Cities 135 (2023) 104237

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Cities
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cities

Governing the resilient city: An empirical analysis of governing techniques

Sabrina Huizenga *, Lieke Oldenhof, Hester van de Bovenkamp, Roland Bal
Erasmus University Rotterdam, Erasmus School of Health Policy and Management (ESHPM), Burgemeester Oudlaan 50, 3062, PA, Rotterdam, the Netherlands

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

Keywords: Resilience is increasingly used as a new discourse for dealing with future shocks, crises and transition in urban
Resilience governance. Although embraced in policy and academia, resilience is also severely critiqued as a continuation of
Resilient cities neo-liberal thinking. To avoid the trap of imposing a meta-narrative on resilience, we argue that resilience should
Urban governance
be treated as a ‘matter of empirics’. Using a governmentality lens, we empirically investigate how the resilient
Governmentality
Governing techniques
city is governed in practice. Based on a multi-sited ethnography of resilience within the city of Rotterdam that
joined the 100-RC initiative pioneered by the Rockefeller Foundation, we identify five governing techniques:
anticipating, transcending, laboratizing, monitoring and responsibilizing. Our analysis shows that resilience
discourse has the potential to be both progressive and cruel, depending on the techniques used and the in­
teractions between them. Hence, how resilience is shaped not only depends on the individual techniques but also
on their entanglements in practice.

1. Introduction Instead of a radically new vision for governing, these scholars argue, the
resilience discourse is ‘old’ neoliberal wine in ‘new’ resilient bottles.
Increasingly, the concept of resilience is used to make uncertain fu­ In response to this critique, others have pointed out that we can
tures and complexity actionable (Chandler, 2014). Originally, the neither assume that resilience is the new governance framework that
concept was introduced in the 1970's, as a descriptive, ecological term will future-proof societies nor that resilience is a continuation of
defined as the “measure of the persistence of systems and of their ability to neoliberal governmentality (Howell, 2015; Joseph, 2016; Rose & Lent­
absorb change and disturbance and still maintain the same relationships zos, 2017). To avoid the trap of imposing a monolithic meta-narrative on
between populations or state variables” (Holling, 1973, p.14). Resilience resilience, resilience should be treated as a ‘matter of empirics’ (Howell,
quickly travelled across academic disciplines (e.g. ecology, psychology, 2015, p. 67) and be carefully researched as a concept ‘on the ground
sociology, organizational studies, urban studies) and policy domains (e. floor’ as it might ‘provide handholds for a more progressive politics’
g. climate, social and health). Through its travels, resilience has gained (Rose & Lentzos, 2017: p.45). Taking inspiration from these approaches,
new meanings, ranging from an individual capacity to cope with set- we critically ‘engage with’ (King et al., 2021) resilience by interrogating
backs in life to collective mentalities of communities in bouncing back how resilience vocabulary shapes policy and how it makes practices
or even forward after crises and shocks (Walker & Cooper, 2011; Wal­ aimed at anticipating future shocks and crises governable in the here and
klate et al., 2013). Regarding the latter cities are increasingly taken up as now.
the loci of resilience, offering promissory local solutions for a broad In this article, we empirically research how the resilience discourse is
range of pressing global problems. mobilized and used in daily practices of urban governance using a
Although the resilience discourse is increasingly embraced in both governmentality lens. Currently, urban governance is one of the main
policy and academia, there is a growing scholarship that critiques areas in which resilience has gained ground as a new way of governing
resilience as a continuation of neoliberal thinking (Bracke, 2016; (Coaffee et al., 2018; Evans, 2011; Hommels, 2018; Meerow & Newell,
Davoudi, 2016; Halpern, 2017; Kaika, 2017). According to this critical 2016; Mehmood, 2016; Vale, 2014; Walker & Cooper, 2011). However,
line of reasoning, resilience is a neoliberal form of governmentality there is still a lack of understanding how resilience is transforming urban
because of the displacement of responsibilities, away from the state governance, as empirical studies on the resilience policies that are
towards individuals to perform public tasks in entrepreneurial ways. adopted and implemented in cities and on the tensions this raises are

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (S. Huizenga), [email protected] (L. Oldenhof), [email protected] (H. van de Bovenkamp), r.bal@
eshpm.eur.nl (R. Bal).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2023.104237
Received 23 November 2021; Received in revised form 22 November 2022; Accepted 8 February 2023
Available online 16 February 2023
0264-2751/© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
S. Huizenga et al. Cities 135 (2023) 104237

