Urban Climate 36 (2021) 100794

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Urban Climate
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/uclim

A conceptual framework for resilient place assessment based on

spatial resilience approach: An integrative review
Masoud Shafiei Dastjerdi a, Azadeh Lak a, Ali Ghaffari a, Ayyoob Sharifi b, c, *
a
Department of Planning and Urban Design, Faculty of Architecture and Urban Planning, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran
b
Graduate School of Humanities and Social Science, Hiroshima University, Japan
c
Graduate School of Advances Science and Engineering, Network for Education and Research on Peace and Sustainability (NERPS), Hiroshima
University, Japan

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Creating ‘resilient places’ has increasingly become a major priority for urban planners, designers,
Resilient place assessment (RPA) and policy makers. ‘Spatial resilience’ as a subset of urban resilience can be used to guide the
Spatial resilience development of a conceptual framework for resilient place assessment. In this regard, a resilient
Urban resilience attribute (URA)
place should feature a combination of physical and non-physical characteristics that can
Urban Design
contribute to improved response and adaptation to a broad range of natural and manmade
Place making
hazards. In this context, resilience is claimed to be the ability to manage, mitigate and adapt to
varied risks and changes that threaten the quality of the functionality, livability, and vitality of a
place. To further elaborate on the concept of resilient place, in this study, 127 articles were
reviewed using qualitative methods, and general urban resilience definitions related to semantic
resilience dimensions were extracted. These are, namely, intrinsic, resilience behavior, and
reinforcing attributes. Eventually, 22 studies were selected for content analysis using a qualitative
review. The conceptual framework of place assessment was developed concerning the constituent
attributes of ‘place’ and ‘spatial resilience.’ In the proposed framework, the constructive di­
mensions of Resilient Place Assessment (RPA) include four dimensions, three of which are se­
mantic resilience dimensions. These dimensions include the intrinsic resilience attributes (i.e.,
robustness, coherence, efficiency, foresight capacity, flexibility, resourcefulness, knowledge and learning,
and self-organization), behavioral resilience attributes (i.e., recovery; adaption; innovation; trans­
formation), reinforcing resilience attributes (i.e., diversity, redundancy, modularity, and connectiv­
ity), and place-making components (i.e., form and structure, environment and behavior, and image
and meaning). Insights provided in this conceptual framework can be used by urban planners,
designers, and policy makers in their efforts towards creating more resilient places.

1. Introduction

The world’s urban population is at its highest historical level, and the share of the urban population is projected to be two-thirds of
the world’s population by 2050 (Global Energy and CO2 Status Report, 2019). Due to rapid urbanization the share of world urban
population has increased from 10% to over 50% in the past three decades. As cities continue to grow, they face challenges caused by

* Corresponding author at: Hiroshima University, 1-3-1 Kagamiyama, Higashi-Hiroshima City, Hiroshima 739-8530, Japan.
E-mail addresses: ma_shafiei@sbu.ac.ir (M. Shafiei Dastjerdi), a_lak@sbu.ac.ir (A. Lak), a_ghaffari@sbu.ac.ir (A. Ghaffari), sharifi@hiroshima-u.
ac.jp (A. Sharifi).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2021.100794
Received 23 October 2020; Received in revised form 1 February 2021; Accepted 1 February 2021
Available online 11 February 2021
2212-0955/© 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
M. Shafiei Dastjerdi et al. Urban Climate 36 (2021) 100794

various factors such as climate change and socio-economic transformations. In the face of such challenges, urban resilience has become
a highly popular and widely used concept (Carmin et al., 2012).
The term ‘resilience’ is increasingly used in academic and policy making circles alike. It has been conceptualized differently
depending on the field of study and the needs and priorities of the interested groups (Sharifi, 2019a, 2019b). Although resilience
theories date back to the 1960s and early 1970s, their use in urban planning and design does not have a long history (Davoudi et al.,
2012; Pearson and Pearson, 2014). There is currently no consensus on what urban resilience is. In addition to multiple definitions that
exist for urban resilience (Meerow et al., 2016), different attributes and characteristics have been associated to it (Feliciotti et al.,
2016). This range of discrepancies in the definition of resilience may be due to differences in perceptions prevalent in different dis­
ciplines vis-à-vis the concept of resilience; it can also be the product of the inappropriate application of ecological approaches to social
systems (Cumming, 2011b).
Across different urban multi-scales, resilience has been used as a guiding principle to develop planning, recovery, and adaptation
capacities to deal with a wide range of changes in social, economic, environmental, and physical systems, particularly in the urban
design scale (Lak et al., 2020). In the context of urban design, the concept of resilience is adopted to develop approaches and methods
to enhance the capacity of a place, a community, or a city to adapt to future changes that may affect the functioning of the urban system
(Yang and Quan, 2016). Some researchers have used it to criticize the inefficiencies of sustainable urban development plans and their
failure to increase the quality of place and create resilient places over the last few decades (Feliciotti et al., 2017). However, despite the
increasing use of ‘resilient urban design’ in the urban design domain, there is still limited and fragmented understanding of the concept
of ‘resilient places’. This warrants further exploration to better understand place and space characteristics that may enable cities to
respond to constantly changing demands and dynamics (Lak et al., 2020; Lu et al., 2020).
This study, therefore, attempts to link the two concepts of ‘spatial resilience’ and ‘urban design’ to elaborate on the nature of
resilient place and develop a framework for assessing it. Accordingly, it is needed to extract the features of place in spatial resilience
and urban resilience approaches. Better knowledge of the characteristics of a resilient place as an adaptable and transformable sub-
system in urban system can improve the urban resilience in whole system (Mehmood, 2016).Thus, the resilient place assessment
framework proposed in this study can assist planners, urban designers, and policymakers to develop cities that are more resilient in
terms of place-making approaches. To shed light on the constituent dimensions of the conceptual assessment framework of resilient
place, this concept was explored through a qualitative review of studies on the attributes of “spatial resilience” and “resilient urban
design” to illustrate the essence of a “resilient place.”

2. Background: theory of resilience

Since early 1990s, researchers from various disciplines have studied the concept of resilience and have contributed to its evolution.
These are, among others, disciplines such as ecology, psychology, economy, civil engineering, and urban studies. Resilience has been
conceptualized differently in each of these disciplines (Brunetta and Caldarice, 2019; Meerow et al., 2016). Therefore, its meaning and
interpretation often depend on the field in which it is used and the various contexts and scales in which it is applied. Its use in the urban
studies field is still new and has been highly influenced by different dominant approaches such as engineering resilience, ecological
resilience, and adaptive resilience. In his seminal work on the “Resilience and Sustainability of Ecological Systems” Holling empha­
sized the need to move from the definition of resilience as a static equilibrium (engineering approach) state towards dynamic equi­
librium (ecological approach) states (Holling, 1973). The engineering paradigm based on the classic paradigm of resilience implies that
an efficient system can return to its previous state of equilibrium rapidly (Folke et al., 2010), proving that resilience is a combination of
“efficiency, control, constancy, and predictability” (Gunderson and Holling, 2002).
In contrast, multi-equilibrium resilience, also known as ecological resilience, implies that a system may not be in the same func­
tional state after facing shocks and/or disruptions (Barnes and Nel, 2017). Instead, it may shift to a different state of stability (Gun­
derson and Holling, 2002). More recently, there is increasing focus on, “evolutionary or socio-ecological (non-equilibrium) resilience”
that emphasizes other characteristics such as adaptation and adaptive capacity to deal with evolving and emerging risks (Sharifi,
2019c; Sharifi et al., 2017). According to this recent conceptualization, the system does not necessarily return to equilibrium status
after shocks and disruptions (Arefi, 2011; Davoudi et al., 2013).
The adaptive approaches are considered to be more suitable as they recognize the significance of taking evolving dynamics during
various planning, response, and recovery stages into account (Lu and Stead, 2013). Unlike engineering resilience that is in essence
reactive and aims to reinforce pre-shock and existing system functions, ecological and adaptive approaches to resilience are more
proactive and recognize the need for addressing dynamics and uncertainties that are inherent in urban systems (Klein et al., 2003).
The increasing attention to adaptive approaches has also been motivated by the growing recognition of the need to adopting multi-
dimensional approaches for enhancing urban resilience. In this regard, “the 21st-century focus on evolutionary resilience in linking
social and ecological systems has also succeeded in attracting the attention of politicians and policymakers to consider how human
societies relate to their environments” (Mehmood, 2016). From the perspective of evolutionary resilience, urban areas are socio-
ecological systems (SES) that interact with a variety of other systems at different scales (Ernstson et al., 2010; Walker and Salt,
2006). In this respect, resilience appears as a multidisciplinary concept that can be used to understand characteristics of urban systems,
as complex social and ecological systems, and their abilities to adapt to changing conditioning. It is also expected to contribute to
improved understanding of uncertainties and non-linearities (Brunetta and Caldarice, 2019; Folke et al., 2004). In this view, urban
resilience is analyzed as a set of interconnected components, focusing both on “resilience of what”/“resilience to what”/“resilience for
what” (result), and on underlying contextual processes. A resilient city is an interconnected network of physical systems that entails
ecological, social, and physical features (Ray and Shaw, 2018; Sharifi et al., 2021).

2
M. Shafiei Dastjerdi et al. Urban Climate 36 (2021) 100794

A resilient community can be reorganized vis-a-vis change by the extent to which it can maintain its basic structures. In other
words, the main goal is to prepare communities for continuous and gradual changes as much as they are prepared for natural and man-
made shocks. Due to the multiplicity of meanings of resilience in different sciences, the novelty of resilience discourse and the indi­
vidual context of each place, the dimensions of resilience will be different depending on where and when they are studied. According to
the literature, resilience can be defined in 8 dimensions: social, economic (livelihood), institutional, organizational, physical, infra­
structural (technological), ecological (environmental) and spatial.
Social resilience is focused on the demographic composition of a society and deals with factors such as age, ethnicity, gender,
income, and others that are related to important features such as social capital (Cruz et al., 2012; Hassler and Kohler, 2014; Suárez
et al., 2016). Economic resilience refers to the degree of economic diversity, employment, the number of businesses and their ability to
operate properly in times of crisis (Eraydin and Taşan-Kok, 2013; Ernstson et al., 2010). Institutional resilience focuses on NGOs and
their role in community resilience and, organizational resilience emphasizes governance systems and their role in management
(Barthel et al., 2013; Ernstson et al., 2010; Suárez et al., 2016). Ecological resilience is the response of ecosystems to critical distur­
bances and conditions, and refers to the integration of constructed and natural forms and uses natural systems to reduce shock (ARUP,
2015; Chelleri and Olazabal, 2012; Godschalk, 2003; Walker and Salt, 2006). This dimension is conceptually similar to ecosystem-
based adaptation and is an emerging approach to adaptation to climate change. Infrastructure resilience refers to the sustainability
of infrastructure such as green infrastructure and utility systems. The physical dimension refers to the physical attributes of different
components such as streets and street networks, plots, buildings, and blocks, and their design potential to increase resilience (Eraydin
and Taşan-Kok, 2013; Feliciotti et al., 2016; Sharifi and Yamagata, 2016). The functional dimension includes land use and various
planned or spontaneous activities. The concepts of polyvalent and unknown spaces emphasize the capacity of urban design to enhance
the resilience of the urban form (Dhar and Khirfan, 2017).
The concept of spatial resilience is introduced in an interconnected socio-ecological spatial network and shows the capacity of
places to maintain their integrity and functions in the face of change, and it is possible to integrate all the elements of place in a multi-

Fig. 1. The PRISMA (Liberati et al., 2009) flow diagram of the research process.

