce susceptibility and bolster resilience in the face of climate change consequences. The current understanding of the efficacy of different resilience strategies in mitigating vulnerability and bolstering urban resilience is lacking, despite its significance. This study assesses the efficacy of resilience strategies in mitigating vulnerability and enhancing urban resilience. We conducted a comprehensive analysis of scholarly literature published in English following PRISMA criteria from January 2001 to July 2023. Finally, 116 articles met the inclusion criteria and were selected for in-depth analysis. Results indicate that while resilience strategies have the potential to reduce susceptibility and enhance urban resilience, the effectiveness of resilience techniques is contingent upon various factors, such as the type of hazard, urban setting, and implementation process. The study also highlights the significance of stakeholder involvement, community participation, and adaptive management as essential components for effectively implementing resilience measures. Integrating physical, social, and institutional components in resilience practices demonstrated notable effectiveness. This study also reveals that improving the physical resilience of urban areas and strengthening their social and institutional capabilities to address and learn from disruptive events and pressures can decrease their vulnerability. The research also exposes those strategies focusing solely on mitigating a single issue, such as physical infrastructure, while neglecting social or institutional elements, which prove less effective. A comprehensive approach, incorporating institutional, social, and physical measures, should be designed to achieve maximal efficacy in mitigating vulnerability and strengthening urban resilience.

1. Introduction

The concept of urban resilience has emerged as a matter of utmost importance due to the escalating difficulties that cities throughout the globe encounter concerning climate change, natural calamities, and unanticipated occurrences. Urbanization is rapidly advancing worldwide, resulting in cities assuming a prominent role in confronting a wide range of environmental, social, and economic issues [1]. According to the United Nations [2], the number of megacities is expected to increase to 41 by 2030, and metropolitan areas now accommodate over 50% of the global population, establishing themselves as primary hubs of human engagement and pivotal catalysts for worldwide economic advancement. The importance of urban resilience in promoting the long-term viability and quality of life in cities worldwide is becoming more widely acknowledged. The United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals have emphasized the significance of fostering resilience, as seen by including a dedicated objective under Goal 11, which aims to create inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable cities and human settlements [3]. The importance of urban resilience has become more imperative in recent times [4]. A global urban resilience system is implementing an urban development and governance agenda, which involves several actors from the public, corporate, and non-profit sectors [5]. The implementation of urban resilience measures has been shown to substantially impact mitigating vulnerability and augmenting the resilience of cities, influencing their potential to endure and prosper in the face of various changes [6].

Within this particular setting, urban resilience has surfaced as a crucial paradigm for effectively handling the challenges associated with urban expansion and intricacy [7]. Urban resilience is defined as the ability of cities to effectively withstand and recover from various shocks and pressures while ensuring the continuity of vital operations [4]. Moreover, it encompasses the capability of cities to adapt and evolve in a manner that fosters sustainability [6]. Urban resilience encompasses more than just returning to a prior condition after experiencing shocks and pressures. It also involves learning from these events and becoming stronger and better equipped to face future problems [8]. The importance of urban resilience measures is seen in cities' large range of techniques. The factors above include a range of strategies such as resilient urban design, green infrastructure, community capacity development, and legislative changes [9]. The comprehension of the efficacy of these techniques in mitigating susceptibility and bolstering adaptive capacity is fragmented and inconsistent, despite their significance.

Urban resilience strategies are of paramount importance in implementing the notion of resilience within the urban setting. According to Kammouh et al. [10], a diverse range of policies, including physical infrastructure measures and social and institutional activities, have a significant role in shaping the resilience of cities. By implementing measures to decrease vulnerability, which refers to the degree to which urban systems are prone to shocks and stressors, these techniques can improve cities' resilience and durability. According to Taylor and Moench [9], promoting flexibility and creativity and facilitating sustainable change in urban areas may be achieved by augmenting the adaptive capacity of urban systems. Hence, it is crucial to comprehend the efficacy of various urban resilience techniques to facilitate global cities' sustainable and resilient advancement.

The assessment of the efficacy of urban resilience initiatives is important due to many factors. Primarily, cities throughout the globe are encountering a progressively varied and intricate array of issues. Urban systems are now under substantial pressure as a result of several challenges, including climate change, environmental degradation, population growth, socio-economic disparities, and public health issues [11]. The evaluation of measures aimed at enhancing urban resilience has the potential to provide useful information on the cost-effectiveness of different methods. This may enable cities to make informed decisions about resource allocation and improve overall efficiency [10]. The concept of urban resilience is evolutionary and has been constantly evolving over time [12]. The effectiveness of urban resilience strategies may vary as cities experience transformation and confront new challenges. Therefore, it is crucial to regularly carry out evaluations in order to evaluate the effectiveness of these approaches, identify prospective areas for improvement, and adapt the strategies in accordance with evolving conditions [9]. Given the current situation, it is crucial to examine the effectiveness of urban resilience strategies in reducing vulnerability and enhancing the adaptive capacity of urban regions.

Furthermore, while there is widespread recognition of the significance of urban resilience, there is still ongoing progress in operationalizing and improving resilience practically [13]. Various cities have implemented diverse techniques, which are influenced by their distinct settings, difficulties, and capabilities [14]. Nevertheless, there exists a dearth of thorough and systematic comprehension of the relative effectiveness of these techniques, the circumstances in which they are most efficacious, and the underlying reasons for their efficacy. The absence of this information gap may impede cities' ability to acquire insights from one another's experiences and effectively implement and modify successful tactics within their unique circumstances [15].