lacking (Woodruff et al., 2021; Pitidis & Coaffee, 2020). By fore­ bouncing back and preserving the status quo. Evans and Reid (2013)
grounding the various technologies, tactics, methods and procedures of describe how resilience deliberately incapacitates citizens' political
governance (Joseph, 2018), we are able to gain insights into this. In this habits and tendencies and exchanges them for adaptive capabilities.
article we answer the following research question: What governing While Joseph (2013, 2016) argues that instead of trying to change the
techniques are developed for governing the resilient city and how do they align world on a macro level, within the resilience discourse citizens are ex­
or conflict in daily practices of urban governance? pected to adapt their behaviour and to thrive under pressure. In the same
We conducted a multi-sited ethnography by ‘following resilience vein O'Malley (2010) describes how resilience produces citizens that are
around’ different field sites and practices within the city of Rotterdam – expected to exploit situations of radical uncertainty (O'Malley, 2010).
the second largest city of the Netherlands – that joined the one hundred Diverging from the ‘risk society’, resilience brings characteristics like
resilient cities network pioneered by the Rockefeller Foundation in 2014. vulnerability, unpredictability, transformation and adaptation into the
We analysed how the local government attempts to operationalize the governance of naturalized crises and uncertainty (Welsch, 2014). Some
resilience discourse in public policy. Moreover, we scrutinized one dis­ authors regard this as a post-political ideology in which resilient subjects
trict within the city as an exemplary case study of the contemporary show flexibility and adapt to rather than resist the conditions of crises
resilience discourse. In the context of the one hundred resilient cities and suffering (Bracke, 2016; Kaika, 2017; Neocleous, 2013; Reid, 2012;
program this area – one of the poorest areas within the Netherlands – Welsch, 2014).
was set out to become the cities' first resilient district. In more hopeful terms, authors like Chandler (2014) regard resil­
In what follows, we first elaborate on the discourse of resilience, ience as a fundamentally new governmental episteme, with a distinc­
using a governmentality lens. Second, we introduce our case, its context tively new understanding of emergent complexity. Here, resilience is
and the methods used in our study. Third, we present the analysis of our posed as an essential part of a new social ontology, that depicts the
multi-sited case study. We distinguish five techniques to govern the world as inherently complex and uncertain and moreover, beyond our
resilient city: anticipating, transcending, laboratizing, monitoring and comprehension and control (Joseph, 2018). According to Chandler
responsibilizing. Next, we illuminate the entanglements of these tech­ (2014), resilience is changing our understanding of existence into one of
niques by highlighting their alignments and frictions. We conclude with ontological uncertainty of complex life, contrasting Giddens notions of
a discussion on how to place resilience as a new form of urban ontological security that secured citizens against hardship and adversity
governance. through state-supported welfare provision. It is a move from the liberal
governmental reason of the ‘known knowns’ (which are based on linear
2. Governmentality: anticipating resilient futures and universal premises on governing human affairs), via neoliberal
reason of the ‘known unknows’ (knowledge gaps that can theoretically
In this article we adopt a governmentality approach to analyse be singled out to become ‘known’ through deeper understanding of
resilience. Governmentality is often contrasted with top-down govern­ determinate relational causality) into the ‘unknown unknowns’
ment and sovereign power, where political power is exerted by (and (implying inherent unknowability of knowledge gaps, of future disrup­
attributed to) a central coercive organ through disciplinary techniques, tive events). Resilience exemplifies this shift as a new basis of govern­
surveillance and monitoring. Instead, governmentality is posed as mental reason in the way that it proposes a self-reflexivity and
providing a more dispersed and fine-grained perspective on political responsivity as key attributes that need to be developed in order to
power and governance, as a less direct means of governing by shaping govern on the basis of unknowability. Therefore, instead of trying to
conduct ‘from a distance’. In this view, governing takes place through change the world, the aim of resilience is to learn how to adapt our
various discourses, related social practices, and techniques of (self) behaviour (Joseph, 2018). In this way, resilience emphasizes a focus on
governing (Lemke, 2011). This results in individuals regulating their adaptation and preparedness.
behaviour according to ‘available rationales of the collective, in a kind of Recently scholars have pointed out that the resilience discourse is
enforced, managed and assessed liberty’ (Woolgar & Neyland, 2013: 26). neither necessarily a continuation of neoliberal governmentality nor
Exactly because power is neither organized centrally nor oppressive, something entirely new (Howell, 2015; Joseph, 2016; Rose & Lentzos,
governance can take place from a distance in a pervasive manner 2017). According to Rose et al. there is a tendency to take neoliberalism
through facilitation and encouragement. In this way ‘free conduct’ is as a constant master category to explain and understand the arts of
actively constructed and guided towards responsible behaviour. In the governing. They argue that theoretical analyses like these do not
art of governing however, both sovereign, disciplining power and consider the (partial) empirical novelty resilience entails and call for
dispersed, persuasive power overlap. This way, the ‘conduct of conduct’ empirical analysis of the resilience discourse on the ground floor (Rose &
proceeds in and through different institutions and disciplined in­ Lentzos, 2017). Resilience discourse may rely on existing neoliberal
dividuals (Dean, 2010; Rose et al., 2006). governing rationalities, but at the same time may invent ‘new’ govern­
We build on a growing scholarship that uses governmentality to ing techniques that align well with uncertainty, complex systems and a
study practices of resilience. On the one hand, various authors working changing world (Howell, 2015). Therefore, instead of either old or new
from this perspective have analysed resilience as a neoliberal gov­ techniques of governing political rationalities resilience will likely show
ernmentality that responsibilises individual citizens and communities a shift and consist of a more hybrid mix as techniques are always un­
into a state of preparedness for future crises and shocks. By guiding dergoing modifications in relation to new problems, as well as preser­
citizens to conduct and evaluate themselves in ways that align with ving some old modes of thought and technologies. Empirical research of
governmental objectives responsibilities are shifted from the state onto the resilience discourse would give new insights into the question
individuals and communities (Rose, 1996b). Within neoliberalism, whether and how resilience shapes policy and practices aimed at making
conduct is subject to logics of competition and market behaviour and future disruptive events actionable in the present.
characterized by a displacement of responsibilities away from the state
onto a civil society of responsible and active citizens. Rather than a 3. Case and approach
retreat of the state this means a governmentalization of the state ac­
cording to market mechanisms. Hereby, citizens are free in their choices 3.1. Setting
while expected to adhere to competitive rules and persuaded to be
enterprising and responsible citizens not relying on state-support (Dean, The city of Rotterdam, the second largest city of the Netherlands,
2010; Joseph, 2018; Rose, 1996a). joined the world-wide Rockefeller 100-Resilient Cities initiative in 2014,
For example, Davoudi (2016) links resilience to self-reliant citizens launching its resilience strategy in 2016 in order to become, ‘a city that is
who reduce their vulnerabilities in a way that fits governmental aims of prepared to engage with opportunities and challenges of the future’

2
S. Huizenga et al. Cities 135 (2023) 104237

Table 1 governmental actors were trained to apply resilience in their work, and
Overview of data. resilience thinking became emphasised in policy documents and
City level BoTu district educational curricula. The resilience strategy on the city level subse­
quently led policy-makers and politicians to choose one specific district,
Interviews Chief resilience officer (1), Municipal civil servants (2),
Deputy Chief resilience officer BoTu social entrepreneurs the neighbourhoods of Bospolder and Tussendijken – commonly known
(2), involved in local projects (5), as BoTu– to become the cities' first resilient district.
Municipal civil servants (2), Field consortium/knowledge BoTu is a densely populated, highly diverse (80 % of the population
Directors Field consortium/ institute employee (1), is made up of ‘new Dutch’ citizens) and relatively young (BoTu has more
knowledge institute (2) Informal interviews (7) with
knowledge institute directors
residents between the age of zero to fourteen and a lower percentage of
and employees, municipal 65+ than the urban average) neighbourhood. Bospolder and Tussen­
civil servant and local dijken are placed second and fifth on the list of the twenty poorest postal
stakeholders working within codes in the Netherlands. Almost 75% of BoTu households are in the
the resilience program
‘low income’ category. Many residents indicate feeling lonely and un­
Observations Workshop “searching for resilient District tours and
living environments: action presentations (twice in healthy, the unemployment rate is high (the area has an above-average
research into social resilience” January 2020) number of residents without the appropriate diplomas for the current
(February 2018) Public presentation BoTu job market) and many households are living in conditions of severe
Workshop “searching for resilient teams (February 2020) debts. The housing stock consists for more than 60 % of social housing
living environments: how to build Urban Resilience Summit,
a living lab in a day” (February three-day world-wide summit,
(rental) with lots of houses of poor quality.
2018) Rockefeller Foundation (July BoTu does well on other indicators. Residents feel connected with
Workshop “searching for resilient 2019) their neighbourhood, they are involved and want to invest in it. BoTu is
living environments: work- City-makers conference, popular for its facilities, citizens initiatives and various community
session” (February 2018) sessions resilient BoTu
networks. Policy-makers and politicians view the cooperative ventures
Masterclass Resilience Thinking (November 2019)
(June 2018) Observation ‘climate living in the district as an opportunity for continuing the upward trend in the
Knowledge festival, Municipality room’ September 2021 social index in BoTu, as already seen over the past four years. Eventually
of Rotterdam, session: urban this resulted in the program “Resilient BoTu 2028, towards the urban
resilience (October 2018). average in ten years”. The programs' ambition is to make progress within
City-makers conference, sessions:
the area of: (1) work, language, debts; (2) healthcare, young people,
resilient living environments
(November 2018) parenting and (3) energy, housing and outdoor space.
Documents Resilient Rotterdam strategy, Resilient BoTu 2028, towards
Municipality 2016 (+100 pages) the urban average in ten years,
3.2. Data collection and analysis
Website resilientrotterdam.nl municipality 2018
www.resilientcitiesnetwork.org BoTu monitor start, Field
Field consortium Literature study consortium 2020 (+100 This article is based on fieldwork carried out between February 2018
on community resilience (Doff, pages) and Botu monitor and September 2021, with varying moments of being present. We con­
2017) progress, Field consortium
ducted a multi-sited ethnography (Willis & Trondman, 2000), following
2021 (+100 pages) retrieved
from https://verhalenvan the resilience discourse around different field sites and practices on both
botu.nl/monitor/ the level of Rotterdam city and within the BoTu district specifically.
Website gobotu.nl Within these different levels of analysis, we conducted (+38 h) obser­
vations of workshops, presentations, conferences, city/neighbourhood
tours and an international summit on (urban) resilience (with some
(Gemeente Rotterdam, 2016). Immediately, a Chief Resilience Officer
components open to the public, others by invitation). In addition, we
(CRO) was appointed to implement ‘resilience thinking’ into ‘the DNA of
conducted semi-structured (15) and unstructured interviews (7) with
the city’. With the involvement of the CRO, the next move was to
key-actors. Respondents were selected based on their involvement with
actively pursue the involvement of societal and governmental actors to
designing, implementing and executing resilience policies on municipal
use the ‘resilience lens’ in their practices. In this context, many initia­
or neighbourhood level (or both). The semi-structured interviews dealt
tives connected their practices to the resilience strategy; local
with the interpretation of resilience, its governance and how resilience