3
M. Shafiei Dastjerdi et al. Urban Climate 36 (2021) 100794

scale hierarchy through adaptive capacity. In this view, the concept of place and its importance in relation to space are determined. The
concept of spatiality is the type of connection that each place establishes with other places. The resilience and vitality of place is
achieved in coherence and relation (movement, visual and perceptual) with other places (Mehaffy et al., 2010; Salingaros et al., 2005).
Spatial resilience in urban design strategies is delivered through the interconnected structure in urban spaces, public areas, access
networks, natural organisms, main corridors of activity and function, and urban landmarks (Carmona et al., 2010; Punter and Car­
mona, 1997; Remali et al., 2018).
In the context of urban design, spatial resilience is mainly associated with the identity of a place and its functions; thus, it is
conceptualized as a cognitive-operational quality. Nevertheless, urban designers often use resilience metaphorically, mixing it with
terms such as ‘robustness’ and ‘sustainability (Ahern, 2013; Feliciotti et al., 2016). Although several ecologists have attempted to
provide a theoretical framework for spatial resilience in the context of urban design, the term has been defined vaguely at best.
Through focusing on the place concept in the urban design perspective, a new definition of spatial resilience can be provided that can
allow us to better understand characteristics of resilient urban spaces and places. The theory of spatial resilience emphasizes the
importance of the qualitative constituents of place, as it evolves constantly. Thus, given upcoming challenges to creating resilient
places, developing a place-based assessment framework based on spatial resilience thinking can potentially help designers and poli­
cymakers create more resilient places.

3. Methods and materials

To identify various resilience characteristics and develop a conceptual framework for assessing place resilience we conducted a
systematic literature review. This also allowed us to explore possible interactions between different attributes and dimensions and
explore how they fit into the structure of the assessment framework. Literature reviewed for the purpose of this study was selected
following the PRISMA framework that is shown in Fig. 1 (Liberati et al., 2009).
In step 1, to identify the URAs, a search for the keywords ‘urban resilience’ and ‘resilient city’ was conducted for articles published
from 1973 (publication date of Holling’s article) to 2019 (the cut-off date was June 10, 2019) in the databases of Scopus, Wiley Online
Library, Taylor & Francis, SAGE, emerald insight, JSTOR, and Springer. The search covered a period of 45 years and returned a total of
5368 studies. Additionally, 48 studies related to urban resilience were added to the database using the snowball method. These were
studies that were likely not originally returned because literature search is often based on the limited contents of titles, abstracts, and
keywords. The snowball method allows adding relevant literature while screening the retrieved ones. In step 2, a total of 1235 studies
were extracted from among the studies reviewed in the previous step with the search code “Urban planning” or “Urban design.” In step
3, 261 papers were selected from step 2 based on their relationship with place-based and spatial attributes of urban resilience and
spatial resilience e.g. scale, function, connection, interconnected structure, as well as urban design and place qualities. Qualitative
content analysis was conducted to extract the URAs. Obtaining information from the literature without imposing a predetermined
concept is the obvious advantage of qualitative content analysis. The aim is to determine the frequency and meaning of URAs so that
they can be used in the assessment framework. This method of literature analysis allows the related URAs to be identified and,
accordingly, the usage or the latent meaning of URAs is discovered.
In step 4, 127 of the previously selected studies were chosen based on the inclusion of URAs.These studies referred explicitly to
URAs and identified the three aspects of the conceptual assessment framework. In this step, 139 URAs were extracted and then reduced
to 16 recurring attributes. URAs are prioritized based on the frequency in the literature. URAs have overlaps and interactions, and in
the Resilient Place Assessment (RPA) (Fig. 3), this important point is considered through the fourfold domain-based dimensions.
Finally, in the last step, 22 studies were selected based on the importance of the concepts of place, urban design, and resilience in
the micro-scale (urban design scale), and attributes of spatial resilience were extracted. Explaining the threefold concept of ‘place’ at
the spotlight of the spatial resilience in the content analysis of 22 selected studies, a conceptual assessment framework of place-based
resilience is presented and discussed in the following sections.

4. Urban resilience attributes (URAs)

URAs are classified in different sources depending on the basic assumptions and the purpose of the research. In this section, ac­
cording to the basics of the adaptive resilience and its relationship with place resilience, an attempt has been made to develop the
basics for classifying URAs. Each URA has more semantic and functional capacity in a particular dimension. However, URAs have
overlaps and interactions, and it is not possible to determine the exact boundaries and positions for them, so in the RPA (Fig. 3), the
domain of URAs is addressed.

4.1. Different classes of URAs

According to the concept of resilience cycle, resilience is obtained from synergy and trade- offs between three main characteristics
(absorption capacity, adaptation and transformation). The lower the intensity of the change, the more likely the place is to stabilize.
Adaptive capacity of place operates when the change exceeds the absorption capacity. Eventually, if change disrupts the adaptive
capacity of a place, transformation occurs. The response path of place components represents a range of possible responses to change,
including collapse, conservation, adaptability, and evolution. The manifestation of this trend in urban design can be seen in the stages
of formation, growth, development, regeneration or erosion and destruction of the urban fabrics. While deterioration and erosion refer
to the lack of resilience attitudes, conservation, recovery, adaptability, and evolution (transformation) can be considered as resilience

4
M. Shafiei Dastjerdi et al. Urban Climate 36 (2021) 100794

pathways or place behaviors in relation to change. While adaptation is a process that responds effectively to change, evolution entails
the capacity to effectively respond to transformations and continuously maintain functionality across development trajectories (Adger
et al., 2009; Brunetta and Caldarice, 2019; Ernstson et al., 2010; Folke et al., 2010).
Existing infrastructures (socio-economic and physical) inherently have different recovery and adaptation capacities for which the
term “resilience inertia” can be used. This part of resilience features is called the intrinsic characteristics of place elements. The
resilience capacity of these characteristics can be enhanced by using other attributes (e.g. more connectivity, redundancy, modularity,
efficiency and diversity). Place elements behave differently vis-à-vis change depending on their adaptive capacity, from recovery to
adaptation and evolution. Based on this, three classes of resilience attributes can be defined: (1) intrinsic attributes of the constituent
elements of a resilient system, (2) behavioral attributes (active and proactive) of a resilient system, and (3) reinforcing attributes of a
system vis-à-vis the external environment (Fig. 2). Taxonomy of URAs.
In the fourth step of the methodology, URAs were extracted. Then, according to the frequency of attributes, it was formulated based
on the three categories (intrinsic/reinforcing/behavioral), justified in Sections 4–1.
In the literature, definitions and attributes of urban resilience were presented, with each article focusing on specific attributes of
resilience. Recently, efforts have been made to classify the features and aspects of urban resilience in the literature. Some of these will
be discussed in the remainder of this paper. Given the differences in the addressed characteristics and aspects in these studies, in terms
of design and application in resilience theory, classification in a general group does not seem logical. Each system is characterized by
internal and external elements and behaviors and activities that take place between them on the individual and one-plot scale, on the
neighborhood scale, and on the trans-local scale. The internal part includes the intrinsic elements and their relationships and the
external consists of the context and the environment.
Therefore, to categorize the general attributes listed for urban resilience in the literature, the three proprietary attributes and
aspects mentioned in them were used. First, with emphasis placed on organization and the intrinsic elements of the system to the
external environment (Cumming, 2011b; Cutter et al., 2008; Eraydin and Taşan-Kok, 2013; Lyon, 2014; Norris et al., 2008; Panerai
et al., 1980; Pickett et al., 2004), the existence of intrinsic attributes revealed the constituent elements of a resilient system (Table 1).
Second, the defined steps of the resilience cycle (resistance, adaption, transformation) (Béné et al., 2014; Brunetta and Caldarice, 2019;
Holling, 1973; Meerow et al., 2016; Pearson et al., 2014; Brunetta et al., 2019a) showed that, depending on the system capacity and the
type of changes, each system has behavioral (active and proactive) attributes (Table 2). Third, the concept of resilience trade-offs
(Anderies, 2014; Chelleri et al., 2015) and cross-scale interactions (Chelleri et al., 2012; Ernstson et al., 2010) are about the
intrinsic and external interactions of the system, implying the possibility of increasing the capacity and empowerment of the system
concerning its external and surrounding environment.
Overlaps of URAs and interaction between them is inevitable and a domain of attributes is used to introduce each of the categories
and does not give an exact position for each of them. The arrangement of attributes along each dimension is also based on the fre­
quency and does not necessarily mean that a certain quality or attribute is of higher or lower importance. Having a combination of
features, depending on the place, is meant in resilient place theory.

4.2. The new concept of space in urban planning and design

Space is a contested notion that has been defined in various ways; the definition of “identity of place” is firmly dependent on the

Fig. 2. The process of extracting and classification of the attributes of the spatial resilience assessment conceptual framework.
Note:
-139 attributes were extracted from 127 studies. By prioritizing attributes based on frequency (attributes weight), 16 attributes were extracted.
-The recovery and adaptation potentials of place elements, trade-offs with other scales, and the behavior of place elements vis-à-vis change (shocks
or incremental changes) are collected as criteria to classify.