Current scholarly literature presents a range of evaluations about different urban resilience initiatives, often centering on distinct case studies or specific categories of resilience metrics [16]. Li et al. [17] assessed the efficacy of several urban resilience methods in mitigating the consequences of climate change in coastal metropolitan areas. The research found that resilience methods prioritizing the development of social and institutional capital, such as community-based adaptation and collaborative governance, proved successful in augmenting adaptive capacity and mitigating susceptibility to climate change. Moreover, several scholarly investigations have started examining comprehensive methodologies that include urban resilience's physical, social, and institutional aspects [18]. Nevertheless, a significant portion of the existing work in this field tends to be context-specific, concentrating on certain urban areas or particular kinds of methods. As a result, it becomes arduous to derive universally applicable findings about the efficacy of various techniques. Nevertheless, there is a shortage of thorough knowledge about the most productive tactics and the specific circumstances in which they are most efficient. Moreover, it is worth noting that while there is a considerable body of research emphasizing the need for comprehensive and interconnected methodologies that include physical, social, and institutional aspects [7,19,20], there is a scarcity of empirical data comparing the efficacy of these integrated tactics.

Recent reviews in this field, such as those by Masnavi et al. [21], Tavares et al. [22], Bueno et al. [23] and Abdillah et al. [24], have provided key insights into the efficacy and importance of strategies for urban resilience as well as governance's role in their implementation. Reviews such as these, while useful, tend to focus on individual elements such as infrastructure or environmental resilience, leaving a gap in our understanding of a larger urban system that interlinks. Our review builds upon this foundational research by offering an in-depth view that encompasses not just physical and environmental considerations but also complex social-economic and political elements that play a role in urban resilience. Despite the extensive body of scholarship about urban resilience, there are notable deficiencies and ambiguities. Numerous scholarly investigations have put forward divergent sets of standards for evaluating efficacy [25,26], posing challenges in the comparative analysis of research outcomes [[27], [28], [29]]. Furthermore, it is worth noting that while several studies emphasize the need for adopting comprehensive and integrated ways to enhance urban resilience [[30], [31], [32]], there is a scarcity of empirical investigations that have evaluated the efficacy of these tactics. Furthermore, there is a scarcity of research examining and comparing the efficacy of various techniques across various urban settings. The current state of knowledge restricts our comprehension of the impact of context-specific elements, such as geographical location, socio-economic circumstances, and governance systems, on the efficacy of urban resilience strategies. The present study mitigates these issues by comprehensively evaluating empirical research on the efficacy of urban resilience strategies. Thus, it seeks to fill the existing gap by addressing the following research question: To what extent can different resilience strategies prove efficacious in mitigating vulnerability and enhancing urban resilience? Therefore, we conduct a comprehensive analysis of empirical research that evaluates the efficacy of various urban resilience strategies.

The primary aim of this research is threefold: firstly, to ascertain the steps of evaluations of various urban resilience strategies that are being implemented on a global scale; secondly, to identify the major strategies which are successful in mitigating vulnerability and improving urban resilience; and thirdly, to compare the efficacy of different types of strategies, with a particular focus on integrated approaches that encompass physical, social, and institutional dimensions. Through a comprehensive analysis of many strategies and a discernment of the underlying elements contributing to their efficacy, this research provides significant and essential insights for urban planners, politicians, and academics dedicated to augmenting cities' global resilience.

Social-ecological-technological systems (SETS) provide a holistic perspective to understanding and increasing urban resilience by combining social, ecological, and technological dimensions [33]. The framework highlights the significance of considering complex interactions among ecology, social processes, and technological innovations when planning urban resilience [33]. This framework aligns with our focus on integrative strategies by acknowledging the interdependency among various urban system components [12,34]. Socio-ecological systems provide an approach that, though not yet implemented in concrete resilience strategies, provides an excellent theoretical foundation [35]. Furthermore, Salman and Alkinani [36] and Che et al. [37] have made important contributions to this discussion by proposing frameworks that incorporate multiple dimensions in urban environments. These studies collectively stress the necessity of holistic resilience strategies that go beyond multidisciplinary thinking to practical application. Integrating perspectives from various fields into this study helps develop integrated approaches to urban resilience as well as strengthen arguments in favor of using frameworks like this one for future planning and policy-making to effectively tackle complex urban resilience issues.

2. Methodology

2.1. Research design

The research approach used in this investigation conforms to the principles outlined in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) [38]. The set of standards above is well recognized and accepted throughout the academic community. It offers a comprehensive and organized framework for carrying out and documenting systematic reviews and meta-analyses. By adhering to the steps of PRISMA approach, researchers may ensure that their studies are conducted with a rigorous, transparent, and replicable methodology. The PRISMA checklist ensures that all necessary components for reporting a systematic review are included, providing clear and comprehensive documentation of the activities undertaken at each phase of the research endeavor. In contrast, the flow diagram visualizes the sequential progression of information across several stages of the review process. These stages include identifying, screening, determining eligibility, and including relevant research. The PRISMA principles enhance transparency in reporting both methods and conclusions [39]. This enables readers and subsequent researchers to effectively retrace the sequence of actions conducted in the study, thus facilitating the evaluation of the thoroughness and rigor of the processes employed. This research adheres to the 27 PRISMA criteria, which assures methodological rigor in the review process and enhances the reliability and validity of the review results [38].

2.2. Research protocol

Before the review commenced, a comprehensive research protocol delineated the aims, approach to searching, criteria for inclusion, and intended analytical methodologies [1]. The methodology functioned as a guide for the review process, facilitating uniformity and reducing potential bias. Table 1 presents the research protocol of this study.

Table 1.

Research protocol.

Items	Details
Research question	a) What are the key steps involved in evaluating various urban resilience strategies currently implemented on a global scale? b) Which major urban resilience strategies have been effective in mitigating vulnerability and improving urban resilience? c) How do different types of urban resilience strategies compare in terms of efficacy, particularly those that integrate physical, social, and institutional dimensions?
Databases and sources used	Systematic literature search conducted on the Scopus.
Publication time	January 2001 to July 2023
Keywords and search terms	Used search string: (“urban resilience” OR “city resilience”) AND (“strategy” OR “approach” OR “initiative”) AND (“effectiveness” OR “impact” OR “outcome”) AND (“vulnerability” OR “adaptive capacity").
Time frame for literature search	No specific time frame was imposed to ensure a comprehensive review.
Inclusion criteria	Empirical studies evaluating the effectiveness of urban resilience strategies focusing on vulnerability reduction or the enhancement of adaptive capacity; studies from all geographical regions; studies published in English.
Exclusion criteria	Non-empirical studies; studies not focusing on urban resilience strategies; studies not published in English.
Data extraction	Utilized a standardized data extraction form to capture all relevant details from each study.
Quality assessment	27 checklists from PRISMA were used to assess methodological quality.
Analytical approach	Employed narrative synthesis for the analysis and synthesis of data.