Table 2
Overview governing techniques of the resilience city.
Governing Anticipating Transcending Laboratizing Monitoring Responsibilizing
technique of
resilience

Problematization Emerging complexity and Organizational (municipal) Bureaucracy, Lack of Featuring on ‘bad lists’ on Residents lacking
increasing uncertainty silos discretionary space both city and national level, resources, skills and
about the future low index score on capacities
prominent indicators
Focus Attacking complex, Lever-effect to create synergy Learning by doing, Indexing, benchmarking Projects aimed at
interconnected global experimentation in real life activation
(future) problems locally in settings
the present
Instruments Forward mapping, Boundary-spanners and Urban (living) labs Social index+ Life stories,
scenario's interdisciplinary partnerships Functional performance Role models
indicators
Actors Chief Resilience Officer Boundary spanners: Chief Municipal policymakers, (semi-) Knowledge institute and Local government,
(CRO), local government, Resilience Officer (CRO), public service providers, municipal policy-makers citizens, civic
knowledge institutes city-marines, municipal knowledge institutes, market and municipal research organizations
managers parties and citizens department
Politics Politics of affect Politics of the greater good Politics of exception Politics of organizational Politics of
interests empowerment

3
S. Huizenga et al. Cities 135 (2023) 104237

was practically implemented on the ground floor (for example, we asked 4.1. Governing techniques of resilience
respondents about their role within resilience policy, what they
considered resilience to be, what they did to improve resilience, in what 4.1.1. Anticipation
political-administrative context resilience took place and the relation­
ship with residents, if and how they felt the neighbourhood improved “We are not going to wait until the shocks or stresses hit us, no,
because of the policy). During the observations, we informally con­ starting now we are going to work on a high level of resilience (…)
ducted unstructured interviews to be able to delve deeper into our ob­ We want to work on resilience preventively, not reactively after a
servations (for example by asking actors about the relationship between crisis. Therefore, resilience is a strategy.”
municipality and residents, how they translated reactions from audi­ (Interview Chief Resilience Officer March, 2018)
ences back to the municipality, how they incorporated residents' re­
actions to presentations). Lastly, we triangulated our ethnographic
approach with document analyses (+300 pages) of relevant resilience 4.1.1.1. Problematization. The first technique of governing the resilient
strategies and evaluations (see Table 1 for an overview). city we delineate is anticipation. This technique is concerned with global
In our fieldwork, we followed resilience around different levels to see uncertainty in an interconnected world characterized by vulnerability
what the discourse does to the practices it claims to represent. We ana­ and high uncertainty about the future of (city) life. A wide array of issues
lysed the data discursively and in line with a Foucauldian inspired – ranging from the rising water level, floods, heatwaves, the widening
discourse analysis. This means that we did not pursue revealing a true gap between the rich and poor, migration but also cyber dependency, an
meaning by what has (not) been said, but rather that we analysed aging population and the unsustainability of current energy recourses –
statements for what they do, and the performative effects of what is (not) are regarded as causing vulnerability. Within this context crises, shocks
being said (Alvesson & Karreman, 2000). and transitions are framed as an inevitable and unpredictable part of the
All interviews were transcribed and observations were processed future. In order to be able to survive and even thrive in the face of future
into field notes. Together with existing documents, all data were coded crises and transitions, cities should anticipate them, as they are the key
using Atlas.ti software. First, we analysed general topics that emerged places to bring about innovative solutions (Rotterdam 2016).
inductively from the data such as, (1) a state of preparedness, shocks and
stresses, risk and uncertain futures (2) the need for collaboration be­ 4.1.1.2. Focus and instruments. Different parties such as the munici­
tween multiple actors/sectors with different backgrounds with regards pality, the Chief Resilience Officer and knowledge institutes take up
to resilience, network formation and synergy; (3) experimentation, resilience as a tool to pro-actively create a state of living in prepared­
change and creating learning environments; (4) accountability, outcome ness. Anticipation is an important part of the daily work of the CRO in
measurement and improvement; and (5) empowerment of citizens and his attempts to mobilize multiple stakeholders and implement ‘the
communities, people taking care of themselves and their surroundings, resilience lens’. In this way, resilience means anticipating urban threats
ownership, responsibility and active citizenship. Next, we analysed and turning them into opportunities.1
these inductive topics more deeply in terms of urban governance, as they To do this, actors use scenario-thinking and forward mapping to predict
made up different ways of governing the resilient city. Based on the the assumptions and estimated effects of anticipatory interventions.
literature on governmentality and urban governance, we grouped these Examples are the assumption that “investments in climate adaptation
general inductive topics into five coherent themes and identified them as and energy transition increase the protective factors in the neighbour­
five governing techniques - anticipating, transcending, laboratizing, hood” or the assumption that “investments in residents' skills lead to
monitoring and responsibilizing. Subsequently, we analysed them in more resilient actions” (BoTu Monitor, 2021).
more detail with a focus on the characteristics of each specific governing
technique: problematization, focus, instruments, actors and their poli­ 4.1.1.3. Politics. Within this technique we discern a politics of affect.
tics (see Table 2). Through public performances, workshops, summits, masterclasses and
First, the concept of problematization allows us to highlight what strategy documents, the CRO creates a sense of urgency by repeatedly
needs to be governed. Problematizations, as ‘active ways of positing and stating that ‘we need to be prepared’ and ‘we have to act now’, accompa­
experiencing’ (Osborne, 1997) problems, illuminate the constructivist nied by images of disasters such as urban poverty, refugees, demon­
and structuring nature of what is at stake within each technique. This is strations and the destructive power of natural disasters. The policy
essential because the way in which an issue is problematized already rhetoric of resilience affectively taps into fears about the urban future.
relates to envisioned solutions, instruments and methods used to resolve The future, inherently unknowable and mobilized as both fearful and
it (Miller & Rose, 2008). Next, the focus, instruments and actors of each hopeful, is brought into the present and called upon to act now. After
technique highlights how governance is operationalized and performed, provoking feelings of uncertainty and inevitability, the CRO subse­
and by whom. Further, we show the embeddedness of each technique quently offers a promissory rhetoric of resilience as the solution. In this
within a specific type of politics. Finally, after specifying each individual way, the politics of affect result in the imperative to act now to prevent
technique in the result section, we delve into their entanglements by disruptive events in the future.
analysing how the different techniques relate to each other; the ways
they strengthen or work against each other. This way we gained insights 4.1.2. Transcending
into the dynamics between the techniques and the governance of resil­
ience as whole. “In the development process it was stated that there is a big water
issue in this neighbourhood. There is an issue of resilience on the
4. Results physical level, so to say. Subsequently the question becomes how to

Based on our analysis, we were able to construct five governing

techniques that together form a hybrid mix of old and new in which a 1
“Rotterdam and water: from threat to opportunity. Rotterdam lies largely
specific type of resilient futurity unfolds. In this next part we first
below sea level, right at the heart of the river delta around which the
elaborate on each technique on the basis of their problematization, focus
Netherlands is based. The city is directly connected with three major rivers and
and instruments and politics. Next, we illuminate the entanglements of is located right on the coast. It receives an above average amount of rainfall and
the governing techniques by highlighting their alignments and frictions. also suffers from subsidence issues. Rotterdam has had no choice – it has had to
learn to cope with and manage water out of necessity” Resilience Strategy, page
26.