5
M. Shafiei Dastjerdi et al. Urban Climate 36 (2021) 100794

Table 1
Intrinsic attributes of the constituent elements of a resilient system.
Attribute Definition Recent source Frequency

Robustness Robustness or stability refers, respectively, to the strength of the system against short and Lak et al. (2020); Rus et al. 26
long-term shocks. (2018)
Coherence The concept of coherence (in the urban form) entails that different individual urban form Feliciotti et al. (2015); Sharifi 19
elements should have the ability to collaboratively function as a consistent whole system. et al. (2017)
Flexibility Flexibility allows the urban form to respond to the unique conditions of different urban Meerow et al. (2016); Rus 24
areas. et al. (2018)
Self-Organization Self-organization refers to the ability of arranging different components of the urban form Davidson et al. (2019); Marcus 15
in a way that allows effective and modular response to and recovery from shocks. and Colding (2011)
Efficiency Efficiency aims at optimizing resource and space use so that maximum benefits can be Sharifi (2019a); Sharifi and 19
achieved from limited resources. Yamagata (2016)
Resourcefulness Resourcefulness refers to the capacity of different stakeholders to effectively mobilize and Rus et al. (2018); Sharifi and 15
utilize different forces and meet established priorities in urban areas. Yamagata (2016)
Foresight Capacity Foresight is defined in terms of preparing for the future and states that matters concerning Davidson et al. (2019) 16
constant shifts.
Learning & Learning entails using stressors and shocks as opportunities to continuously evolve in Berkes and Ross (2013); 24
Knowledge response to emergent patterns and enhance the system’s ability to deal with uncertainties Meerow et al. (2016)
and better respond to future shocks.

Note: The frequency of each attribute is equal to the number of sources that address the attribute.

Table 2
Behavioral attributes of a resilient system.
Attribute Definition Recent source

Recovery Recovery is claimed as the ability of system rapidly return to equilibrium states after shocks and refers to the Cloete (2012); Eraydin and
improvement of the system’s ability to respond to an event. Taşan-Kok (2013)
Adaptability Adaptability is defined as the potential of a system to respond successfully to change by mitigating the Lak et al. (2020); Sharifi
various effects of threats and changes and seizing new opportunities. (2019a)
Transformation Transformation refers to the ability to develop a completely new configuration when the environmental, Brown (2014); Elmqvist et al.
economic or social status of the system in the current situation are untenable. (2019)
Innovation Urban resilience is internalized and operationalized the information and experience as an essential learning Allen et al. (2016); Suárez et al.
mechanism to enable them for avoiding repeated failures and improving Innovation and performance. (2016)

Note: The system behavior table does not need to be a frequency column, because it is listed as a pivotal thread (common acknowledgment) in the
literature that addresses three behaviors.

meaning of spatial territory. Accordingly, traditional planning is based on Euclidean-identified space as a relative concept without
boundaries. Recently, urban planning and design has found social and semantic dimensions as the intrinsic (substantive) dimensions of
space, interacting with the procedural dimension (Faludi, 2000).
Since the turn of the century, considerable attentions have been given to non-physical aspects of space and to the multiple in­
teractions across different spatial scales. This indicates a paradigm shift in urban planning and highlights a new position for urban
planning and design, wherein communities play a pivotal role in shaping place. This holistic paradigm has implications for place
quality and deliverability and entails adopting more integrated planning and design approaches that are co-designed and co-
implemented in collaboration with various stakeholders with diverse needs and priorities (Morphet, 2011).

4.3. New interpretation of ‘risk’ and ‘hazards’ in spatial resilience paradigm

Currently, the examination of urban resilience focuses less on smaller, progressive, and incremental changes than on disaster
planning and vulnerability to catastrophic events. Adopting a more inclusive approach requires “acknowledging multiple layers of a
connotation for ecological and social terms, and answering the need to choose an appropriate level of a connotation for dialogue
among ecology, social science, design, and planning” (Pickett et al., 2004). Thus, the interpretation of the resilience concept from
natural to social discipline requires some ontological considerations (Davoudi et al., 2012).
Based on this view, social work researchers have criticized the natural hazard approach to highlight natural disasters only. Ac­
cording to these researchers, social vulnerability also accumulates over time and is not limited to physical and demographic damage
(Bankoff and Frerks, 2004). Thus, this view rejects the ‘emergency planning’ and ‘shock therapy’ perception of resilience thinking as a
reactive measure to prevent, prepare for, as well as respond to and recover from the situations of crises" (Davoudi et al., 2012;
Mehmood, 2016).
Vulnerability has roots in social processes and causes that may be distant from the disturbance itself. Acknowledging this issue is
crucial for understanding and explaining the causes of the disturbance. In this respect, change cannot be regarded as a discrete, single
event, because it is influenced by the activities and processes that create it. Therefore, the resilience of a place is not limited to the
formulation of rapid responses to major adverse events but should also take kong-term planning and coping strategies into account to
deal with multiple societal challenges (Mehmood, 2016). In this context, risk and hazards can be redefined as follows:

6
M. Shafiei Dastjerdi et al. Urban Climate 36 (2021) 100794

The new approach to risk and hazards not only alters the traditional hierarchy of factors but also distances itself from physical
elements. In the new paradigm, the causes of the hazards are explained by contextual factors. Risks arise when they are
developed within the urban context, leading eventually to a crisis. Also, hazards and their impacts may change as a result of
various underlying social, economic, and physical factors.

4.4. The concept of spatial resilience

As mentioned in the Methods section, 22 studies were eventually identified that emphasized the ‘spatial-’ and ‘place-based’ di­
mensions of resilience, and the fields in which the papers were written were determined to provide a clear understanding of the
approach (Table 4). There were five, eight, and nine articles in ecology, social studies, and urban studies, respectively. Given their
coverage of issues related to perceptual, functional, morphological, and political dimensions, these papers appeared to be sufficient for
capturing all the resilience dimensions and content needed for a qualitative review. Keywords related to place, operated by content
analysis, were extracted, and the position of “place” concerning “spatial resilience” was described and interpreted (Table 3).
The concept of spatial resilience was conceived most likely years after the concept of resilience was introduced by Folke and
Nystrom’s research on ‘spatial resilience and coral reefs’ (Cumming, 2011a) –“Spatial resilience is the dynamic capacity to cope with
disturbance and thresholds on spatial scales larger than individual ecosystems” (Nyström and Folke, 2001). Early research on ‘spatial
resilience’ focused on coral reefs and emphasized the increasing influence of humans throughout the marine landscape (Nystrom et al.,
2000; Nyström and Folke, 2001; Cumming et al., 2017). In ecological terms, spatial resilience entails resilience at larger scales that
cross the boundaries of a local habitat. This means that spatial resilience takes multiple (bi-directional) cross-scale interactions into
account (Allen et al., 2016).
These studies refer to the term spatial resilience as ‘ecological legacies,’ ‘ecological memory,’ and the connectivity between
adjacent systems to tolerate disturbances and prevent regime change over a spatial range of individual focal systems, which is rein­
forced by geographical extent and heterogeneity and landscape diversity (Cumming et al., 2017).
In the evolutionary process of the literature, the spatial resilience approach is based on the theory of social-ecological systems
(SES); spatial resilience is, from an evolutionary perspective, a “continually changing process” (Davoudi et al., 2012) leading to the
idea of “non-equilibrium dynamics” (Meerow et al., 2016). This concept indicates the need to consider subjective measures in addition
to objective dimensions in spatial resilience.
In this context, the sense of place in the literature on spatial resilience illustrates how the environmental context can reinforce the
resilience ability of a territory-based system (Brunetta and Caldarice, 2019). Place definition is heavily dependent on the meaning of
territory, and spatial resilience tries to represent and preserve local identity, unique history, and heritage of place in the face of
adaptation to change on different scales. Thus, it appears that the issues of identity, system memory, place, human perception,
learning, and resultant actions, as addressed by Pickett et al., are at the core of resilience considerations (Table 4) (Pickett et al., 2004).

5. Discussion

Significant advances have been made recently in unpacking the relationship between spatial and temporal scales, and networks,
and recognizing the significance of place in resilience, evolving into a conceptualization that put high emphasis on the way subject and
object are related (Chandler, 2014). Accordingly, “Cultural resources are also part of human ecosystems, and they include organi­
zations, beliefs, and myths. The insight relevant to linking ecology with planning and design is that human perception, learning, and
resultant actions are a part of the human ecosystem” (Pickett et al., 2004). The social and cultural structures of the place and the feeling
of social cohesion create a significant relationship with resilience (Ray and Shaw, 2018). Thus, an analytical examination of the
intertwined contexts and components of a place can be an excellent base for establishing a good understanding of the responses of a
social system in times of change (Lyon, 2014). Resilience with a place-based perspective helps clarify the capacity of neighborhoods to
tolerate or adapt to change. Recent resilience frameworks focus on creating a resilient place and community and strive to create
healthy and livable areas where people are proud to live (Coaffee, 2013b). “Resilience has now proliferated as a policy metaphor into a
variety of place-making and increasingly local planning activities” (Coaffee, 2013a).

Table 3
Reinforcing attributes of a system’s resilience in relation to the external environment.
Attribute Definition Recent source Frequency

Diversity More diversity, enhanced capacity; Diversity reduces threats by producing redundancy and by Elmqvist et al. (2019); Lak 56
presenting multiple strategies. et al. (2020)
Connectivity Connectivity goes beyond the physical dimension, which is referred to like the relationships Koren and Rus (2019); Lak 23
between individuals and organizations. et al. (2020)
Redundancy This refers to having spare capacities and infrastructure and multiple options in the system. In case Davidson et al. (2019); 44
of major disruptions, such capacities, infrastructures, and options would be able to replace the Elmqvist et al. (2019)
damaged ones. This way, the continuous functionality of the system will be guaranteed.
Modularity This entails having multiple interconnected sub-systems in the urban system that are capable of, Sharifi (2019a); Suárez et al. 29
autonomously, fulfilling their basic demands and also lead to enhanced functionality when (2016)
working as a whole.

Note: The frequency of each attribute is equal to the number of studies that address the attribute.

7
M. Shafiei Dastjerdi et al. Urban Climate 36 (2021) 100794

Table 4
Content analysis of studies included in the final step of PRISMA (Brunetta et al., 2019b; Contreras et al., 2017; Coppola, 2017; Kärrholm
et al., 2014; Li et al., 2014; Peres et al., 2017).

Note:
-Since the primary purpose of this paper is to provide a conceptual framework for place assessment, the subject matters column is ar­
ranged to accommodate the concept of ‘place’ (criteria applied for sorting studies).
-In the subject column, being aligned vertically, implies the closeness of the meaning of the subject or being synonymous.
-Horizontal alignment from left to right represents the movement from the physical and fabric dimensions to the cognitive and
perceptual dimensions of the resilient place.