2.3. Search string

The search string development included various scholarly investigations on measures for enhancing urban resilience. The following terminologies were employed: (“urban resilience” OR “city resilience”) AND (“strategy” OR “approach” OR “initiative”) AND (“effectiveness” OR “impact” OR “outcome”) AND (“vulnerability” OR “adaptive capacity”). The search phrases were used in conjunction with Boolean operators to optimize the comprehensiveness and pertinence of the search results.

2.4. Search strategy and period

A complete literature evaluation was conducted by searching the Scopus database. The search criteria were deliberately designed to be inclusive and thorough, as they did not impose any restrictions on publishing date, language, or publication status. A manual assessment of the reference lists of the included studies and pertinent review articles yielded additional papers. We considered the journal articles published from January 2001 to July 2023. Starting the literature search in 2001 was chosen because of the major progress in resilience research that was taking place around this time. It marked a fundamental change in resilience research from its original focus on psychological perspectives to an inclusive perspective that took into account economic, social, and environmental considerations. It allows us to record these crucial shifts as resilience becomes an ever-more vital element of urban environments as a multidisciplinary area that provides a broad overview.

2.5. Criteria for inclusion and exclusion

The criteria for inclusion in this study were as follows: (1) studies that conducted empirical evaluations of the effectiveness of urban resilience strategies, (2) studies that specifically examined the outcomes of vulnerability reduction and/or enhancement of adaptive capacity, and (3) studies that provided adequate information regarding the strategies employed and their resulting outcomes, enabling a comprehensive analysis. The exclusion criteria included the following: (1) studies that did not conduct empirical evaluations to assess the success of the strategies, (2) studies that did not specifically target urban situations, and (3) studies that lacked enough information for comprehensive analysis.

2.6. Evaluation of quality

To ensure the quality of the selected study, 27 checklists from PRISMA were used(table S1). The process included assessing the clarity and suitability of the study aims, the meticulousness and soundness of the methodologies used, the pertinence and soundness of the results obtained, and the clarity and utility of the conclusions drawn. The use of exclusion criteria was employed to identify research that did not meet the minimum quality threshold.

2.7. Extraction and analysis of data

The procedure for obtaining data from each research study included in the analysis was systematic and thorough. The researchers employed a standardized data extraction form to systematically collect pertinent information from each study. This information encompassed various aspects, including the author(s), year of publication, study location, research methodology, type of urban resilience strategy under evaluation, measured outcomes, methods employed to assess effectiveness, and significant findings.

Data were retrieved from each research that met the inclusion criteria. The present analysis encompasses four main aspects: (1) the specific urban resilience plan under scrutiny, (2) the metrics used to gauge its effects, (3) the methodologies employed to evaluate its success, and (4) the principal conclusions derived from the assessment. The data obtained from the studies that were included in the analysis were synthesized and analyzed using a narrative synthesis methodology.

3. Results

3.1. Characteristics of the selected documents

3.1.1. Document selection

After conducting a thorough and systematic search of Scopus, a total of 2125 papers potentially related to the research topic were identified. The removal of 1092 duplicate entries left 1033 studies for title and abstract screening. The initial screening resulted in the exclusion of 564 studies, mainly because they focused on non-urban environments or did not specifically evaluate resilience-related techniques. Consequently, 469 papers were left for full-text evaluation. Of these, a series of exclusions were made: some papers were discarded due to unclear or inconclusive findings regarding the effectiveness of resilience techniques, while others did not meet the predetermined quality assessment standards. As a result, the systematic review ultimately included 116 research papers, which spanned various geographical settings and covered diverse urban resilience strategies. After a thorough review of the full-text content, 353 papers were excluded for various reasons, leaving a total of 116 studies that met all specified criteria and were deemed suitable for inclusion in the review (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1.

Selected documents for detailed analysis.

3.1.2. Distribution of publications over time

This investigation examined documents published since 2001. However, prior to 2008, there were hardly any articles that discussed the governance of platforms. The distribution of articles is depicted in Fig. 2 between 2008 and 2022. The quantity of documents has increased over time, as observed. In 2022, 30 publications centered on urban resilience strategies and their effectiveness issues. Fifteen articles published until July 2023 are included in the chart.

Fig. 2.

Published documents over the years.

3.1.3. Distribution of documents based on focused areas

This study reveals that the selected documents have focused on a variety of disciplines, such as environmental science and management, engineering, social sciences, energy, computer sciences, earth and planetary sciences, sociology, agricultural and biological sciences, biochemistry, and arts and humanities. Environmental science and management (26.6%), engineering (19.4%), social sciences (18.6%), energy (6.8%), computer sciences (6.3%), and earth and planetary sciences (5.9%), received the most attention (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3.

Selected documents' focused areas.

3.1.4. Regional distribution

This study reveals that most of the selected documents (33) were published by Chinese authors, while the authors from the US, UK, Italy, and Germany published 30, 33, 19, 13, and 9, respectively (Fig. 4). Other documents were authored by scholars from all over the world. Though the cities of the global south are the most affected, the progress of research is not enough. The researchers of the global south require more attention to face upcoming urban hazards.

Fig. 4.

Selected documents' regional distribution.

3.1.5. Major publishers

Only journals that have published at least 3 papers on urban resilience strategies were presented below (Table 2). The selected journals are then organized based on the number of publications. Table 2 presents the journal names and lists the corresponding number of published papers for each journal. The fact that most journals have only one publication in this area indicates the early stage of development in this field of study.

Table 2.

Major journals of the selected documents.