4
S. Huizenga et al. Cities 135 (2023) 104237

connect this physical resilience issue to existing social issues in this Laboratizing is concerned with ‘going against the grain’: with new and
area.” experimental ways of urban governance in order to approach the
(Interview deputy CRO October, 2019) knowledge gaps and the inherent uncertainty. Currently, knowledge
gaps and uncertainty cannot be addressed properly within regular urban
governance under new public management (NPM), due to organiza­
4.1.2.1. Problematization. The second technique, transcending, is con­ tional boundaries, bureaucratic regulation and associated red tape. The
cerned with overcoming organizational silo's within urban governance. urban lab provides the discretionary space that is lacking within NPM in
According to a city district-manager “actors are used to thinking in terms of order to experiment with urban issues (Oldenhof et al., 2020) without
urban problems and moreover think of them single sided, while what we need having to comply with predetermined performance goals.
instead is to try and think in chances and to connect, to de-silo.” In order to
become a future-proof city, various respondents argue, resilience should
4.1.3.2. Focus and instruments. Urban labs increasingly bring together
allow for transcending the current siloed organization of urban gover­
local policymakers, (semi-)public service providers, science, market
nance by joining-up services and collaborating between private and
parties and citizens— in a so called ‘quadruple helix mode’ (Bulkeley
public parties. The ambition of transcending is to span the natural,
et al., 2016)— to create a place for learning opportunities on urban
physical, economic and the social world. As the director of the Field
resilience. Central notions in the lab are experimentation, embracing
consortium, working with implementing resilience within the city
contingency and uncertainty and the achievement of change orientation,
argued:
the normative goal to generate a more desirable future (Karvonen & van
“Resilience is something you can talk about with anyone, which is Heur, 2014).
the added value of the concept (...) The concept brings things Turning an urban space such as BoTu into a space of experimentation
together. Before you had program A and program B and program C is a technique that particularly enables learning by doing. Here, the actors
and now resilience is transcending, bringing things together” within a ‘quadruple helix mode’ work under circumstances in which
(Director knowledge institute, 2019) both starting point and exact destination are as yet unspecified, and
therefore turn towards experimentation. Confined by the boundaries of
This quote highlights how resilience is regarded as enabling
the experimental space, the urban lab then allows for trying out new
communication between different disciplines and groups. According to
things and for failure. In fact, failure is perceived as a learning oppor­
this director, it is what makes resilience so important to work with.
tunity. Actors involved in the urban lab are required to embrace fluidity
and complexity of processes of urban change meaning the acceptance of
4.1.2.2. Focus and instruments. Transcending is operationalized as a unforeseen outcomes. Moreover, the learning environment of the urban
leverage. The aim is to connect developments within the physical living lab offers a way for scalable lessons learned to be exported to the
environment to social issues in order to create synergy. For example, by rest of the city (and beyond).
using interventions within the build environment to additionally create
value for the area's social fabric. Hereto, different organizational silo's
4.1.3.3. Politics of exception. The urban lab can be regarded as space of
and public and private partners within urban governance need to be
exception: experimentation allows for the temporal exemption from
connected. This is done by involving boundary-spanners: specific key-
normal rules and regulations, enabling stakeholders to experiment with
actors who have the operational power to cut through existing bureau­
new methods, concepts and partnerships. Ideally, this place of exception
cratic regulations. In BoTu, the Chief Resilience Officer and a so-called
makes ‘the impossible become possible’ as several civil servants expressed.
‘city-marine’ who got assigned to the area are examples of such
boundary-spanners. They aim to produce a helicopter view and coop­
4.1.4. Monitoring
eration between different domains and parties. Moreover, interdisci­
plinary partnerships between municipality, citizens and market parties
‘The goal is: Towards the urban average in ten years.’
such as housing cooperation's and (local) businesses are encouraged.
(Subtitle Resilient BoTu 2028)
These partnerships aim to transcend existing boundaries in order to
create synergy and hence more resilience.
4.1.4.1. Problematization. Fourth, we spotlight monitoring as a tech­
4.1.2.3. Politics. Currently, different organizational domains each have nique of governing the resilient city. Monitoring is concerned with
their own organizational interests. Transcending deals with the politics BoTu's low index scores on the national and city level. Although, ac­
of the greater good: cording to the numbers, BoTu residents feel connected with their
neighbourhood and the district scores well on facilities and citizen-
“Building a resilient city means (…) thinking beyond our own in­
initiatives, the district mainly features on ‘bad lists' (see context para­
terests, and looking at the real questions that we face as a city, rather
graph). These lists do not paint an optimistic picture of the neighbour­
than just settling for the solutions that are already available.”
hood and affects the way the area and the city as a whole are perceived.
(Rotterdam, 2016)
Monitoring is a way of accounting for the progress of interventions
Transcending is an attempt to surpass the separate interests of do­ aimed at improving the district's resilience.
mains and organizations by focusing on the greater benefit of the whole
city. 4.1.4.2. Focus and instruments. To account for progress of interventions,
resilience is measured and monitored using the Index+ in a cooperation
4.1.3. Laboratizing between knowledge institutes and local government. This Index+ con­
sists of the Social Index ‘plus’ additional indicators from already existing
“BoTu is a testing ground for renewal and improvement. This means instruments such as the Health Monitor. It means that the indicators that
Resilient BoTu 2028 also needs to move with the times and respond are used for monitoring are already existing (municipal) indicators. The
to trends and developments” Social Index is part of the Neighbourhood Profile, − together with the
(Resilient BoTu 2028) Safety Index and the Physical Index - a benchmark representing the city's
strengths and weaknesses. The Neighbourhood Profile is measured
through a survey every two years. The Social Index consists of the
4.1.3.1. Problematization. The third technique we distinguish is labo­ themes self-reliance, co-reliance, participation and connectedness as
ratizing: turning BoTu into an ‘urban lab’ for experimentation. they are perceived by residents and also indicates how residents rate the

5
S. Huizenga et al. Cities 135 (2023) 104237

general quality of life. The Social Index plays an important role in the 4.1.5.3. Politics. Within this technique we discern a politics of
Index+, while the Safety and Physical index are used for describing the empowerment. In enticing, optimistic ways, the local government
context of the neighbourhood. Additionally, a local knowledge institute actively involves, presents and rewards local role models as good ex­
issues a yearly rapport indicating the progress in more detail.2 This amples of resilient citizens with the aim to empower others to become
rapport documents the development of the program, both quantitative active and involved. The claim that ‘BoTu is made by the people’ is a moral
trough the indexes as well as qualitative through narratives, in order to appeal towards generating feelings of community, a sense of belonging
support and evaluate the process. and active involvement.

4.1.4.3. Politics. The way in which monitoring takes place results in a

4.2. Entanglements of resilience
politics of numbers in order to steer and control the district on
measurable variables. In order to gain good scores, interventions that
Below, we analyse the hybrid entanglements between different
aim to improve resilience by getting the index up, are actively encour­
governing techniques in practice. The results show how some techniques
aged. Thus, the index steers action and determines what counts as
productively align whereas others conflict, with important conse­
‘practices of resilience’.
quences for urban governance.