5.1. Spatial resilience as a cognitive-operational quality

Ecological identity and memory are important aspects of spatial resilience. Spatial resilience is concerned with the significance of
place and deals with features such as multi-scale connectivities, patterns, and processes that both affect and are affected by the
resilience of the local system. Spatial resilience in this field is maintained by upholding important patterns and processes over time to
preserve critical pattern-process relationships across the landscape (Cumming, 2011b).
Cumming offers a hybrid method for examining spatial resilience by focusing on identity and threshold and defining the identity of
constructive criteria and explaining the relationship between resilience, scale, and system identity (Cumming, 2011b); based on it, one
may suggest that spatial resilience can also be measured at intrinsic (internal) and external impact scales. It can be claimed that it also
relates to ‘identity and place’ on the scale of external influences. Focusing on ‘identity and threshold’ provides a way to link socio-
ecological systems and resilience theory. Spatial resilience beyond traditional resilience, based on purely physical dimensions, is
essential to integrating resilience policies with other policies and programs that affect the nature of places and how they operate within
the identity of the place. An ecological approach to the conceptual and semantic component of the place is also evident in Carl
Samuelsson’s work on spatial resilience, in which he explores the visual understanding and the subject of cognitive space through
perception and exploration (opening and closing Vista in space), dealing with the resilience of place (Samuelsson et al., 2019). Thus,
given that all different aspects of identity have spatial manifestations, spatial resilience is conceptualized as a ‘cognitive- operational
quality’ of an urban system.
Therefore, spatial resilience exhibits the possibility of different behaviors and activities, the ability of the environment to change
without transmutation of identity (meaning and cognitive meaning of space), and to become something other than itself. It is quite
visible that in the central core shaping the spatial resilience, there lie three constitutive qualitative components of place. Thus,
increasing the power of place in cities has an essential role in the resilience of cities (Cutter et al., 2008). In this context, the triple

8
M. Shafiei Dastjerdi et al. Urban Climate 36 (2021) 100794

conceptual framework, tangible (physical), discarnate (historical, tradition and values), and chimerical (conceptual) place suggested
by Lyon (2014) are presented for a more detailed description of how a system works to adapt to change.

5.2. Cognitive-perceptual agents in resilient places

Creating a resilient place is highly dependent on the context. Place resilience is not just the removal or reduction of danger points
for immediate events, but the process of recognizing recof people’s emotional connections to their places and enabling them to build
places that can strengthen community cohesion. A resilient place is a product of co-designed approaches aimed at shaping lively,
livable, and safe neighborhoods (Mirti Chand, 2018). One of the main dimensions of a resilient place is the representation and
preservation of local identity and cultural characteristics, the capacity of society and social capital, and at the same time the capacity to
adapt to change.
Perception is the fundamental relationship between people and the built environment. We can successfully communicate with our
environment and behave adaptively through perceptual feedback (Kropf, 2017). This approach has a significant impact on urban forms
for creating resilient places. The place-based approach focuses on images, narratives, and urban form readings to grasp its values and
meanings and it supports the integration of people and places (Owens, 2005), and the understanding how to behave and act through
the collective memory and culture.
One of the concepts that is evident in the resilience of place in relation to physical form in the literature is the degree of latency of
the environment (Lak et al., 2020). A physical environment is made up of three main areas of potential: “exploited potential,
recognized but unexploited potential, and unrealized potential” (Dhar and Khirfan, 2017). “The degree of resilience or latency of the
environment varies according to the second and third potentials” (Dhar and Khirfan, 2017). “Latency, which depends on the different
perceptions of using a space, allows people and communities, particularly in a newly established urban setting, to reorganize the space
according to societal changes over time, without any particular physical change” (Dhar and Khirfan, 2017). Moudon (1986) introduces
an example of latent place on the neighborhood level and points to the manipulation and personalization of this place according to the
social needs affecting the resilience of the place (Moudon, 1986).
Social and psychological factors such as social capital and the specific meanings that people attribute to the urban form signifi­
cantly influence the ability to adapt to change (Marshall et al., 2011). Social resilience in a place is the product of interconnections
among individuals and also between them and other influential factors such as governing institution, the built environment, and the
resources (physical and non-physical) that they depend on for meeting their needs (Adger, 2003). Two types of ties are important in
this context: bonding, and bridging. Bonding ties are relationships between people in closed and fully inter-connected networks. While
such relationships have the potential to establish strong social networks characterized by trust and mutual support, they may also lead
to reduced social diversity and create inflexible societal norms that are not conducive to change and transformation. Conversely,
bridging ties can not only facilitate access to within-network resources, but also enable individuals and groups to benefit from re­
sources and opportunities that exist beyond their intimates networks. This enhances performance in terms of features such as diversity
and redundancy which are necessary for successful adaptation by changing environmental conditions, consequences, and policies.
Overall, individuals with broader social networks are likely to have better adaptive capacities (McAllister et al., 2006; Smith et al.,
2012).
It is observed in the literature that ‘place attachment’ has a significant connection with the components of spatial resilience (Norris
et al., 2008): “Adaptive capacity is grounded in qualities that include a strong connection to place, ample social capital, dense social
networks, and a positive outlook” (Goldstein et al., 2015). In this connection, Lynch’s theory is meaningfully useful: “A vivid and
integrated physical setting, capable of producing a sharp image, plays a social role as well, … A good environmental image gives its
possessor an important sense of emotional security, … Indeed, a distinctive and legible environment not only offers security bur also
heightens the potential depth and intensity of human experience...” (Lynch, 1960).
On the other hand, the one-dimensional structure of “attachment to place” is negatively correlated with the level of adaptation of
individuals’ behaviors. Hence, place attachment is likened to a double-edged sword (Norris et al., 2008). Other research shows that
“people who ascribe stronger and more varied meanings to the natural landscape around them are more aware of the risks, willing to
learn about the risks, and more likely to develop plans to adapt to future changing conditions, and thus more adaptable than other
people” (Smith et al., 2012).
Czerniak’s perspective is interesting, as she not only emphasizes the resilience capacity vis-à-vis the socio-ecological characteristics
of a place, but also addresses the significance of identity and legibility in how individuals a attach to their places and, thus, the
resilience in the long-term (Czerniak and Hargreaves, 2007). The sense of place represents a resilient non-physical attribute that links
the characteristics of the built environment and the adaptable capacities of the community. “Sense of place is defined as a dynamic
process that links the social life and characteristics of a community to a shared geographic area (e.g., a neighbourhood)” (Sharifi et al.,
2017).

5.3. Behavioral patterns - environmental preferences in the resilient place

This section deals with how behavioral patterns and environmental preferences affect the resilience of a place. Environmental
surveys and field observations of social behaviors and how people use the elements of place and urban environment can be used as a
basis for evaluating resilience policies. Good sidewalk environments have a high level of perceptual complexity (Aelbrecht, 2016;
Mcaslan, 2018; Mehta, 2018; Owens, 2005). Urban form on a local scale reduces crime-induced behaviors, place safety, and increases
resilience, and through visual connection between indoor and outdoor creates a behavioral setting that greatly improves perceived

9
M. Shafiei Dastjerdi et al. Urban Climate 36 (2021) 100794

security and attractiveness. It also supports the use of outdoor ownership.

Outdoor activities, especially more optional or selective activities, a wide range of secondary activities (chatting, playing, stopping,
sitting) are very influential in the quality of the environment and the resilience of the place. In low quality streets and spaces, minimal
activity is done voluntarily (Gehl, 1987, 2010). In this framework, four pairs of environmental factors are introduced that are very
important for the quality of urban spaces: assemble or disperse; integrated or separate; invite or repel; open or closed. Long facades
with few entrances scatter events. At the street level, pedestrian-scale width contributes to the integrity of the activity. Instead of
separating, cars and people are united by paving the way and slowing cars. Streets that have a strong transition area between public
and private territory (large storefront windows, sidewalk cafes, gardens, porches, gates, etc.) open up spaces for collective interaction.
Jacobs (1961) provide some useful assessments of key urban issues at the neighborhood level in relation to pedestrian use and street
life (Jacobs, 1961). In the case of dense urban neighborhoods, she rejects the segregation of planned organization: active sidewalks,
permeable and fine-grained street edges, small blocks, land use mixing, variation in building age and size, concentration of people, and
open spaces intimately linked to surrounding are some design qualities suggested in this regard. In this context, the third active places
(and more recently the fourth place) have been addressed for the vitality and community diversity of a place and can be considered as

Fig. 3. Resilient place assessment (RPA) framework in the spatial resilience approach.
Note:
- The two dimensions of the conceptual framework (reinforcing intrinsic attributes) are adjusted based on the weight of attributes (their frequencies
in the literature).
- In the evolutionary resilience process, particular emphasis is placed on the behavioral-functional and cognitive-semantic dimensions due to the
centrality of the human factor.
- The higher the quality of the place at the behavioral and semantic levels, the higher the resilience (the criteria used to identify high/medium/low
resilience).
- System behavior attributes are the continuum of activities, including resistance, change, and radical transformation.
- The operational dimensions of this conceptual framework will be explained in further research.

10
M. Shafiei Dastjerdi et al. Urban Climate 36 (2021) 100794

components of resilient places.

5.4. Components of place and spatial resilience

The concept of place was developed much earlier in Lynch’s and Jacobs’ theories and later expanded by Norberg Schulz, Edward
Relph, Donald Appleyard, and Alan Jacobs, Canter, Francis Tibbalds, Punter, and Montgomery. Norberg Schulz took a phenomeno­
logical view of place and believed it to be a purely qualitative phenomenon that could not be confined to its constitutive attributes
(Norberg-Schulz, 1980). Gustafson presented a mapping of meanings for place in his model that included three parts: self (individual
identity), environment (body of place), and others (behavior of others) (Gustafson, 2001). Montgomery (1998) also presented three
components of place and its metrics following the same format (Montgomery, 1998).
The concept of place for Canter is a technical term, yet seeks a theoretical model with place structures, which have essential
similarities; Relph recounts three elements of place: physical setting, activities, and meanings (Relph, 1976); Canter suggests similar
parts for the place model, consisting of physical attributes, activities, and conceptions. In this respect, the place is formed by the
reciprocal relationship between the physical context, the activities, the current behaviors in it, and the perceptions or meanings that
are made for that place for the individual [36]. These three components are always defined by one another and are inseparable; hence,
based on an analysis of the literature and given that in the central core shaping of spatial resilience lie these three qualitative com­
ponents of the place, any change in one affects the other. Therefore, one can newly define spatial resilience based on its socio-
ecological background by focusing on the constituents of place concerning the intrinsic (internal) and external attributes of resil­
ience (Fig. 2).