Sl. no.	Journal name	Number of published documents
1	Sustainability	6
2	Water Resources Management	4
3	Natural Hazards	3
4	Sustainable Cities and Society	3
5	Urban Climate	3
6	Water Research	3
7	Water	3
8	Environmental Science and Policy	3
9	Journal of Environmental Management	3
10	Journal of Hydrology	3

3.1.6. Network visualization

The word clouds were generated using the VOSviewer software. Bibliographic coupling is seen when two academic publications have one or more shared references. The degree of overlap in references between two entities is indicative of their likelihood to be classified within the same cluster. The VOSviewergenerates a co-occurrence matrix that visually represents grouped components in a two-dimensional map, using similarity measurements [1]. The proximity of the reported entities in the matrix is directly proportional to the strength of their interconnections. The result of this process is a cluster analysis, whereby the groupings are conceptualized as coherent subjects. A method of interpretation was used to categorize groupings. The present study used the aforementioned interpretations to conduct a keyword analysis, using author keywords, to examine the predominant topics addressed in the contemporary scientific literature. The primary objective of creating a word cloud is to construct a succinct representation of the terms related to urban resilience including resilience [[40], [41], [42], [43]], urban area [21,44], climate change [24,45,46], risk management [19,47], flooding [48,49], flood [[50], [51], [52]], sustainable development [[53], [54], [55]], sustainability [[56], [57], [58]], urban development [[59], [60], [61]], urban drainage [62,63], adaptive management [12,64], green infrastructure [65,66], mitigation [25,67], and urban planning [[68], [69], [70]], as well as to establish connections between other associated concepts. Fig. 5 illustrates the terms that are most often used in the discourse around urban resilience. The data retrieved from the articles demonstrates a minimum incidence of a word at least five times.

Fig. 5.

Network visualization of the terms related to urban resilience.

The largest cluster, which centers on resilience and closely links to urban area climate change and risk management, focuses on how urban areas implement strategies to adapt to challenges posed by climate variability and risks [[40], [41], [42], [43]]. As part of sustainable urban planning strategies, an increasing emphasis has been placed on green infrastructure, sustainable development, and water management - three disciplines that go together as part of a resilient design for urban areas [24,65,66]. Urban planning intersects with flood control and drainage to illustrate the significance of urban resilience in response to specific dangers like flooding - often an existential threat in many urban areas [[68], [69], [70]].

3.2. Synthesis of findings

3.2.1. Reduction of vulnerability through urban resilience strategies

This study reveals the interaction between urban resilience strategies and the socio-ecological model, which recognizes the essential link between the health of urban communities and ecosystems, and green infrastructure as an essential social-ecological necessity that not only increases resilience through biodiversity enhancement and reduction of heat island impacts but also positively influences psychological wellbeing [71]. Furthermore, technological advancement is integral to monitoring and managing green spaces effectively while adhering to SETS strategies that foster resilient urban ecosystems [72,73]. Finally, technological innovations play a vital role in terms of monitoring green spaces effectively and complying with SETS strategies [74,75]. A preliminary exploration of resilience strategies provides the basis for further discussion in subsequent sections.

3.2.1.1. Evaluation of different types of urban resilience strategies

The evaluation of urban resilience plans requires a structured approach, as shown in Table 3. Identifying the main purposes and objectives of resilience is of utmost significance. Various solutions, such as integrating green infrastructure, play a significant role in addressing environmental issues by promoting the coexistence of natural elements within urban settings [66]. Likewise, there is a pressing need for community-driven disaster preparedness efforts [12]. The active engagement of local communities strengthens their capacity to endure challenges and enables them to address and manage catastrophes effectively. Moreover, prioritizing improving construction regulations ensures the capacity of buildings to withstand various environmental risks. This strategy also considers the broader social and economic inclusion dimension, guaranteeing that resilience planning and activities are available to persons from diverse socio-economic backgrounds [12,76].

Table 3.

Steps of evaluation of resilience strategies.

Evaluation steps	Possible urban resilience strategies	Sources
Step 1: Identify key resilience goals and objectives	Green infrastructure, community-based disaster preparedness, improved building codes and standards, social and economic inclusion.	[12,76]
Step 2: Assess the effectiveness of different resilience strategies	Comparative analysis of different strategies in terms of their impact on reducing vulnerability, enhancing adaptive capacity, and promoting social equity.	[77,78]
Step 3: Identify implementation challenges and barriers	Lack of financial resources, inadequate policy support, complex socio-economic and environmental conditions, limited access to data and information.	[12,64,76]
Step 4: Develop strategies for overcoming implementation challenges	Public-private partnerships, innovative financing mechanisms, stronger legal and regulatory frameworks, stakeholder engagement, and education.	[79,80]
Step 5: Monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of resilience strategies over time	Long-term monitoring and evaluation of resilience initiatives, use of performance indicators and metrics to assess progress, and identify areas for improvement.	[27,81]

After the identification process, the subsequent stage involves evaluating the effectiveness of the tactics that have been discovered. A thorough comparative analysis facilitates the assessment of the effects of each method on several aspects such as vulnerability reduction, improved adaptability, and the advancement of social fairness [82].

Nevertheless, like many other tactics, the application of this approach has its own unique set of obstacles. Prominent challenges include budgetary limitations, inadequate governmental support, complex socio-economic and environmental contexts, and restricted availability of data [26]. Possible strategies to address these obstacles include promoting collaborations between public and private entities to combine resources and expertise, developing creative approaches to finance, enhancing legal structures, and actively involving relevant parties. The involvement of communities and the provision of information to them are crucial factors in this context [12,76,82,83].

The final stage of this procedure depends on the monitoring and evaluation activities. The implementation of resilience initiatives can be enhanced by adopting a long-term perspective and employing regular monitoring through performance indicators. This approach ensures that the effectiveness of the strategies is maintained and allows for adaptation to changing circumstances and needs [12,76,82].