4.1.5. Responsibilizing
4.2.1. Alignment of anticipating, transcending and laboratizing
As a first entanglement, we found that anticipating, transcending and
“At its heart, it's about the people of BoTu, and giving them control laboratizing tightly align. Promissory policy rhetoric about the future of
over how they improve their own social resilience.” the resilient city, as a technique of anticipation, highlights optimistic
(Neighbourhood Manager, www.resilientcitiesnetwork.org) attempts to cut through or transcend existing organizational boundaries
and structures by creating alternative spaces of experimentation in
4.1.5.1. Problematization. The last technique we highlight is responsi­ urban living labs. In fact, thereby laboratizing the urban fabric of the
bilizing. At stake here, is the central assumption within the resilience neighbourhood. To reduce the effects of global uncertainty and future
discourse that citizens in deprived areas are hit harder by disruptive crises, city districts are labelled as experimental spaces where assump­
events. The index shows that BoTu and its residents are lacking re­ tions about resilience can be tested (e.g. energy transitions as a stepping
courses, capacities and social capital. Moreover, many residents are stone to address social issues) and form new interorganizational part­
dependent on income subsidies. It is assumed that these tendencies nerships between private, public and societal partners:
negatively affect resilience. The local government simultaneously as­
sumes that neighbourhood inhabitants have self-organizing capacities “BoTu is a unique experiment where we are finding out REALLY in an
they can mobilize, approaching it in such a way that ‘self-organization in integrated way how to work on resilience at a relatively large scale, a
the city gets enough room and a flexible local government that only supports if whole district. It's the WHOLE package, not only about climate
needed’ (Rotterdam, 2016). In this way, developing self-organizing ca­ adaptation or energy.”
pacities is supposed to create individual and collective resilience, (Chief Resilience Officer, resilientrotterdam.com)
enabling citizens to survive and thrive in the face of future shocks, crises Because the urban lab operates as a liminal space, this is the exact spot
and transitions. to experiment with techniques such as transcending existing organiza­
tional structures in urban living labs in order to anticipate resilient fu­
4.1.5.2. Focus and instruments. Citizens are responsibilised into tures. Liminality in this sense means being positioned in-between
becoming self-reliant actors, who ‘are continuously developing themselves’. different stakeholders and organizational boundaries, which can be used
Responsibilization is achieved by active enticement from the local to transcend those boundaries and join-up efforts. Because it is called an
government to ‘get active’, for example through involvement in projects experiment it allows for failure and actors dare to let go of old ways of
to improve the neighbourhood or social fabric or to partake in working in order to go against the grain to freely experiment and create
empowerment-, employment or language projects. Hereto, key-figures a place where the ‘impossible becomes possible’, as respondents argue.
at central sites like community centres and schools, approach resi­ Moreover, the imperative to act, inherent in anticipation, aligns
dents that are deemed in need of support. Active citizens are encouraged perfectly with the experimental mentality of laboratization – through
to work together with other residents, local government and entrepre­ ‘learning by doing’ in the urban lab.
neurs to strengthen the resilience of BoTu. For example, residents are In our research, the alignment between anticipating, transcending
empowered to get a qualification in order to improve their employ­ and laboratizing is strikingly illustrated by the energy transition that is
ability and earn a basic income. Also, they are encouraged to participate framed as a good example of working on a resilient urban future. This
in networks in which to address issues such as talent development, project highlights how the energy transition (as a way of anticipating a
debts, learning new (21st century) skills and child rearing. Here lies a more sustainable future), is used as an experiment (laboratizing the
reciprocal relationship, emphasising active citizenship and re­ urban fabric) to test assumptions about connecting physical in­
sponsibility as a precondition for receiving social support and services. terventions with social interventions (transcending the boundaries of
Additionally, residents are empowered to build a network in order to these different municipal silos). In this way, the energy transition en­
acquire the social capital to help them create community resilience. In compasses all three techniques to fulfil the promise of more energy proof
order to empower and activate others, role-models share their life stories neighbourhoods.
focusing on what empowered them and how they now give back to their The assumption here is that energy transition projects in BoTu do not
community. only contribute to (future) climate resilience, but can also be an impetus
for social resilience. This is captured by the metaphor of the leverage: a
(physical) input force (e.g. energy projects), can create a greater (social)
output force (social resilience). To establish such an effect, the Inter­
2
Unfortunately, at the moment of writing there was no information yet about national Architecture Biennale Rotterdam (IABR) appointed specific
how the index+ has evolved over the years. The safety index however, had social housing flats for the implementation of the energy transition —
shown progress in the years previous to the program which directly affected the replacing gas with renewable energy from the harbour or industry. This
involvement of a key-actor during the BoTu program. We describe this in more housing complex is largely populated by elderly citizens and citizens
detail in paragraph 4.2.3. from a lower social-economic status with diverse ethnic backgrounds,

6
S. Huizenga et al. Cities 135 (2023) 104237

which is regarded a vulnerability according to resilience-thinking. The difficulty lies in finding (full-time) employment after the project has
Within the BoTu programme the experimental venture of the energy completed. The majority of the participants did not find stable part-time
transition was therefore taken up as an opportunity to combat loneli­ nor fulltime employment after participating voluntary in employability
ness, debts, language barriers and to provide care. First, this was done by projects. This shows that the alignment between anticipation (for the
becoming a familiar face for residents. Local community workers and future job market) and the responsibilization of citizens (conducting
volunteers sat at the entrance of the building with “literally coffee and a voluntary work) result in precarity for citizens rather than more social
cloth over a table saying: Good afternoon, who are you?” (Interview city security.
marine, April 2021). Simultaneously, a team of two community workers In a similar vein some active key-actors in the neighbourhood who
handed out roses to residents, knocking on every door in order to get to already performed unpaid labour in the neighbourhood were now co-
know the residents. This approach later evolved in a ‘climate living opted by the BoTu programme. Their unpaid labour became institu­
room’ for residents where they can have a chat, get to know each other, tionalized and more professional. In return they were rewarded by being
and learn about what the energy transition means for them, creating enabled to develop the necessary skills to participate in the current job
social ties in the neighbourhood. Second, since interventions aimed at market by offering them the opportunity to follow educational courses.
new types of heating and isolation were conducted, technicians and However, there was critique on the fact that inhabitants voluntarily
coaches had access ‘behind the front door’ as they entered peoples' participated in projects without actually getting paid for the services
apartments to check the quality of their current heating system and they provided. For example, job-coaches and community workers
isolation. Being inside of peoples' homes was at the same time viewed as argued that participants should be financially rewarded for their efforts.
an opportunity to learn and talk about social issues citizens might have The question expressed by a community worker during a public debate
such as unemployment, debts, problems with language and the need for became ‘why is there financial support for technical projects while the social
care, concurrently putting them under a regime of supervision (Peeters, has to be performed by volunteers?’
2019) in a combination of care and control (Schinkel & van den Berg, An additional example of precarious outcomes of the alignment be­
2011). When something was perceived as problematic, the coaches tween anticipating and responsibilizing is a ‘mother-group’ that was
contacted community workers who could connect residents to relevant mobilized as vehicle for, and prime example of, social resilience. This
institutions, like debt counselling, social work, language courses or group comes together every month to inform parents, mostly mothers,
simply connecting them to other inhabitants for social contact. about safety issues regarding their children and the neighbourhood. In
This example highlights the alignment between anticipation of addition, members of the mother-group – as role models – were also
future energy transitions, transcending of organizational silos — con­ asked to organize social activities to strengthen the social fabric of the
necting the physical with the social, but also municipal department of neighbourhood, thereby learning new organizing skills (as part of
Sustainability and the department of Social Development— and labo­ empowerment) as well as potentially attracting new mothers to join in:
ratization of urban spaces into experiments that are ideally scaled up to
other parts of the city. “How you give shape to empowerment, that also included the first
public square programming that mothers programmed their own
4.2.2. Alignment of anticipating and responsibilizing public square. That was really holding back (…) so that they program
The alignment of anticipating and responsibilizing, resulted in pre­ themselves and that they come up with activities themselves. Figure
carious outcomes on the ground floor. Both techniques are concerned out for yourself what that costs and how to do it (…) But meeting is
with a central assumption within the resilience discourse that deprived very difficult, making agreements is very difficult, agreeing together
areas and its citizens will be hit harder by future disruptive events. The on what activity to do is difficult. Well it was real, I had to hold back
numbers show how BoTu residents lack recourses such as work, suffi­ and make sure I did not intervene. That is giving them space and
cient finances, language skills and social capital. To decrease this making sure they do it themselves. Because the 2nd, 3rd and 4th
vulnerability, the resilient BoTu programme responsibilises residents square programming went like a charm. Sometimes you have to let it
into taking control over their lives as an anticipatory practice: go and then be patient and then it won't work out the first time.”
(Interview municipal civil servant, April 2021)
“A telling indicator of social resilience is the extent to which resi­
Although it is hard to argue against mothers organizing activities to
dents experience self-direction and control over their lives. Only then
strengthen the social fabric of their neighbourhood, it also shows that
can they also anticipate changes or adapt instead of just reacting”
resilience in BoTu is primarily executed through unpaid labour of
(Resilient BoTu Monitor 2021)
women.
’Active’ citizens are expected to be better prepared to anticipate These examples – role models, participants in employment projects
future disruptive events. According to the CRO this requires that the and mothers – may indeed be taken up as best practices of empowerment
local government adopts the new role of the enabling state. Rather than and resilience on an individual level. However, when residents are
determining and implementing everything themselves, local govern­ empowered in the face of anticipating transitions and future crises,
ment needs to facilitate citizen engagement: “Citizens should be enabled to without any real perspectives of putting the obtained capacities into
do the right things, as long as the goal is clear: liveability and the willingness to practice on a level that can sustain a livelihood, resilience appears to be
change” (Field-notes Masterclass Resilience Thinking, 2018). a rather precarious practice.
A first example of this alignment are the projects enabling residents
‘with a distance to the labour market’ to develop skills that prepare them 4.2.3. Laboratizing and transcending versus monitoring
for future jobs, for example in the field of sustainability and the energy This last entanglement highlights how progressive attempts of lab­
transition. In these projects, participants are activated and empowered oratizing and transcending conflict with the technique of monitoring
to learn new skills such as implementing charging stations, installing based on indicators. This conflict is particularly caused by the per­
solar panels and chores like isolating deprecated apartments. Although formativity of indicators and the dominance of organizational interests
this can be regarded a good example of linking the energy transition (as supported by it.
anticipatory practice) to teaching residents' new skills and empower­ Firstly, a conflict arises between laboratizing and monitoring. Cen­
ment (as a responsibilizing practice), the project leader indicates that it tral premises of laboratization are experimentation and ‘learning by
had currently not offered participants concrete new perspectives doing’ through embracing contingency and accepting unforeseen out­
regarding stable and full-time employability. comes. In the urban lab practices, these premises were not always
Other projects regarding employability reveal a similar tendency. reconcilable with the BoTu monitor. In the case of the BoTu monitor it is