5.5. Conceptual framework for assessing place resilience

The existing conceptual frameworks of resilient place assessment are mainly presented with social resilience approaches (Berkes
and Ross, 2013; Cutter et al., 2008; Turner et al., 2003); vulnerability and sustainability approaches utilize place-based mechanisms to
assess the context on a local scale. Cutter’s hazards-of-place model integrates system exposure with social vulnerability; the Disaster
Resilience of Place (DROP) model designed by Cutter et al. provides a link between vulnerability and resilience (Cutter et al., 2008).
These models, focusing on services and infrastructure, are explicitly designed to address natural hazards and other rapid-onset
events such as terrorist attacks or technological hazards, and as such are mainly tailored to the meso- or micro-scales (Sharifi,
2016, 2019a; Sharifi et al., 2017; Sharifi and Yamagata, 2014).
On the other hand, studies on social resilience that have an unbalanced focus on issues such as place attachment have , poorly
classify interactions with place (Adger et al., 2013), and yet other studies on physical phenomena, such as landscape transformations
often use social networks and social capital as the main drivers of resilience (Mirti Chand, 2018). Another study points to three di­
mensions of place resilience and highlights the role of transformation, adaptation, and resilience. In contrast, the interconnected
structure and framework resulting from the impact and effects of each on resilience are not presented (Lyon, 2014). The conceptual
framework of the place analysis in this paper (Fig. 3) is based on the ‘spatial and place-based’ attributes of resilience and on the
following principles derived from reviewing research studies in socio-ecological systems:
An effective assessment conceptual framework should address different aspects of place resilience (three dimensions); consider
the intrinsic potential of place; consider the ability of a place to enable top-down scale trade-offs; note local community
behavior and place function in relation to attentional changes; include scenario-based planning; be developed and implemented
in collaboration with the local community and stakeholders, and lead to the development of operational plans to enhance
resilience.

5.6. Constructive dimensions of the conceptual framework for RPA

As mentioned before, the attributes of urban resilience were extracted and categorized into three dimensions based on the review
process. It is, in fact, a prioritization of attributes and a prolusion to the definition of a framework. In the next step, documented
explanations are provided to justify the conceptual assessment framework through the literature.
Accordingly, resilient place assessment (RPA) provides a framework for assessing place based on spatial resilience. Given the
findings, the four main dimensions of the resilience assessment framework are explained below. In the following sub-sections, four
dimensions, namely, system behavior attributes, resilience reinforcing attributes, intrinsic resilience attributes, and place-making
components are explained.

5.6.1. System behavior attributes

“Resilience results from the synergy and trade-offs between three core attributes” (absorptive, adaptive, and transformative ca­
pacities) (Béné, 2013), and the responses of a system to change are considered “a disturbance-response mechanism and a system
behaviour” (Allan et al., 2013). The literature addresses the three mechanisms or pathways to resilience, which are: ‘Stability’
(persistence; coping), ‘Adaptation’, and ‘Transformation’ (Chelleri et al., 2015; Elmqvist, 2014; Meerow et al., 2016). Persistence
refers to the capacity to maintain system functionality over time. There are also several definitions that emphasize abilities to
transform incrementally and/or radically (A. Brown et al., 2012; Folke et al., 2002), especially when the system is in a poor state, and
attempting to create resilience may have major structural change implications (Folke, 2006; Jerneck and Olsson, 2008). Evolutionary

11
M. Shafiei Dastjerdi et al. Urban Climate 36 (2021) 100794

resilience consists of a dynamic interaction between various attributes such as adaptability, malleability, planning capacity, and
tenacity across multiple spatial and temporal scales. A place in this context, depending on how capable are communities to adapt, may
become more or less adaptable and change into a new situation via transformative changes (Mehmood, 2016).
It is also possible to define urban resilience using an evolutionary lens and a ‘proactive perspective’ in which communities play an
essential role in shaping resilient places via improvements in abilities related to learning, innovation, and transformation (Panerai
et al., 1980).
The term ‘Recovery’ is a system behavior most commonly used in physical terms (single-point equilibria) and in relation to
persistence (Godschalk, 2003). According to the analysis of the literature, this dimension includes a range of system behaviors from
recovery to transformation and from resistance to change, each of which has a range from minimum to maximum; for instance,
adaptation varies from short-term adaptation to longer-term adaptability, while transformation includes the spectrum from adaptation
to radical transformation.

5.6.2. Resilience reinforcing attributes

According to the broad principles of resilience, there are ‘practical design features’ that are claimed to reinforce resilience, even
without considering temporal issues or the level of internal organization (Anderies, 2014). Based on the literature on the subject, the
four attributes of ‘Connectivity, Redundancy, Modularity, and Diversity’ are regarded as the most prolific and essential attributes that a
system can have for resilience. ‘Diversity’ has been cited as a vital attribute of a resilient system that can affect the power and capacity
of the system. ‘Building type diversity’ has been introduced as one of the most critical attributes of evaluating resilience in urban areas
(Lak et al., 2020). In the resilience discourse, diversity management itself is considered as a crucial attribute that can contribute to
enhancing resilience of adaptive systems (Panerai et al., 1980). Diversity is also seen as a prerequisite for adaptation (Erixon et al.,
2013) and plays an essential role in sustaining the resilience of an ecosystem (Folke et al., 2002).
‘Modularity’ accounts for the organizational relationship between components and the whole at different spatial levels, how the
components interact with the whole across scales, and the extent to which these components can disassemble into parts or integrate to
form higher-level wholes while maintaining an appropriate level of intrinsic processing independent from the rest of the system
(Feliciotti, 2018).
‘Redundancy’ refers to how the same, similar, or backup functions are performed, and how the components are connected (Ahern,
2011); thanks to diversity, redundancy reduces the likelihood that all components of the same performance and all paths to the same
destination will be affected by the same change. Hence, redundant systems have high recovery and adaptability capacities; also, the
existence of latent resources motivates transformative behaviors, generating ‘innovation.’
On the other side of this dimension lies connectivity. ‘Connectivity’ is a prerequisite for spatial resilience and ecological memory
that enables the bidirectional flow of information, assets, and capital (Cumming et al., 2005). Urban system connectivity is associated
with increased resilience, that is, to protect the urban system against unexpected effects (Ahern, 2011). In the literature, connectivity
as a resilience attribute is not widely accepted. Some authors regard it as ambiguous. Over-interconnected systems can exacerbate
adverse effects and create new issues (Batty, 2013; Olazabal et al., 2018; Pickett et al., 2014). Accordingly, and aligned with the trade-
off discussions, more empirical work is needed. Each of these attributes has a range from low to high and can be considered a weakness
for the system at times of change. On this dimension, too, presence in one aspect, such as diversity, means that minimal upward
conditions are provided for the lower dimensions.

5.6.3. Intrinsic resilience attributes

In the literature, the term “intrinsic” was used to refer to a resilient system (Cutter et al., 2008; Meerow et al., 2016). Eight
important and repetitive attributes were listed in 127 studies as intrinsic attributes of the system (Robustness; Coherence, Efficiency;
Resourcefulness; Foresight capacity; Self-organization; Flexibility; Knowledge and learning), and each comprised a range from min­
imum to maximum; a robust system may, under certain conditions, fail and break due to rigidity and inflexibility and eventually lead to
collapse and flipping. ‘Learning and knowledge’ arise when the system is capable of flexibility in the face of change; in a cycle process,
this attribute can lead to the reinforcing of other intrinsic attributes such as foresight capacity and self-organization. This dimension
also has a range of attributes from rigidity and robustness to flexibility; due to the variable nature of place and the uncertainty over
time, the opportunity cost to create a place with stable and robust conditions is higher than adaptability and change (the higher the
efficiency, the lower the cost). Being in a higher spectrum, such as flexibility, means to provide minimal upward conditions for other
attributes.

5.6.4. Place-making components

Urban resilience assessment frameworks and models are specifically designed to address natural hazards and immediate and
unexpected events, and are largely tailored to metropolitan levels. In the field of urban design, spatial and place-based dimensions are
defined differently depending on the basic assumptions. According to the Good City theory of Kevin Lynch (1981), before one can
evaluate a settlement as “good” or “bad”, instead of simplifying it, s/he must decide how to describe it in a manner that is approved by
various observers. “The city is a problem of organized complexity” (Jacobs, 1960), and the main challenge is to decide what the place
should include: Physical and inanimate objects? living organism? behaviors? Social structure? Economic system? Environmental
system? Space control and its meaning? (Lynch, 1981). Cities have different patterns that are not simple and merely physical. The
source of patterns is human action, consciously or unconsciously (directly or indirectly). Built environment are the outcome of a social
and cultural process including the interaction between individuals and their environment and coevolve process. Place is the
embodiment and substantiation of cultural customs that produce it and is a reference for the wide range of aspects that make up the

12
M. Shafiei Dastjerdi et al. Urban Climate 36 (2021) 100794

urban form (Kropf, 2009, 2017).

Resilience, recognizing a process of change, has undergone a substantive shift from a change in physical-structural to ecological-
social and perceptual-environmental perspectives over the past decade, Communities’ ability to withstand external shocks depends on
both their physical and social infrastructure. Creating resilient communities is based on the goal of improving skills, energy and re­
sources for local people and groups, and create firm, healthy and vibrant districts for sociability and livability. Resilient place is defined
by the degree to which all elements retain their integrity and function vis-à-vis change and depends on the contextual characteristics
(Mirti Chand, 2018; Sharifi and Yamagata, 2018). On the other hand, the main qualities of urban design that define resilient places are
influenced by the ability of the place to provide effective human activities (Jacobs, 1960; Shamsuddin and Ujang, 2008).
Physical settings and characteristics of a place interact with two other components, namely, “the individual’s internal psycho­
logical and social processes and attributes”, and activities that occur at a location to form a place (Canter, 1977; Relph, 1976; Smaldone
et al., 2005; Stedman, 2003; Stokols and Shumaker, 1981; Shamsuddin and Ujang, 2008). These combination also contributes to
creating the sense of place and character (Montgomery, 1998; Shamsuddin and Ujang, 2008). (In the conceptual framework (RPA),
based on Moudon (1992)’s epistemological map for urban design, the constituent components of place are defined in three parts:
Environment and behavior: Focuses on the behavioral patterns and environmental preferences dimensions; Place and image: focuses
on the dimensions of meaning, perception and human values; Form and process: Focuses on the morphological elements of the place
(Moudon, 1992; Owens, 2005).
The three components of place vary in range, from form and shape to meaning and image; in the context of environment and
behavior. Accordingly, the physical dimensions have relative (upward) resilience attributes, and in the image and meaning spectrum,
in addition to the physical aspects, the behavioral and environmental aspects of the system have the necessary qualities. In this respect,
the physical and structural dimension is a fundamental attribute of the system that is an essential condition for resilience. Physical
dimensions include physical form, spatial organization, and the public arena, which can appear concerning different attributes of
resilience (from minimum to maximum). Environment and behavior include attendance and patterns of behavior ranging from
minimum to maximum in place. Image and meaning include a range of high to low imageability.

