School of Sustainability Graduate Culminating Experiences

City governments are increasingly interested in the concept of urban resilience. While theoretical debates continue to develop and critique the value of ‘urban resilience,’ a growing number of cities are organizing policies and projects around the concept. Building urban resilience is viewed as a key concern for cities facing, in particular, climatic threats –although other urban challenges and equity concerns are increasingly prioritized. Support from city leadership and large funding opportunities, such as the Rockefeller Foundation’s 100 Resilient Cities program, have encouraged some leading cities to create and manage city-wide resilience strategies. Yet pioneering cities have few guideposts to institutionalize resilience. This research evolved out of conversations with city officials in Portland, OR who were interested to learn how other cities were organizing resilience work. We explore how urban resilience is being structured and coordinated in 19 North American cities, focusing on emerging definitions, organizational structures, internal and external coordination efforts, and practitioners’ insights. We situate our findings on emerging governance approaches and lessons learned within the current urban resilience literature on governance by reviewing 40 academic papers and identifying 6 recurrent factors for effective governance. Additionally, we conducted 19 semi-structured interviews with North American resilience practitioners to describe emerging organization trends and share lessons from practice. Based off our interviews, we propose 5 key findings for structuring resilience work in cities effectively. These include: establishing a clear, contextual definition and scope, bringing communities into the process, championing the agreed-upon vision, balancing a centralized and dispersed approach, and recognizing tradeoffs in organizational placement. This research provides practitioners with insights to help facilitate resilience work within their cities and contributed to the scholarly debate on moving resilience theory toward implementation.

This report is concerned primarily with explaining the deliverables that our team, the Sustainable Saguaros, developed for the Kim Center for Social Balance (The Kim Center), as a requirement for graduation from the Master of Sustainability Solutions program at Arizona State University. As a growing non-profit organization, the Kim Center for Social Balance has a vision for integrated gender equity in workplaces nationwide but lacks the bandwidth to advance its strategy forward. The requested deliverables are: (1) a set of sector analyses for municipal government, healthcare, construction, and finance, (2) a summary of the gender-related reporting requirements for three reporting standards, and (3) a strategic action plan to improve the Kim Center’s board governance and engagement. Our sector analyses revealed common themes associated with gender-specific challenges in the workplace and identified sector-specific challenges that should be addressed in ways that are tailored to the sector. We developed the sector analyses by conducting extensive research into the current state of each sector as it pertains to gender equity, and then identifying challenges to women in the workplace. While we attempted to assess the state of each sector beyond the gender binary, consistent or reliable data was not readily available in most cases. We see this as an area where the Kim Center could help organizations improve in recognizing and supporting employees across the gender spectrum. The summary of reporting standards revealed that the existing gender-related requirements for the most well-established reporting standards are highly inconsistent. The gender-related reporting requirements for GRI, SASB, and NASDAQ did not have any significant overlap. The information required by these standards is routinely collected by US companies as part of their EEOC compliance, but may not be legal to collect in other countries. The strategic action plan for the Kim Center’s Board of Directors was formulated by analyzing the board’s bylaws, a survey conducted with current board members, and an internal non-profit assessment that was answered by their Executive Director. Using these resources, our team identified gaps in board governance that must be addressed in order to build the internal capacity for the Kim Center to operate effectively. From there, our team developed a case for improving board governance and outlined specific recommendations to strengthen the Kim Center’s board alignment and responsibilities.