7
S. Huizenga et al. Cities 135 (2023) 104237

the social index that for a large part determines what counts as resilience optimism. Resilience might on the one hand open up a space for crea­
and what not. For example, institutionalized voluntary work scores on tivity and action and thereby ‘provide handholds for a more progressive
the index whereas the inhabitant who runs a soup kitchen in his base­ politics’ (Rose & Lentzos, 2017: 45). On the other hand however,
ment does not. Therefore, some municipal civil servants opposed the use resilience could entail a form of cruel optimism (Berlant, 2011; Bracke,
of a uniform index in BoTu as the central governance ambition due to the 2016), referring to either the situation when something that is desired in
curtailment of experimentation and its standardization effects. As one practice turns out to be an obstacle for flourishing, proving toxic upon
civil servant (strategist) indicated: “these indicators could obscure the attainment or the emotionally charged attachments to fantasies that are
districts' uniqueness”. forever out of reach. Our results show the resilience discourse has the
The accomplished rise on the safety index also caused a performative potential to be both depending on the governing techniques used and the
effect. The ‘city-marine’ – who as a progressive boundary-spanner hel­ interactions between them.
ped many experimental projects taking off – had to leave because her We identified five governing techniques that are part of governing
mission was deemed accomplished: the resilient city of Rotterdam: anticipating (resilient futures); tran­
scending (siloed organizational interests); laboratizing (the urban
Well, now BoTu wasn't even in the lowest 25 anymore (…) Well, then landscape by setting up experiments as labs); monitoring (progress
my colleagues said: ‘you can no longer say that that is an emergency’. through indicators) and responsibilizing (citizens and communities to be
(Interview municipal civil servant, April 2021) become self-reliant).
Some of these techniques show promising attempts to govern in
With the parting of this city-official – with her power to cut through
‘new’ ways. For example, urban laboratization aims to move beyond
existing bureaucratic regulations – the boundary-spanning capacity
styles of governing that are based on pre-determined performance in­
inherent in the technique of transcending, runs the risk of being pushed
dicators and departmental goals by allowing for a degree of uncertainty
to the background with organizational interest becoming once again
through experimentation and learning by doing. Additionally, antici­
more prominent. This is a genuine risk as the BoTu monitor document
pation of the (resilient) future surpasses a focus on checks and balances
states that aside from some progressive boundary-spanners positioned at
by foregrounding uncertainty. Moreover, transcending was aimed at
the top, the municipal apparatus of civil servants still works within a
overcoming municipal silos in order to govern urban issues in interdis­
siloed administrative context that does not allow experimentation to be
ciplinary partnerships between municipality, citizens and market
accounted for.
parties.
Secondly, there is a tension between transcending and monitoring.
Other techniques can be perceived as a continuation of neoliberal
Although new interorganizational partnerships are initiated in BoTu, for
thinking. First, responsibilizing individuals to become more self-reliant
example between the municipality, housing cooperation and (entre­
is a technique of governance that can be found in neoliberal policies
preneurial) citizens, in many instances organizational politics still pre­
(Joseph, 2018; Peeters, 2019; Rose, 1996b). Within the resilience
vail. For example, the municipal silo ‘urban development’ withdrew
discourse in our case study responsibilization clearly plays an important
itself from an interorganizational partnership in BoTu aimed at exper­
role, as the local government aims to entice and enable citizens to be
imenting with the urban development of a derelict old factory area by
prepared and thrive in the face of (future) shocks and transitions.
stimulating community building. Due to European tendering legislation,
Moreover, monitoring through the social index is aimed at ‘improving’
the municipal urban development department felt they did not have the
the neighbourhood and its citizens, for a great part by putting in place
room to be part of this urban development experiment. According to the
checks and balances with commonly used contexts and indicators from
actors involved: “the municipality commits to integrated working at man­
separate silos.
agement level, but not all departments within the municipality are set up in
The way resilience is shaped not only depends on these individual
this way of working together.” (Resilient BoTu Monitor, 2021). It turns out
techniques but also on the way they are entangled in practice, high­
that transcending silos is impeded by their own administrative context
lighting the importance of following the concept through its travels
and organizational interests.
(Howell, 2015; Pitidis & Coaffee, 2020; Rose & Lentzos, 2017). When
Likewise, organizational interest became apparent when the
techniques align (in case of anticipating, transcending and laboratizing)
municipal department of real estate sold a BoTu community centre
this can create opportunities for long sought-after policy aims such as
which had been redeveloped by volunteers and was considered a best
integration of public domains. However, techniques can also align in
practice of social resilience producing a strong social fabric and inter-
such a way, as was the case for anticipating and responsibilizing, that it
organizational collaboration. The public outrage about selling the
only increases the precarious position of certain groups of citizens, for
building on the market was great, given the fact that inhabitants had
example when the unpaid work of women is highlighted as a prime
added social value to the building by redeveloping it through connect­
example of resilience; when sustainable employment is out of reach; and
ing/mobilizing different stakeholders in the neighbourhood. While the
when residents are guided to rely on themselves and each other
neighbourhood centre was supported by some departments and actors of
regarding shocks and transition. In line with Lorey (2015), we recognize
the local government (such as the city marine), the real estate depart­
this as a form of governmental precarization (Lorey, 2015); a type of
ment argued that financial value was more important than the social
governing through uncertainty in which precarity is maximized while
value of the building, thereby disregarding inter-organizational collab­
security is minimized.
oration and community building.
Different techniques can also conflict as in the case of monitoring and
What these examples together make clear is that transcending
transcending and experimentation, limiting the potential to reach their
organizational silos and the experimental ‘learning by doing’ nature of
aims. This conflict is not inherent to the techniques themselves but arises
the resilience approach conflicts with the performativity of indexes and
in how they are used and positioned against each other in practice.
the administrative- legal framework that municipal actors (have to)
Monitoring can also function as a reflexive tool (Wallenburg et al.,
adhere to. Because organizational interests prevail due to siloed targets,
2021), thereby strengthening experimentation. In our study however,
transcending municipal silos or organizational boundaries within
monitoring resulted in organizational interests that risk hampering
experimental spaces turns out more a policy rhetoric than a reality.
practices of laboratizing and multi-disciplinary approaches to urban
issues.
5. Conclusion and discussion
Importantly, rather than foregrounding resilience as hurrah-word
(Bovens, 2005) and an optimistic tool for becoming prepared for
Our research of resilience as a ‘matter of empirics’ gives new insight
future disruptive events, it is paramount to engage in political discus­
in how to place resilience between a progressive politics and cruel
sions about the conflicting interests at stake in designing the resilient