5.7. RPA framework guidelines

According to the adaptive cycle, three behavioral steps have been documented in the literature for the status when the place is
undergoing change:

a. The place, considering its high intrinsic resistance and robustness, absorbs change.
b. The place, due to its adaptive capacity, accepts adaptations to external conditions.
c. The place can adapt, but the magnitude of the change leads to the transformation of the place status (bouncing forward).

In the above steps, the nature of the system is preserved.

In addition to these three steps, two other states are conceivable:

d. The place cannot adapt and change, resulting in a collapse (regime shift).
e. The system undergoes significant evolution and radical transformation but continues to operate (regime shift).

In both states, the nature of the place changes and shifts to another.
The lowest level of resilience occurs when:

1. Resilience is viewed solely from the physical and formal viewpoint.

2. The intrinsic characteristics of the constituents’ components of the place focus more on robustness and less on synergy and
creativity.
3. Behavioral attributes appear as more reactive (more absorbent and less changeability).
4. Resilience reinforcing attributes indicate less diversity.

The highest level of resilience, however, occurs when:

1. All three components of the place are considered.

2. The intrinsic attributes of the constituent components of the place focus more on flexibility.
3. Behavioral attributes are more proactive (less absorptive and more adaptable).
4. Resilience reinforcing attributes emphasize more diversity and redundancy.

The rectangular range shown in Fig. 3 indicates the range of spatial resilience variation. In this area, there is the resilience of the
place against disruption and disturbance. Yet, depending on the intrinsic attributes and capacities of the system in relation to the
outside, the level of resilience varies. Each of the horizontal and vertical dimensions contains a range of attributes.

13
M. Shafiei Dastjerdi et al. Urban Climate 36 (2021) 100794

6. Conclusion

Constantly changing conditions and increase in the frequency and intensity of hazards at different urban scales have caused
challenges and various issues for people and their local places. Changes and crises are not always sudden, but are triggered by
continuous contextual causes that can, through slow action over long periods, bring cities close to transformation thresholds (the
boundary between different states). During these processes, maintaining resilience could be very challenging. This emphasizes the
need to understand resilient places and to develop multidisciplinary scientific collaboration to create and share the mentality of
resilience.
The aim of the spatial resilience approach vis-à-vis continuous changes is to increase the adaptability and transformability of
resilient places through a new understanding of the concept of ‘space’ and its constituent components. The shaping aspects of spatial
resilience can fluctuate connections between ‘form and structure’, ‘environment and behavior’, and ‘image and meaning’ all needed to
create resilient places. Therefore, the mere emphasis on the factor of ‘robustness and stability’ in the physical dimension is among the
lowest levels in the literature of spatial resilience. If the place has resilience attributes at the behavioral-functional and semantic-
cognitive levels in addition to the physical level, it has the highest level of resilience. These qualities are critical in an era when cit­
ies, increasingly, need to enhance their resilience to a wide range of threats induced by climate change and other socio-economic
stressors.
In cities, the ability to retain core identity, personality, and original morphological structure during periods of change are signs of
thriving and resilience. Such resilient places must have a self-constructing mechanism for gradual and continuous change that prevents
the locked-in places from shaping socio-ecological traps. Therefore, formulating a spatial resilience conceptual framework for building
a self-reorganizing mechanism can help planners, designers, and policymakers create places with appropriate contextual conditions for
‘adaptation and transformation’ over time. In this study, a systematic review approach was used to analyze literature on spatial
resilience. Also, to identify gaps in the literature, this method enabled the authors to present a resilient place assessment conceptual
framework (RPA) by extracting 16 resilience attributes. According to this conceptual framework, the highest level of resilience is when
a place has both semantic and behavioral qualities in addition to physical attributes. The interpretation and transfer of concepts that
can be used in the ecological field, as a starting point for resilience discourse, into the field of urban design is one of the significant
limitations of the research.
Future research can employ the quantitative and qualitative studies to test and operationalize the proposed assessment framework.
The framework must be extended to include quantified criteria, measures and indicators that all need to be validated in different case
studies that represent multi-scale and multi-functional urban areas. We suggest that, due to the nature and complexity of the research
and the proposed framework, which needs to address the concept of resilience from different views and at different morphological
scales (, the case study approach with a combined focus (quantitative and qualitative) and at least in two different neighborhood
contexts (to compare results and repeatability and validity of results) offers the greatest advantage.
However, implementing a spatial resilience approach at the local level depends on developing integrated frameworks that facilitate
supporting bottom-up, place-based guidelines with a top-down institutional framework. Such integrated frameworks should be
developed in a context where different potentially influential factors across various scales of urban planning and design are taken into
account.

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.

References

Adger, W.N., 2003. Building Resilience to Promote Sustainability (An agenda for coping with globalisation and promoting justice).
Adger, W.N., Dessai, S., Goulden, M., Hulme, M., Lorenzoni, I., Nelson, D.R., Naess, L.O., Wolf, J., Wreford, A., 2009. Are there social limits to adaptation to climate
change? Clim. Chang. 93 (3–4), 335–354. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-008-9520-z.
Adger, W.N., Barnett, J., Brown, K., Marshall, N., O’Brien, K., 2013. Cultural dimensions of climate change impacts and adaptation. Nat. Clim. Chang. 3 (2), 112–117.
https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1666.
Aelbrecht, P.S., 2016. ‘Fourth places’: the contemporary public settings for informal social interaction among strangers. J. Urban Des. 21 (1), 124–152.
Ahern, J., 2011. From fail-safe to safe-to-fail: sustainability and resilience in the new urban world. Landsc. Urban Plan. 100 (4), 341–343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
landurbplan.2011.02.021.
Ahern, J., 2013. Urban landscape sustainability and resilience: the promise and challenges of integrating ecology with urban planning and design. Landsc. Ecol. 28
(6), 1203–1212. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-012-9799-z.
Allan, P., Bryant, M., Wirsching, C., Garcia, D., Teresa Rodriguez, M., 2013. The influence of urban morphology on the resilience of cities following an earthquake.
J. Urban Des. 18 (2), 242–262. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2013.772881.
Allen, C.R., Angeler, D.G., Cumming, G.S., Folke, C., Twidwell, D., Uden, D.R., 2016. REVIEW: quantifying spatial resilience. J. Appl. Ecol. 53 (3), 625–635. https://
doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12634.
Anderies, J.M., 2014. Embedding built environments in social-ecological systems: resilience-based design principles. Build. Res. Inf. 42 (2), 130–142. https://doi.org/
10.1080/09613218.2013.857455.
Arefi, M., 2011. Design for resilient cities. In: Companion to Urban Design. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203844434.ch52.
ARUP, 2015. City Resilience Framework. 100 Resilient cities. ARUP group ltd (Issue November).
Bankoff, G., Frerks, G., 2004. Mapping Vulnerability, Disasters, Development and People View Project. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781849771924.
Barnes, A., Nel, V., 2017. Putting spatial resilience into practice. Urban Forum 28 (2), 219–232. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12132-017-9303-6.
Barthel, S., Colding, S., Grahn, H., Erixon, H., Ernstson, C., Kärsten, L., 2013. Principles of Socialecological Urbanism. TRITA-ARK.
Batty, M., 2013. Resilient cities, networks, and disruption. Environ. Plann. B Plann. Des. 40 (4), 571–573. https://doi.org/10.1068/b4004ed.