Evaluation of strategies for urban resilience requires a framework that recognizes the complex interrelationships among environmental, social, and technological elements. The SETS method offers an in-depth examination of how technology enhances social-ecological systems' adaptability in urban areas; sensors with smart technology installed in green areas could provide in-depth data regarding environmental conditions - providing adaptive strategies managers with necessary insight for improving urban resilience [74,75]. Evaluation methods discussed here form an integral component in understanding the effects of resilience strategies that are investigated more in-depth.

3.2.1.2. Major strategies, and their relationship with urban resilience

The examined research findings strongly indicate that urban resilience methods significantly impact mitigating vulnerability. Wu et al. [84] argued that improving infrastructure, namely in the realm of flood protection and heat mitigation, has a significant effect on decreasing vulnerability to climate-related hazards. In a similar vein, the implementation of policy and planning measures, such as the establishment of zoning regulations and land-use planning, has shown its efficacy in decreasing susceptibility. The aforementioned solutions have the objective of reducing the level of exposure to different dangers and improving preparedness [85].

Based on a comprehensive analysis, the prevailing body of research has produced substantial evidence to support the claim that urban resilience strategies successfully reduce vulnerability. The successful execution of infrastructure enhancements, particularly those aimed at mitigating floods and reducing heat, has shown substantial decreases in susceptibility to climate-induced risks [26,86]. Furthermore, empirical evidence has shown that the effective mitigation of vulnerability may be achieved by the successful implementation of policy and planning efforts, such as the introduction of zoning limitations and the use of land-use planning. The implementation of these strategies serves to limit the level of vulnerability to potential hazards and improve preparedness, as shown by research done by Satterthwaite [87] and Rana et al. [44]. Table 4 presents a comprehensive overview of the primary tactics used and their respective efficacy in mitigating susceptibility.

Table 4.

Major strategies, and their relationship with urban resilience.

Category	Resilience strategy	Relationship with resilience	Key references
Adaptive	Green urban planning	Direct	[26,42,65]
	Enhanced social services	Direct	[19,[88], [89], [90]]
	Accessible healthcare	Direct	[36,91]
	Effective waste management	Direct	[19,24,92]
	Crime prevention	Direct	[93,94]
	Community awareness programs	Direct	[14,81,95]
	Multidisciplinary collaboration	Direct	[96,97]
	Decentralization of resources	Direct	[80,98,99]
Absorptive	Local capacity building	Direct	[64,100,101]
	Infrastructure development	Direct	[63,65,87,102]
	Robust policy implementation	Direct	[16,88,103,104]
	Emergency preparedness training	Direct	[14,65,85,105]
	Enhancing information accessibility	Direct	[[106], [107], [108]]
	Climate change mitigation measures	Direct	[51,63,96,104]
	Financial risk reduction strategies	Direct	[19,29,109]
Transformative	Ecological conservation	Indirect	[30,66,110,111]
	Climate-smart agriculture	Indirect	[39,112,113]
	Technological innovation	Indirect	[64,107,109,114]
	Integrated urban management	Indirect	[26,92,96,115]
	Economic diversification	Indirect	[12,100,116]
	Land use practices	Indirect	[27,107,117]

3.2.2. Effectiveness of resilience strategies

With our understanding of evaluation techniques and methods, this study reveals how effective these strategies can enhance urban resilience in urban settings. When discussing strategies for resilience, we use principles from the socio-ecological model to investigate how urban communities interact and depend upon their surrounding ecosystems. The SETS approach allows us to study technology's role in further fostering these interactions - for instance, GIS can be used to plan urban areas including both ecological considerations as well as social requirements resulting in more durable cities and infrastructure [72,74,75].

3.2.2.1. Major resilience strategies

This study considers the major strategies for resilience under the social-ecological framework. We consider the ways strategies such as participation of communities in urban planning and policy-making help build social cohesion and adaptability [118]; in addition to how technological interventions such as those suggested in the SETS framework, such as community-based applications to communicate the risk of disaster can strengthen these strategies through providing platforms for community learning and responses [72,74,75]. Existing research indicates that the adoption of urban resilience methods, such as the cultivation of community capacity and the use of technology, has promise in augmenting adaptive ability. Patel et al. [119] argued that the development of community capacity, which encompasses educational initiatives, training programs, and the reinforcement of local institutions, has yielded positive outcomes in terms of social capital, community cohesion, and the ability to effectively address climate-related risks. The incorporation of technology, namely in the deployment of early warning systems and data-driven decision-making tools, has shown the potential to enhance the ability of communities and institutions to anticipate, mitigate, and recover from climate-related hazards [120]. Table 5 presents an overview of the primary resilience techniques and their respective efficacy in augmenting urban resilience.

Table 5.

Resilience strategies in enhancing urban resilience.

Major components	Resilience strategy	Evidence of effectiveness	Sources
Infrastructure and built environment	Infrastructure development	Studies showing increased durability and functionality of urban systems under various stressors.	[7,104]
	Green urban planning	Improved urban heat island effects, flood control, and ecological connectivity.	[26,42]
	Climate change mitigation measures	Decreased incidence and severity of climate-induced disasters.	[63,104]
	Effective waste management	Reduction in disease outbreaks following disasters.	[19,121]
	Technological innovation	Improved detection, prediction, and management of urban vulnerabilities.	[45,107]
Community engagement and social capital	Local capacity building	Demonstrated improvements in local decision-making and resource allocation.	[104,122]
	Emergency preparedness training	Reduced injuries and fatalities during disasters due to improved preparedness.	[9,123]
	Enhanced social services	Improved community well-being and social cohesion in urban settings.	[88,89]
	Accessible healthcare	Decreased health impacts following disasters.	[23,119]
	Community engagement	Increased resilience through improved social cohesion and collective decision-making.	[122,124]
Governance and policy	Governance structures	Governance mechanisms that prioritize resilience can coordinate various strategies effectively.	[125,126]
	Robust policy implementation	Significant decreases in disaster-related damages in areas with robust policies.	[127,128]
Economic and financial resilience	Economic diversification	Reduction of economic vulnerabilities and increased economic resilience.	[100,116]
	Financial instruments	Insurance, bonds, and other financial tools can help cities recover financially after a disaster.	[65,106]

3.2.2.1.1. Infrastructure and built environment

Previous studies show that incorporating green infrastructure, including green roofs, green walls, and urban forests, can mitigate the urban heat island phenomenon, enhance air quality, and promote biodiversity [26,42]. The effectiveness of physical infrastructure, such as flood barriers, sea walls, and stormwater management systems, has also been seen in mitigating susceptibility to severe weather events [7,104]. Building design strategies, such as incorporating passive cooling techniques and sun shading elements, have been recognized as a means to improve adaptive capacity.