8
S. Huizenga et al. Cities 135 (2023) 104237

Table 3
Lessons learned.
Governing Anticipating Transcending Laboratizing Monitoring Responsibilizing
technique of
resilience

Pitfalls (1) Reacting to symptoms of Silos working against (1)Insufficient room for genuine Hitting the target but (1) Burdening people in precarious
crises instead of the each other: different experimentation; missing the point: too positions;
underlying causes accountability systems (2) No learning cycle much focus on achieving (2) Giving hope but unable to fulfil
(2) Always preparing for the and financial budgets targets but missing promises; or promises do not fulfil
prior disaster. overall aims actual needs
Reflexive (1) Create awareness (1) Articulate the (1) Create conditions for open (1) Engage in reflexive Reflect on question of social
guidelines concerning the broader different interests and experimentation; monitoring in which justice: ask who is served by
stakes and conditions at concerns, search for (2) Identify and align with targets are not set in implementing resilience and if
macro level while addressing shared matters of appropriate knowledge stone; proposed hopeful promises are
urban issues practically on concern; infrastructure and choose an (2) Create awareness for indeed able to produce just
the meso and micro level (2) Align appropriate research design that narrative forms of outcomes for the people involved
(2) Focus on adaptation and accountability systems focuses on ‘learning by doing’ accountability in
improvisation and financial budgets instead of ‘doing before learning’ addition to monitoring
according to shared based indicators.
interests

city. The initiatives operating within the resilient discourse in this study policymaking and science from articulating and addressing them as
are in themselves creative and hopeful city-making practices. However, much as possible. Ideally, the resilience agenda should instrumentally
the way governmental techniques are set up and work out in practice, address urban issues while simultaneously creating more awareness
partly through the entanglements of different techniques can (uninten­ about why these issues exist in the first place.
tionally) produce unjust outcomes. The fact that hopeful attempts might With regards to future studies, it is crucially important to study how
actually have cruel effects, is something to consider when designing the the techniques work out for citizens in practice in the long run. For
resilient city. example, whereas using the implementation of the energy transition to
As the resilient city discourse is burgeoning many cities around the detect and combat social issues can be seen as a way of working across
world are eager to learn about implementing resilience. We wrap up our policy divides, it can also be viewed more critically as combining care
discussion with some guidelines for this agenda. The relevance of our and control as it puts citizens under a regime of supervision (Dean, 2010;
paper for other cities lies in its empirical reflections. We show that what Peeters, 2019; Schinkel & van den Berg, 2011). Small forms of resistance
happens under the header of resilience is not straightforward and leads in practice, for example within the critique expressed about unpaid la­
to different practices that are sometimes contradictory or that turn out bour or the public outrage about selling a building with an important
not to be helpful (even harmful). This serves as a valuable insight. social function for the community can be important starting points for
Although different cities face different challenges, and the resilient city such critical reflection. The same goes for citizens' everyday routine of
is not a one-dimensional policy guide, it is possible to draw some lessons. ‘doing’ resilience by taking care of each other and their living envi­
These lessons should not be seen as a blueprint but as reflective insights ronment in one of the poorest urban areas in the country - perhaps of­
that sensitize actors involved in resilience policymaking. Below we fering a view on ‘real’ forms of resilience (King et al., 2021 p. 932).
describe four generative insights for designing the resilient city. More­
over, in Table 3 we describe pitfalls and reflexive guidelines for each
Declaration of competing interest
individual governing technique that other cities, in our view, should
consider when working with resilience as a policy guide.
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
Firstly, it is paramount to be mindful of existing techniques and the
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
way they interfere with newer ones (e.g. laboratization), instead of
the work reported in this paper.
naively approaching them as separate change-makers. In practice,
resilience policies consist of old and new governing techniques that are
Data availability
entangled in different ways. Older, yet established policy tools will run
through new attempts of implementing the resilient city. Policymakers
The data that has been used is confidential.
should take these entanglements into account when designing resilience
policies.
Building on that, secondly, recognizing the potential of certain Acknowledgement
techniques does not discard academia and policymakers alike from the
obligation to critically scrutinize their (unintended) consequences. This The authors would like to thank all respondents for their kind
includes attention for the way different techniques interact with each collaboration through interviews, public performances and workshop
other. (both public and by invitation) during this research. We especially thank
Thirdly, in reflecting on those consequences policymakers should the BoTu citizens we have met during the research and the Field Con­
reflect upon the question if this design leads to a ‘just city’ (Fainstein, sortium in Rotterdam for their hospitality, the informal conversations
2014), taking the notion of precarity (Lorey, 2015) into account. This and formal interviews. We would also like to thank Willem Schinkel and
means asking the question who is served by implementing resilience Jitse Schuurman for providing helpful feedback on the early stages of
policy. this paper. Lastly, we thank Irene van Oorschot en Lieke Wissink for
Lastly, through the technique of anticipation, the resilient city runs organizing the (online) Relational Resiliences conference in May 2021
the risk of becoming a post-political instrument (Kaika, 2017) for and their feedback on the presentation of this research during the
dealing with urban issues. When anticipating urban issues such as urban conference.
heat, flood risks or increasing socioeconomic inequalities, underlying This research was partly funded by the NWA-agenda ‘Towards
causes should be considered. The fact that underlying causes generally resilient societies’ and has been written as part of the first authors PhD
have a structural character on a meta level does not absolve research ‘caring for the city’ which foregrounds different experimental
sites in the city.