14
M. Shafiei Dastjerdi et al. Urban Climate 36 (2021) 100794

Béné, C., 2013. Towards a quantifiable measure of resilience. IDS Work. Pap. 2013 (434), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2040-0209.2013.00434.x.
Béné, C., Newsham, A., Davies, M., Ulrichs, M., Godfrey-Wood, R., 2014. Resilience, poverty and development. J. Int. Dev. 26 (5), 598–623. https://doi.org/10.1002/
jid.2992.
Berkes, F., Ross, H., 2013. Community resilience: toward an integrated approach. Soc. Nat. Resour. 26 (1), 5–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2012.736605.
Brown, K., 2014. Global environmental change I: a social turn for resilience? Prog. Hum. Geogr. 38 (1), 107–117. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132513498837.
Brown, A., Dayal, A., Rumbaitis Del Rio, C., 2012. From practice to theory: emerging lessons from Asia for building urban climate change resilience. Environ. Urban.
24 (2), 531–556. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956247812456490.
Brunetta, G., Caldarice, O., 2019. Spatial resilience in planning: meanings, challenges, and perspectives for urban transition. In: Filho, T. Leal, Azul, W., Brandli, A.M.,
Özuyar, L., Wall, P.G. (Eds.), Sustainable Cities and Communities. Springer, pp. 1–12.
Brunetta, G., Caldarice, O., Tollin, N., Rosas-Casala, M., Morató, J., 2019a. Urban Resilience for Risk and Adaptation Governance Theory and Practice. Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-76944-8.
Brunetta, G., Ceravolo, R., Barbieri, C.A., Borghini, A., de Carlo, F., Mela, A., Beltramo, S., Longhi, A., De Lucia, G., Ferraris, S., Pezzoli, A., Quagliolo, C., Salata, S.,
Voghera, A., 2019b. Territorial resilience: toward a proactive meaning for spatial planning. Sustainability (Switzerland) 11 (8), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.3390/
su11082286.
Canter, D.V., 1977. The Psychology of Place. Architectural Press.
Carmin, J., Nadkarni, N., Rhie, C., 2012. Progress and Challenges in Urban Climate Adaptation Planning: Results of a Global Survey (p. 33). http://resilient-cities.iclei.
org/fileadmin/sites/resilient-cities/files/Resilient_Cities_2012/Urban_Adaptation_Report_23May2012.pdf.
Carmona, M., Tiesdell, S., Heath, T., Oc, T., 2010. Public Space, Urban Space The Dimensions of Urban Design, (Second ed.). Architectural Press is an imprint of
Elsevier.
Chandler, D., 2014. Resilience: The Governance of Complexity. Routledge.
Chelleri, L., Olazabal, M., 2012. Multidisciplinary perspectives on urban resilience: a workshop report. Basque Cent. Clim. Change 1–81. https://www.ufz.de/export/
data/1/44827_MultidisciplinaryperspectivesonUrbanResilience_small.pdf#page=61.
Chelleri, L., Kunath, A., Minucci, G., Olazabal, M., Waters, J.J., Yumalogava, L., 2012. Multidisciplinary Perspectives on Urban Resilience. BC3, Basque Centre for
Climate Change.
Chelleri, L., Waters, J.J., Olazabal, M., Minucci, G., 2015. Resilience trade-offs: addressing multiple scales and temporal aspects of urban resilience. Environ. Urban.
27 (1), 181–198. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956247814550780.
Cloete, C.E., 2012. Assessing urban resilience. WIT Trans. Inf. Commun. Technol. 44, 341–351. https://doi.org/10.2495/RISK120291.
Coaffee, J., 2013a. Rescaling and responsibilising the politics of urban resilience: from national security to local place-making. Politics 33 (4), 240–252. https://doi.
org/10.1111/1467-9256.12011.
Coaffee, J., 2013b. Towards next-generation urban resilience in planning practice: from securitization to integrated place making. Plan. Pract. Res. 28 (3), 323–339.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2013.787693.
Contreras, D., Blaschke, T., Hodgson, M.E., 2017. Lack of spatial resilience in a recovery process: case L’Aquila, Italy. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 121, 76–88.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.12.010.
Coppola, A., 2017. The spatial resilience of critical residuals: the raise and resistance voluntary service hubs in global cities. Volunt. Int. J. Volunt. Nonprofit Org. 28
(3), 1352–1358. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-017-9840-6.
Cruz, S.S., Costa, J.P.T.A., de Sousa, S.Á., Pinho, P., 2012. Urban resilience and spatial dynamics. In: Eraydin, A.A., Tasan-Kok, T. (Eds.), Resilience Thinking in Urban
Planning. Springer, pp. 53–69. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5476-8_4.
Cumming, G.S., 2011a. Spatial resilience: integrating landscape ecology, resilience, and sustainability. Landsc. Ecol. 26 (7), 899–909. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10980-011-9623-1.
Cumming, G.S., 2011b. Spatial resilience in social-ecological systems. In: Spatial Resilience in Social-Ecological Systems. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-
007-0307-0.
Cumming, G.S., Barnes, G., Perz, S., Schmink, M., Sieving, K.E., Southworth, J., Binford, M., Holt, R.D., Stickler, C., Van Holt, T., 2005. An exploratory framework for
the empirical measurement of resilience. Ecosystems 8 (8), 975–987. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-005-0129-z.
Cumming, G.S., Morrison, T.H., Hughes, T.P., 2017. New directions for understanding the spatial resilience of social–ecological systems. Ecosystems 20 (4), 649–664.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-016-0089-5.
Cutter, S.L., Barnes, L., Berry, M., Burton, C., Evans, E., Tate, E., Webb, J., 2008. A place-based model for understanding community resilience to natural disasters.
Glob. Environ. Chang. 18 (4), 598–606. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.07.013.
Czerniak, J., Hargreaves, G., 2007. Large Parks: Amazon.com: Books. Princeton Architectural Press.
Davidson, K., Nguyen, T.M.P., Beilin, R., Briggs, J., 2019. The emerging addition of resilience as a component of sustainability in urban policy. Cities 92 (February),
1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2019.03.012.
Davoudi, S., Shaw, K., Haider, L.J., Quinlan, A.E., Peterson, G.D., Wilkinson, C., Fünfgeld, H., McEvoy, D., Porter, L., 2012. Resilience: a bridging concept or a dead
end? “Reframing” resilience: challenges for planning theory and practice interacting traps: resilience assessment of a pasture management system in northern
Afghanistan urban resilience: what does it mean in planning. In: Planning Theory and Practice, Vol. 13. Routledge, pp. 299–333. https://doi.org/10.1080/
14649357.2012.677124. Issue 2.
Davoudi, S., Brooks, E., Mehmood, A., 2013. Evolutionary resilience and strategies for climate adaptation. Plan. Pract. Res. 28 (3), 307–322. https://doi.org/10.1080/
02697459.2013.787695.
Dhar, T.K., Khirfan, L., 2017. A multi-scale and multi-dimensional framework for enhancing the resilience of urban form to climate change. Urban Clim. 19, 72–91.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2016.12.004.
Elmqvist, T., 2014. Urban resilience thinking. Solutions 5 (5), 26–30.
Elmqvist, T., Andersson, E., Frantzeskaki, N., McPhearson, T., Olsson, P., Gaffney, O., Takeuchi, K., Folke, C., 2019. Sustainability and resilience for transformation in
the urban century. Nat. Sustain. 2 (4), 267–273. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0250-1.
Eraydin, A., Taşan-Kok, T., 2013. Introduction: resilience thinking in urban planning. In: Eraydin, A., Taşan-Kok, T. (Eds.), Resilience Thinking in Urban Planning.
Springer, pp. 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5476-8_1.
Erixon, H., Borgström, S., Andersson, E., 2013. Challenging dichotomies – exploring resilience as an integrative and operative conceptual framework for large-scale
urban green structures. Plan. Theory Pract. 14 (3), 349–372. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2013.813960.
Ernstson, H., Leeuw, S.E.V.D., Redman, C.L., Meffert, D.J., Davis, G., Alfsen, C., Elmqvist, T., 2010. Urban transitions: on urban resilience and human-dominated
ecosystems. Ambio 39 (8), 531–545. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-010-0081-9.
Faludi, A., 2000. The performance of spatial planning. Plan. Pract. Res. 15 (4), 299–318. https://doi.org/10.1080/713691907.
Feliciotti, A., 2018. Urban Resilience and Design: A System Approach to Study of Resilience in Urban Form Learning from the Case of Grabales. University of
Strathclyde.
Feliciotti, A., Romice, O., Porta, S., 2015. Masterplanning for change: lessons and directions. In: 29th Annual AESOP 2015 Congress, pp. 3051–3065.
Feliciotti, A., Romice, O., Porta, S., 2016. Design for change: five proxies for resilience in the urban form. Open House Int. 41 (4), 23–30.
Feliciotti, A., Romice, O., Porta, S., 2017. Urban regeneration, masterplans and resilience: the case of Gorbals, Glasgow. Urban Morphol. 21 (1), 61–79.
Folke, C., 2006. Resilience: the emergence of a perspective for social-ecological systems analyses. Glob. Environ. Chang. 16, 253–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
gloenvcha.2006.04.002.
Folke, C., Carpenter, S., Elmqvist, T., Gunderson, L., Holling, C.S., Walker, B., 2002. Resilience and sustainable development: building adaptive capacity in a world of
transformations. Ambio 31 (5), 437–440. https://doi.org/10.1579/0044-7447-31.5.437.
Folke, C., Carpenter, S., Walker, B., Scheffer, M., Elmqvist, T., Gunderson, L., Holling, C.S., 2004. Regime shifts, resilience, and biodiversity in ecosystem management.
Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 35 (1), 557–581. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.35.021103.105711.