3.2.2.1.2. Community engagement and social capital

Numerous studies have shown the significance of community participation and social capital in bolstering urban resilience [9,122,124]. The importance of social networks, including both official and informal networks, has been identified as crucial in the context of disaster response and recovery. Including community engagement in decision-making has been recognized as a means to enhance adaptive capacity and mitigate risk. The significance of social cohesiveness in fostering resilience was also identified, whereby social cohesion pertains to the amount of trust and solidarity present within a society.

3.2.2.1.3. Governance and policy

The identification of effective governance and policy frameworks has been recognized as crucial elements in enhancing urban resilience. The establishment of resilience has been shown to require the crucial involvement of several stakeholders, including governmental bodies, non-governmental organizations, and community groups, in collaborative and coordinated efforts [125,126]. The significance of policy and regulatory frameworks, such as land use planning and construction regulations, in mitigating risk and improving adaptive capacity was also identified. The importance of leadership and management in fostering resilience was underscored, particularly emphasizing the capacity to engage in effective stakeholder communication and adapt to changing conditions.

3.2.2.1.4. Economic and financial resilience

Several studies have underscored the significance of economic and financial resilience in bolstering urban resilience [65,106]. The implementation of a diversified local economy, with a particular emphasis on fostering the growth of small and medium-sized firms, has been recognized as a strategic approach to mitigate susceptibility to economic shocks. The significance of innovation in augmenting adaptive capacity was also observed, including the development of novel technologies and business models.

3.2.2.2. Analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the strategies based on the evidence

Although these strategies are beneficial, their execution has advantages and disadvantages. Infrastructure enhancement initiatives include many notable benefits, such as the capacity to provide concrete and rapid reductions in vulnerability, hence enhancing public safety. Nevertheless, there are several limitations associated with this approach, such as its substantial financial burden [129,130], the possibility of maladaptation [64,82], and occasional unforeseen consequences on the ecosystem [108,131]. Implementing policy and planning methods, while possessing significant scalability and long-term effectiveness, often encounters obstacles associated with governance, public participation, and the possibility of socioeconomic disparities [132]. Table 6 shows the strengths and weaknesses of resilience strategies.

Table 6.

Analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of urban resilience strategies.

Dimensions of resilience	Strengths	Weaknesses	Sources
Adaptive capacity (e.g., local capacity building, emergency preparedness training, healthcare)	Enhances community and individual resilience; facilitates long-term resilience building.	Requires continuous updating to remain effective; could exclude marginalized groups if not inclusively implemented.	[45,123,133]
Absorptive capacity (e.g., infrastructure development, effective waste management)	Effective in short-term disaster response and recovery; reduces immediate disaster impacts.	Requires substantial investment; might encourage dependency if not coupled with adaptive and transformative measures.	[123,134,135]
Transformative capacity (e.g., robust policy, green urban planning, social services, climate change mitigation measures)	Provides long-term strategies for resilience; promotes sustainability and inclusiveness	Requires time and resources to implement effectively; might face resistance due to socio-economic and political dynamics.	[22,23] [56]
Combined strategies (e.g., community engagement, technological innovation, economic diversification)	Ensures holistic approach to resilience; maximizes potential for resilience building.	Implementation can be complex; requires substantial planning and resources.	[77,115,121]

The strengths of community capacity development include enhanced social cohesiveness and resilience at the local level. Nevertheless, the efficacy of the intervention may be influenced by sociopolitical factors and the allocation of resources within local communities [119]. The use of technology has the potential to provide accurate and up-to-date data as well as predictive modeling [136,137]. However, its efficacy is limited by factors such as access to technology, proficiency in data literacy, and concerns about privacy and data security [101,138]. After reviewing the most vital resilience strategies, we engage in dialogue regarding our findings and integrate them into the research literature.

4. Discussion

We contextualize our research within a larger urban resilience framework and intertwine its findings into ongoing dialogue within this field.

4.1. Dimensions of resilience strategies

The dimensions of resilience strategies fall directly within the initial objective of exploring different approaches to urban resilience and their function in addressing urban vulnerabilities. This research has identified three distinct categories within the spectrum of urban resilience strategies: absorptive, adaptive, and transformational strategies. Each category offers a distinctive approach to addressing urban vulnerability and enhancing resilience. The main emphasis of absorptive strategies is on mitigating immediate risks and minimizing the adverse impacts of shocks and stressors, via measures such as infrastructure development and efficient waste management. The aforementioned studies [42,65] highlight the significant efficacy of these measures in lowering the tangible consequences of both catastrophes and disturbances, thus serving as a first protective barrier.

Adaptive measures, such as establishing local capacity building initiatives, disaster preparation training programs, and providing accessible healthcare services, principally seek to empower communities with the essential abilities and resources required to manage and rebound from disruptive events adeptly. The measures above bolster individual and communal resilience while cultivating a climate of readiness and responsiveness [139,140].

Transformative strategies encompass a range of approaches, including implementing comprehensive policies, adopting green urban planning practices, and enhancing social services. These strategies aim to achieve long-term changes that fundamentally reshape socio-ecological systems, enhancing their resilience [18,141].

