Stalking Resilience

Cities as Vertebrae in Society’s Resilience Backbone
Conference paper
Part of the IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology book series (IFIPAICT, volume 501)


This paper presents the EU H2020 project Smart Mature Resilience, which takes advantage of the fact that many cities are committed to become increasingly resilient and have ongoing processes for urban resilience. Smart Mature Resilience develops resilience management guidelines based on a Resilience Maturity Model that engages a growing number of stakeholders and multi-level governance in order for cities to become vertebrae for society’s resilience backbone. In a dual approach, employing a systematic literature review of international resilience implementation approaches alongside group processes with experts, the Smart Mature Resilience project has developed a preliminary resilience maturity model consisting of five stages Starting, Moderate, Advanced, Robust and verTebrate (SMART) and a Systemic Risk Assessment Questionnaire. The SMART Resilience Maturity Model suggests two principal processes for the transition to resilience maturity: (1) A process of increasing engagement and collaboration with new stakeholder types, from local, to regional, to national to European in a growing resilience backbone, and (2) a process of quality improvement of policies for transitioning from a Safety-I to a Safety-II perspective (from risk assessment & mitigation to adaption to future surprises as conditions evolve).


Resilience Management guidelines Critical infrastructures Natural disasters Social dynamics Maturity model Risk systemicity 



The Smart Mature Resilience research project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement no. 653569.


  1. 1.
    UNISDR, UNISDR Terminology on Disaster Risk Reduction. International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (ISDR), pp. 1–30 (2009)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wendler, R.: The maturity of maturity model research: a systematic mapping study. Inf. Softw. Technol. 54, 1317–1339 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bruneau, M., et al.: A framework to quantitatively assess and enhance the seismic resilience of communities. Earthq. Spectra 19(4), 733–752 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Walker, J., Cooper, M.: Genealogies of resilience: from systems ecology to the political economy of crisis adaptation. Secur. Dialogue 42(2), 143–160 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Malalgoda, C., Amaratunga, D., Haigh, R.: Challenges in creating a disaster resilient built environment. Procedia Econ. Financ. 18, 736–744 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Walker, G., et al.: Risk governance and natural hazards. CapHaZ-Net FP7 Project (2010)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Costa, M.M., et al.: Governance indicators for (Un)succcesful MSPs (2013)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Renn, O.: Risk governance: coping with uncertainty in a complex world. Nat. Hazards 48(2), 313 (2008)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Crowe, P., Foley, K.: The Turas project: integrating social-ecological resilience and urban planning: TURAS FP7 project, pp. 1–15 (2013)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    CGG: Our Global Neighbourhood. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1995)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    McLean, L., Guha-Sapir, D.: Developing a resilience framework. ENHANCE FP7 Project, vol. 2015 (2013)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Vennix, J.A.M.: Group Model Building: Facilitating Team Learning using System Dynamics. Wiley, Chichester (1996)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Van der Vegt, G.S., et al.: Managing risk and resilience. Acad. Manag. J. 58, 971–980 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Williams, T.M.: Systemic project risk management - the way ahead. J. Risk Assess. Manag. 1(1–2), 149–159 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Williams, T.M., Ackermann, F., Eden, C.: Project risk: systemicity, cause mapping and a scenario approach, In: Kahkonen, K., Artto, K. (eds) Managing Risks in Projects, E and FN Spon, London, UK (1997)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ackermann, F., et al.: Systemic risk assessment: a case study. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 58, 39–51 (2007)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Eden, C., et al.: The role of feedback dynamics in disruption and delay on the nature of disruption and delay (D&D) in major projects. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 51, 291–300 (2000)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ackermann, F., et al.: Systemic risk elicitation: using causal maps to engage stakeholders and build a comprehensive view of risks. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 238, 290–299 (2014)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ackermann, F., Eden, C.: Using causal mapping with group support systems to elicit an understanding of failure in complex projects: some implications for organizational research. Group Decis. Negot. 14, 355–376 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ackermann, F., Eden, C.: Making Strategy: Mapping Out Strategic Success. Sage, London (2011)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre of Integrated Emergency Management, University of AgderGrimstadNorway
  2. 2.Department of Computer and Information ScienceLinköping UniversityLinköpingSweden
  3. 3.Department of Management ScienceUniversity of StrathclydeGlasgowUK
  4. 4.Department of Industrial Organization, Faculty of Engineering (TECNUN)University of NavarraDonostia/San SebastianSpain

Personalised recommendations