15
M. Shafiei Dastjerdi et al. Urban Climate 36 (2021) 100794

Folke, C., Carpenter, S.R., Walker, B., Scheffer, M., Chapin, T., Rockström, J., 2010. Resilience thinking: integrating resilience, adaptability and transformability. Ecol.
Soc. 15 (4) https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-03610-150420.
Gehl, J., 1987. Life between Buildings: Using Public Space. Island Press. http://archibook.blog.ir/1395/02/29/‫ﮎﺕﺍﺏ‬-‫ﺩﺍﻥﻝﻭﺩ‬-Life-Between-Buildings-Using-Public-
Space.
Gehl, J., 2010. Cities for Peoples. Island Press.
Global Energy & CO2 Status Report. https://www.iea.org/, 2019.
Godschalk, D.R., 2003. Urban hazard mitigation: creating resilient cities. Nat. Hazards Rev. 4 (3), 136–143. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1527-6988(2003)4:3
(136).
Goldstein, B.E., Wessells, A.T., Lejano, R., Butler, W., 2015. Narrating resilience: transforming Urban Systems through collaborative storytelling. Urban Stud. 52 (7),
1285–1303. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098013505653.
Gunderson, L.H., Holling, C.S., 2002. Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems. Island Press.
Gustafson, P., 2001. Meanings of place: everyday experience and theoretical conceptualizations. J. Environ. Psychol. 21 (1), 5–16. https://doi.org/10.1006/
jevp.2000.0185.
Hassler, U., Kohler, N., 2014. Resilience in the built environment. Build. Res. Inf. 42 (2), 119–129. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2014.873593.
Holling, C.S., 1973. Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 4, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.es.04.110173.000245.
Jacobs, J., 1960. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. Random House.
Jacobs, J., 1961. The uses of sidewalks: safety. City Read. 189–194. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429261732-25.
Jerneck, A., Olsson, L., 2008. Adaptation and the poor: development, resilience and transition. Clim. Pol. 8, 170–182. https://doi.org/10.3763/cpol.2007.0434.
Kärrholm, M., Nylund, K., Prieto de la Fuente, P., 2014. Spatial resilience and urban planning: addressing the interdependence of urban retail areas. Cities 36,
121–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2012.10.012.
Klein, R.J.T., Nicholls, R.J., Thomalla, F., 2003. Resilience to natural hazards: how useful is this concept? Environ. Hazards 5 (1), 35–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
hazards.2004.02.001.
Koren, D., Rus, K., 2019. The potential of open space for enhancing urban seismic resilience: a literature review. Sustainability 11 (5942), 1–20. https://doi.org/
10.3390/su11215942.
Kropf, K., 2009. Aspects of urban form. Urban Morphol. 13 (2), 105–120. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118747711.ch3.
Kropf, K., 2017. The Handbook Of Urban Morphology. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118747711.
Lak, A., Hasankhan, F., Garakani, S.A., 2020. Principles in practice: toward a conceptual framework for resilient urban design. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 1–33. https://
doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2020.1714561.
Li, Y., Shi, Y., Qureshi, S., Bruns, A., Zhu, X., 2014. Applying the concept of spatial resilience to socio-ecological systems in the urban wetland interface. Ecol. Indic.
42, 135–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.09.032.
Liberati, A., Altman, D.G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P.C., Ioannidis, J.P.A., Clarke, M., Devereaux, P.J., Kleijnen, J., Moher, D., 2009. The PRISMA statement
for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. https://doi.org/
10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100.
Lu, P., Stead, D., 2013. Understanding the notion of resilience in spatial planning: a case study of Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Cities 35, 200–212. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.cities.2013.06.001.
Lu, Y., Zhai, G., Zhou, S., Shi, Y., 2020. Risk reduction through urban spatial resilience: a theoretical framework. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An
International Journal 1–17.
Lynch, K., 1960. The Image of City. MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.1088/1751-8113/44/8/085201.
Lynch, K., 1981. A Theory of Good City Form. MIT Press.
Lyon, C., 2014. Place systems and social resilience: a framework for understanding place in social adaptation, resilience, and transformation. Soc. Nat. Resour. 27
(10), 1009–1023. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2014.918228.
Marcus, L., Colding, J., 2011. Towards a spatial morphology of urban social-ecological systems. In: Conference Proceedings for the 18th International Conference on
Urban Form: ISUF 2011, October 1967, pp. 1–20. http://kth.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2:469884.
Marshall, N.A., Gordon, I.J., Ash, A.J., 2011. The reluctance of resource-users to adopt seasonal climate forecasts to enhance resilience to climate variability on the
rangelands. Clim. Chang. 107 (3), 511–529. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-010-9962-y.
McAllister, R.R.J., Abel, N., Stokes, C.J., Gordon, I.J., 2006. Australian pastoralists in time and space: the evolution of a complex adaptive system. Ecol. Soc. 11 (2)
https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-01875-110241.
Mcaslan, D.S., 2018. Walking, Transit Use, and Urban Morphology in Walkable Urban Neighborhoods: An Examination of Behaviors and Attitudes in Seattle, 345.
Meerow, S., Newell, J.P., Stults, M., 2016. Defining urban resilience: a review. Landsc. Urban Plan. 147, 38–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.11.011.
Mehaffy, M., Porta, S., Rofè, Y., Salingaros, N., 2010. Urban nuclei and the geometry of streets: the “emergent neighborhoods” model. Urban Des. Int. 15 (1), 22–46.
https://doi.org/10.1057/udi.2009.26.
Mehmood, A., 2016. Of resilient places: planning for urban resilience. Eur. Plan. Stud. 24 (2), 407–419. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2015.1082980.
Mehta, V., 2018. Streets and social life in cities: a taxonomy of sociability. Urban Des. Int. 24 (1), 16–37. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41289-018-0069-9.
Mirti Chand, A.V., 2018. Place based approach to plan for resilient cities: a local government perspective. Procedia Eng. 212 (2017), 157–164. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.proeng.2018.01.021.
Montgomery, J., 1998. Making a city: urbanity, vitality and urban design. J. Urban Des. 3 (1), 93–116. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809808724418.
Morphet, J., 2011. Effective Practice in Spatial Planning. Routledge.
Moudon, A.V., 1986. Built for Change: Neighborhood Architecture in San Francisco. Mit Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/1424985.
Moudon, A.V., 1992. A catholic approach to organizing what urban designers should know. J. Plan. Lit. 6, 331–349.
Norberg-Schulz, C., 1980. Genius Loci: Towards a Phenomenology of Architecture. Rizzoli.
Norris, F.H., Stevens, S.P., Pfefferbaum, B., Wyche, K.F., Pfefferbaum, R.L., 2008. Community resilience as a metaphor, theory, set of capacities, and strategy for
disaster readiness. Am. J. Community Psychol. 41 (1–2), 127–150. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-007-9156-6.
Nyström, M., Folke, C., 2001. Spatial resilience of coral reefs. Ecosystems Vol. 4, 406–417. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-001-0019-y. Issue 5.
Nystrom, M., Folke, C., Moberg, F., 2000. Coral reef disturbance and resilience in a human-dominated environment. Reviews 15 (10), 413–417.
Olazabal, M., Chelleri, L., Sharifi, A., 2018. Is connectivity a desirable property in urban resilience assessments? Lect. Notes Energy 65, 195–211. https://doi.org/
10.1007/978-3-319-75798-8_11.
Owens, P.M., 2005. Beyond Density:Measuring Neighborhood Form in New England’s Upper Connecticut River Valley. California, Berkeley.
Panerai, P., Depaule, J.C., Demorgan, M., Veyrenche, M., 1980. Elements d’analyse urbaine. In: Ecological Economics (Editions A). Brussels. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ecolecon.2012.10.016.
Pearson, L.J., Pearson, C., 2014. Adaptation and transformation for resilient and sustainable cities. In: Pearson, L.J., Newton, P.W., Roberts, P. (Eds.), Resilient
Sustainable Cities. Routledge, pp. 242–248.
Pearson, L.J., Newton, P.W., Roberts, P., 2014. Resilient Sustainable Cities. Routledge.
Peres, E., Du Plessis, C., Landman, K., 2017. Unpacking a sustainable and resilient future for Tshwane. Procedia Eng. 198, 690–698. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
proeng.2017.07.120.
Pickett, S.T.A., Cadenasso, M.L., Grove, J.M., 2004. Resilient cities: meaning, models, and metaphor for integrating the ecological, socio-economic, and planning
realms. Landsc. Urban Plan. 69 (4), 369–384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.10.035.
Pickett, S.T.A., McGrath, B., Cadenasso, M.L., Felson, A.J., 2014. Ecological resilience and resilient cities. Build. Res. Inf. 42 (2), 143–157. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09613218.2014.850600.
Punter, J., Carmona, M., 1997. The Design Dimension of Planning. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351203319-7.

16
M. Shafiei Dastjerdi et al. Urban Climate 36 (2021) 100794

Ray, B., Shaw, R., 2018. Changing built form and implications on urban resilience: loss of climate responsive and socially interactive spaces. Procedia Eng. 212,
117–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2018.01.016.
Relph, E.C., 1976. Place and Placelessness. Pion.
Remali, A.M., Porta, S., Romice, O., Abudib, H., 2018. Street quality, street life, street centrality. In: Suburban Urbanities, pp. 104–129. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.
ctt1g69z0m.13.
Rus, K., Kilar, V., Koren, D., 2018. Resilience assessment of complex urban systems to natural disasters: a new literature review. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 31,
311–330.
Salingaros, N.A., Coward, L.A., West, B.J., van Bilsen, A., 2005. Principles of urban structure. J. Urban Des. 4, 252 p.
Samuelsson, K., Colding, J., Barthel, S., 2019. Urban resilience at eye level: spatial analysis of empirically defined experiential landscapes. Landsc. Urban Plan. 187
(November 2018), 70–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2019.03.015.
Shamsuddin, S., Ujang, N., 2008. Making places: the role of attachment in creating the sense of place for traditional streets in Malaysia. Habitat Int. 32 (3), 399–409.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2008.01.004.
Sharifi, A., 2016. A critical review of selected tools for assessing community resilience. Ecol. Indic. 69, 629–647. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.05.023.
Sharifi, A., 2019a. Resilient urban forms: a macro-scale analysis. Cities 85, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2018.11.023.
Sharifi, A., 2019b. Resilient urban forms: a review of literature on streets and street networks. Build. Environ. 147 (July 2018), 171–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
buildenv.2018.09.040.
Sharifi, A., 2019c. Urban form resilience: a meso-scale analysis. Cities 93, 238–252. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S026427511831518X.
Sharifi, Ayyoob, Roosta, Maryam, Javadpoor, Masoud, 2021. Urban form resilience: a comparative analysis of traditional, semi-planned, and planned neighborhoods
in Shiraz, Iran. Urban Science. https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci5010018.
Sharifi, A., Yamagata, Y., 2014. Major principles and criteria for development of an urban resilience assessment index. In: Proceedings of the 2014 International
Conference and Utility Exhibition on Green Energy for Sustainable Development, ICUE 2014, June.
Sharifi, A., Yamagata, Y., 2016. Principles and criteria for assessing urban energy resilience: a literature review. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 60, 1654–1677. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.03.028.
Sharifi, Yamagata, Y., 2018. Resilient urban form: A conceptual framework. In: Sharifi, Y.Y.A. (Ed.), Lecture Notes in Energy, Vol. 65. Springer, pp. 167–179. https://
doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75798-8_9.
Sharifi, A., Chelleri, L., Fox-Lent, C., Grafakos, S., Pathak, M., Olazabal, M., Moloney, S., Yumagulova, L., Yamagata, Y., 2017. Conceptualizing dimensions and
characteristics of urban resilience: insights from a co-design process. Sustainability 9 (6), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9061032.
Smaldone, D., Harris, C., Sanyal, N., 2005. An exploration of place as a process: the case of Jackson Hole, WY. J. Environ. Psychol. 25 (4), 397–414. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jenvp.2005.12.003.
Smith, J.W., Anderson, D.H., Moore, R.L., 2012. Social capital, place meanings, and perceived resilience to climate change. Rural. Sociol. 77 (3), 380–407. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1549-0831.2012.00082.x.
Stedman, R.C., 2003. Is it really just a social construction? The contribution of the physical environment to sense of place. Soc. Nat. Resour. 16, 671–685.
Stokols, D., Shumaker, S.A., 1981. People in places: a transactional view of settings. Cogn. Soc. Behav. Environ. 441–448.
Suárez, M., Gómez-Baggethun, E., Benayas, J., Tilbury, D., 2016. Towards an urban resilience index: a case study in 50 Spanish cities. Sustainability (Switzerland) 8
(8). https://doi.org/10.3390/su8080774.
Turner, B.L., Kasperson, R.E., Matsone, P.A., McCarthy, J.J., Corell, R.W., Christensene, L., Eckley, N., Kasperson, J.X., Luers, A., Martello, M.L., Polsky, C.,
Pulsipher, A., Schiller, A., 2003. A framework for vulnerability analysis in sustainability science. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 100 (14), 8074–8079. https://doi.
org/10.1073/pnas.1231335100.
Walker, B., Salt, D., 2006. Resilience Thinking: Sustaining Ecosystems and People in a Changing World. Island Press.
Yang, P.P.J., Quan, S.J., 2016. Urban form and energy resilient strategies: a case study of the Manhattan grid. In: Yamagata, H., Maruyama, Y. (Eds.), Urban
Resilience: A Transformative Approach. Springer, pp. 153–172. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-39812-9_9.

17