4.2. Most effective strategies and the reasons for their success

This section focuses on the second objective by determining which strategies for urban resilience are successful and understanding the factors contributing to their effectiveness, providing insight into mechanisms that strengthen urban resilience. The present analysis highlights the efficacy of integrated approaches, including absorptive, adaptive, and transformational components, in fostering urban resilience. The adoption of a comprehensive approach and the utilization of different components of urban systems, such as community participation, technology innovation, and economic diversification, have been identified as ways to promote resilience [142,143]. The organization's success may be primarily due to its comprehensive approach and the synergistic benefits arising from integrating many measures. The authors acknowledge the varied and diverse aspects of urban vulnerabilities and adaptive capabilities, therefore offering a more sustainable approach to enhancing urban resilience.

Although several strategies possess their own merits, they also demonstrate some drawbacks and limits, with some exhibiting inconsistent or restricted efficacy in real-world applications. For example, while beneficial in reducing immediate catastrophe consequences, absorptive techniques can foster reliance and promote unsustainable practices if not well supervised [144,145]. Similarly, implementing adaptive techniques, although possessing commendable qualities, can potentially exclude marginalized groups if not executed inclusively inadvertently. Moreover, the long-term efficacy of these strategies may wane without regular updates and modifications [146]. Although transformative solutions have the potential for fostering long-term resilience, they often encounter opposition stemming from socio-economic and political factors, and may not comprehensively address the specific contextual nuances of local areas [56,147].

The efficacy of urban resilience methods may be impacted by many circumstances, with the socio-economic environment playing a pivotal role in determining their success. The effectiveness of a resilience strategy in an urban setting might vary depending on variations in social structure, economic capability, governance systems, and environmental variables [23,83]. For example, cities with high-income levels and well-developed infrastructure and governance systems may find absorptive techniques especially advantageous. This is due to their ability to allocate resources and maintain physical defenses effectively [7]. Nevertheless, in economically disadvantaged urban areas with limited resources, implementing adaptive methods, such as capacity-building and community empowerment, may demonstrate more efficacy and practicality [30]. In addition, the impact of local culture and community participation on the efficacy of resilience solutions should not be overlooked. According to Basaglia et al. [25], communities with robust solidarity and active engagement are more inclined to execute and maintain resilience programs effectively.

4.3. Factors influencing effectiveness

4.3.1. Context, implementation, and stakeholder involvement

The effectiveness of resilience strategies is significantly impacted by several factors, including the contextual environment, the implementation of these policies, and the degree of stakeholder involvement [27,131]. LopezDeAsiain and Díaz-García [96] emphasize the importance of the local context in shaping the perception and utilization of techniques. They suggest that this context is influenced by a combination of socio-economic, cultural, environmental, and political factors. For instance, the adoption of policies that prioritize community engagement has the potential to provide more positive outcomes in regions characterized by strong social capital and a cultural inclination towards active involvement [148].

In addition, the effective implementation of a strategy is reliant on several other aspects, including the leadership style used, the technical skills of the organization, the allocation of resources, and the engagement of stakeholders throughout the entire process [149]. The impact of leadership on strategy execution may vary, as it is contingent upon factors such as the level of commitment to the plan, effectiveness in communication, and the ability to encourage collaboration among diverse stakeholders [107]. Moreover, stakeholders' engagement level determines the plan's efficacy. According to Abdillah et al. [24], using inclusive and participatory techniques has been seen to foster increased ownership, buy-in, and overall effectiveness of resilience initiatives.

4.3.2. Trends in factors influencing effectiveness

Upon thoroughly analyzing the existing research, it becomes evident that many patterns emerge concerning the impact of context, execution, and stakeholder participation on the efficacy of urban resilience methods. An emerging phenomenon pertains to the increasing acknowledgment of the significance of local knowledge and community engagement in augmenting the efficacy of urban resilience initiatives [131]. The trend above underscores the transition from hierarchical approaches to more collaborative and inclusive tactics and the larger movement towards decentralization and local governance in disaster risk reduction [150].

Another emerging phenomenon is the growing recognition of the significance of flexible and iterative implementation methods that can adjust to evolving circumstances and unanticipated challenges [119]. The phenomenon above highlights the need to use adaptive management techniques while executing urban resilience measures to acknowledge urban systems' intricate and ever-changing nature [151]. The existing body of research indicates an increasing focus on the significance of multi-stakeholder partnerships in promoting urban resilience effectively [14,19]. These partnerships facilitate cooperation, the pooling of resources, and collaborative decision-making, thus significantly augmenting the effectiveness of resilience strategies [152].

4.3.3. Strengths of the strategies

The urban resilience techniques that were examined had a notable advantage in their capacity to generate a wide range of effects. The integration of studies reveals that several solutions demonstrate cross-cutting advantages, as they effectively reduce vulnerability and enhance adaptive capability. For example, implementing initiatives to promote social cohesiveness alleviates the immediate consequences of disasters and empowers communities to effectively respond and adapt to forthcoming difficulties [19]. Similarly, it is worth noting that approaches centered on green infrastructure can mitigate the impacts of disturbances and promote enduring ecological stability, enhancing resilience across several dimensions [25]. A further advantage is an emphasis placed on localization, whereby solutions are customized to suit metropolitan populations' distinct social, cultural, economic, and environmental circumstances [153]. Context-specific interventions have the potential to more effectively address the intricate and localized characteristics of vulnerability and adaptive capacity [124].

In addition to their many advantages and adaptability to specific contexts, the urban resilience techniques under evaluation can initiate a positive feedback loop of resilience. Several techniques have been identified in the literature that may enhance urban resilience over time. These strategies include promoting social networks, developing local capabilities, and diversifying the local economy [17]. As urban communities construct and implement resilience activities, they amass valuable experience and information that enhances their capacity to confront forthcoming problems effectively. Furthermore, many urban resilience measures facilitate the cultivation of innovation and creativity. The issue of resilience in intricate and ever-changing urban systems often requires innovative and imaginative approaches. According to Grum et al. [56], the utilization of strategies such as scenario planning, participatory design, and the utilization of technology and data for resilience planning fosters the cultivation of inventive methodologies in the realm of urban resilience.