9
S. Huizenga et al. Cities 135 (2023) 104237

CRediT authorship contribution statement Kaika, M. (2017). Don't call me resilient again!: The new urban agenda as immunology …
or…what happens when communities refuse to be vaccinated with ‘smart cities’ and
indicators. Environment & Urbanization, 29(1), 89–102.
Sabrina Huizenga: conceptualization, methodology, research, Karvonen, A., & van Heur, B. (2014). Urban laboratories: Experiments in reworking
formal analysis, writing – original draft & editing cities. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 38(2), 379–392.
Lieke Oldenhof: Supervision, formal analysis, editing King, H., Crossley, S., & Smith, R. (2021). Responsibility, resilience and symbolic power.
The Sociological Review, 69(5), 920–936.
Hester van de Bovenkamp: Supervision, formal analysis, editing Lemke, T. (2011). Biopolitics an advanced introduction. New York: New York University
Roland Bal: Supervision, editing Press.
Lorey, I. (2015). State of insecurity: Government of the precarious. London: Verso.
Meerow, S., & Newell, J. P. (2016). Urban resilience for whom, what, when, where, and
References why? Urban Geography, 1–21.
Mehmood, A. (2016). Of resilient places: Planning for urban resilience. European Planning
Alvesson, M., & Karreman, N. (2000). Varieties of discourse: On the study of Studies, 24(2), 407–419.
organizations through discourse analysis. Human Relations, 53(9), 1125–1149. Miller, P., & Rose, N. (2008). Governing the present. Administering economic, social and
Berlant, L. (2011). Cruel optimism. Durham: Duke University Press. personal life. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bovens, M. (2005). Public accountability. In E. Ferlie, L. E. Lynn, & C. Pollitt (Eds.), The Neocleous, M. (2013). Resisting resilience. Radical Philosophy, 178(6), 2–7.
Oxford handbook of public management (pp. 182–209). Oxford: Oxford University Oldenhof, L., Rahmawan-Huizenga, S., van de Bovenkamp, H., & Bal, R. (2020). The
Press. governance challenge of urban living laboratories: Using liminal ‘In-Between’ space
Bracke, S. (2016). Bouncing back: Vulnerability and resistance in times of resilience. In to create livable cities. In C. Montfoort, & A. Michels (Eds.), Partnerships for livable
J. InButler, Z. Gambetti, & L. Sabsay (Eds.), Vulnerability in resistance. Durham: Duke cities (pp. 293–315). Cham: Palgrave MacMillan.
University Press. O'Malley, P. (2010). Resilient subjects: Uncertainty, warfare and liberalism. Economy and
Bulkeley, H., Coenen, L., Frantzeskaki, N., Hartmann, C., Kronsell, A., Mai, L., Marvin, S., Society, 39(4), 488–509.
McCormick, K., van Steenbergen, F., & Voytenko Palgan, Y. (2016). Urban living Osborne, T. (1997). Of health and statecraft. In A. Peterson, & R. Bunton (Eds.), Foucault,
labs: governing urban sustainability transitions. Current Opinion in Environmental health and medicine (pp. 173–188). New York: Routledge.
Sustainability, 22, 13–17. Peeters, R. (2019). Manufacturing responsibility: The governmentality of behavioural
Chandler, D. (2014). Beyond neoliberalism: Resilience, the new art of governing power in social policies. Social Policy and Society, 18(1), 51–65.
complexity. Resilience, 2(1), 47–63. Pitidis, V., & Coaffee, J. (2020). Catalysing governance transformations through urban
Coaffee, J., Therrien, M.-C., Chelleri, L., Henstra, D., Aldrich, D., Mitchell, C. L., resilience implementation: The case of Thessaloniki,Greece. Cities, 107, Article
Tsenkova, S., & Rigaud, E. (2018). Urban resilience implementation: A policy 102934.
challenge and research agenda for the 21st century. Journal of Contingencies and Reid, J. (2012). The disastrous and politically debased subject of resilience. Development
Crisis Management, 26(3), 403–410. Dialogue, 58(4), 67–79.
Davoudi, S. (2016). Resilience and governmentality of unknown. In M. Bevir (Ed.), Rose, N. (1996a). Governing “advanced” liberal democracies. In A. Barry, T. Osborne, &
Governmentality after neoliberalism (pp. 152–171). London: Routledge. N. Rose (Eds.), Foucault and political reason. Liberalism, neo-liberalism, and rationalities
Dean, M. (2010). Governmentality: Power and rule in modern societies. London: Sage. of government (pp. 37–64). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Doff, W. (2017). Veerkracht van Lokale Gemeenschappen. De Literatuur op Een Rij. Rose, N. (1996b). Inventing our selves. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Evans, B., & Reid, J. (2013). Dangerously exposed: The life and death of the resilient Rose, N., & Lentzos, F. (2017). Making us resilient: Responsible citizens for uncertain
subject. Resilience, 1(2), 83–98. times. In S. Trnka, & C. Trundle (Eds.), Competing Responsibilities. The ethics and
Evans, J. P. (2011). Resilience, ecology and adaptation in the experimental city. politics of contemporary life (pp. 27–48). Duke University Press.
Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 36, 223–237. Rose, N., O’Malley, P., & Valverde, M. (2006). Governmentality. Annual Review of Law
Fainstein, S. (2014). The just city. International Journal of Urban Sciences, 18(1), 1–18. and Social Science, 2, 83–104.
Gemeente Rotterdam. (2016). Rotterdam resilience strategy. Ready for the 21st century Schinkel, W., & van den Berg, M. (2011). City of exception: The Dutch Revanchist City
(Consultation document. Extended version). Retrieved from https://www.resilient and the urban homo sacer. Antipode, 43, 1911–1938.
rotterdam.nl/. Vale, L. J. (2014). The politics of resilient cities: Whose resilience and whose city?
Halpern, O. (2017). Hopeful resilience. Retrieved from. e-flux Architecture https://www. Building Research & Information, 42(2), 191–201.
e-flux.com/architecture/accumulation/96421/hopeful-resilience/. Walker, J., & Cooper, M. (2011). Genealogies of resilience: From systems ecology to the
Holling, C. S. (1973). Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Review of political economy of crisis adaptation. Security Dialogue, 42(2), 143–160.
Ecology and Systematics, 4, 1–23. Walklate, S., McGarry, R., & Mythen, G. (2013). Searching for resilience.A conceptual
Hommels, A. (2018). How resilience discourses shape cities. The case of Resilient excavation. Armed Forces & Society, 40(3), 408–427.
Rotterdam. Retrieved from. In S. Amir (Ed.), The sociotechnical constitution of Wallenburg, I., Essén, A., & Bal, R. (2021). Caring for numbers: Performing healthcare
resilience. A new perspective on governing risk and disaster (pp. 265–284). Palgrave practices through performance metrics. In Sweden and The Netherlands. Research in
Macmillan. the Sociology of Organizations, 74, 153–172.
Howell, A. (2015). Resilience as enhancement: Governmentality and political economy Welsch, M. (2014). Resilience and responsibility. Governing uncertainty in a complex
beyond ‘Responsibilisation’. Politics, 35(1), 67–71. world. The Geographical Journal, 180, 15–26.
Joseph, J. (2013). Resilience as embedded neoliberalism: A governmentality approach. Willis, P. E., & Trondman, M. (2000). Manifesto for ethnography. Ethnography, 1(1),
Resilience, 1(1), 38–52. 5–16.
Joseph, J. (2016). Governing through failure and denial. The new resilience agenda. Woodruff, S., Bowman, A. O. M., Hannibal, B., Sansom, G., & Portney, K. (2021). Urban
Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 44(3), 370–390. resilience: Analyzing the policies of US cities. Cities, 115, 103239.
Joseph, J. (2018). Varieties of resilience. Studies in governmentality. Cambridge University Woolgar, S., & Neyland, D. (2013). Mundane governance. Ontology and accountability.
Press. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

10