4.3.4. Implementation challenges of the resilience strategies

Despite positives aspects, several limits and problems were identified in this study. First, several strategies need substantial resources, including financial, human, and technological aspects, posing challenges for economically deprived areas [105]. Second, it is important to note that some tactics have the potential to unintentionally amplify social disparities if they are not meticulously planned and executed. This may occur, for instance, when these strategies disproportionately favor certain social groups while neglecting others or when they result in relocation [81]. Third, another obstacle pertains to the complexity and unpredictable nature of urban systems, which makes it difficult to accurately predict the outcomes of resilience strategies [45]. The long-term effectiveness of these methods could be questioned due to evolving socio-economic, political, and environmental factors, including climate change and population shifts. Fourth, one of the primary obstacles encountered in implementing urban resilience methods is the often fragmented and compartmentalized nature of municipal government. Many urban sectors, including infrastructure, planning, health, and disaster management, typically operate independently. This can make it challenging to develop a unified and comprehensive approach to resilience [78]. Such fragmentation can reduce the efficacy of resilience strategies, which usually require a coordinated effort across several sectors. Fifth, while the importance of stakeholder involvement in enhancing resilience is recognized, achieving meaningful and comprehensive participation remains a significant challenge. Power imbalances, communication barriers, and conflicting interests among different stakeholders can hinder the process of engagement and collaboration, affecting the implementation and success of resilience strategies [154]. Finally, a major issue is the monitoring and evaluation of policies aimed at enhancing urban resilience. Resilience's intricate and multifaceted characteristics provide challenges in effectively quantifying and evaluating it. The lack of comprehensive and universally accepted indicators for urban resilience hinders the capacity to monitor advancements, derive insights from past endeavors, and enhance policies in the long run [112].

This section supports the third objective by assessing the efficacy of various resilience strategies, highlighting their importance within context, implementation, and stakeholder involvement as factors determining their efficacy.

5. Conclusion

We succinctly summarize how the study has evaluated various urban resilience strategies, identified the effective strategies, and compared their efficacy in different contexts. This study used the PRISMA approach to conduct a systematic evaluation to obtain the objectives. This study revealed various urban resilience strategies applied in various geographical locations and socio-economic settings. Ecosystem-based adaptation, adaptive planning, and capacity development have been identified as highly successful strategies that can simultaneously decrease vulnerability and enhance adaptive capacity.

The prevailing body of research has produced substantial evidence to support the claim that urban resilience strategies successfully reduce vulnerability. Incorporating future uncertainty and flexibility in decision-making processes has enhanced resilience in many urban situations via adaptive planning. The concept of capacity development is notable for its emphasis on augmenting the skills of both individuals and institutions to predict, manage, and recover from the consequences of calamities.

The findings will help enhance the comprehension of urban resilience techniques, offering significant insights for researchers and practitioners in this domain. Our objective is to advance urban resilience planning and implementation by identifying viable techniques and a comprehensive analysis of their strengths and weaknesses. Despite the existence of persistent obstacles, this study provides support for the ongoing investigation and enhancement of urban resilience measures to achieve a future that is both sustainable and resilient.

Implications for policy and practice

The results of this comprehensive assessment have substantial implications for policy-making and practical implementation. Acknowledging the diverse efficacies of various urban resilience strategies can guide policy-makers and practitioners in identifying and implementing the most suitable methods, taking into account the unique characteristics of their urban settings. The findings highlight the need for embracing a comprehensive and contextually aware strategy towards urban resilience. This entails carefully selecting solutions that effectively target the unique vulnerabilities and bolster the adaptive capabilities of urban areas.

The techniques discovered have noteworthy implications for urban resilience planning and policy development. It is recommended that urban planners and policymakers carefully consider the promotion of solutions that facilitate ecosystem-based adaptation since research suggests their effectiveness in many circumstances. Likewise, the facilitation of adaptive planning may be enhanced using collaborative procedures that include several stakeholders. In addition, it is imperative to prioritize the development of adaptive capabilities, mainly via initiatives aimed at capacity building, as an essential element of urban resilience strategies.

The efficacy of ecosystem-based adaptation solutions for urban planners shows the significance of incorporating natural ecosystems into urban planning and design. The potential strategies include conserving and augmenting green areas, rehabilitating aquatic ecosystems, and using bio-inspired design concepts that leverage the inherent resilience of natural systems. Within the policy realm, the efficacy of adaptive planning under various circumstances implies a need for policies that foster adaptability and embrace unpredictability in urban planning. This may include establishing systems to periodically assess and modify urban plans, laws, and regulations, enabling cities to adjust in response to changing circumstances and evolving knowledge. The strategies included under urban resilience efforts may encompass a range of interventions, such as training initiatives, institutional restructuring, and policy frameworks that foster enhanced cooperation and information exchange among diverse stakeholders.

Limitations and recommendations for future research

Although this research offers vital insights into solutions for urban resilience, it is essential to acknowledge its limits. The use of techniques in various settings suggests that their efficacy may differ considerably depending on unique localized conditions. In addition, it is important to note that our review was restricted to papers published only in English. Consequently, this approach may have inadvertently omitted relevant research published in alternative languages. Additional investigation should be conducted to rectify the limitations that have been identified. Research examining the impact of the local environment on the efficacy of urban resilience initiatives might provide advantageous outcomes. Furthermore, research endeavors need to prioritize the pursuit of comprehensive reviews incorporating literature published in languages other than English. Thus, researchers need to assess the efficacy of these techniques over prolonged durations.

Funding

This study is funded by the National Education Science Program for Youth Project under National Social Science Fund, China (grant no. CFA220309). The project title is “Research on the suitability evaluation and spatial optimization of the supply and demand of inclusive early childhood education resources in the county".

Data availability statement

The data will be available on request.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Yang Lv: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Visualization, Software, Resources, Methodology, Investigation, Funding acquisition, Formal analysis, Data curation, Conceptualization. Md Nazirul Islam Sarker: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Visualization, Validation, Software, Resources, Project administration, Methodology, Formal analysis, Data curation, Conceptualization.

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Appendix A. Supplementary data

The following is the Supplementary data to this article.