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.

ASU’s waste diversion goal is 90% by the fiscal year 2025 and will require collaboration across many departments and programs to be successful. Reducing plastic use, especially single-use plastic, is critical in reaching 90% waste diversion in the supply chain. To reduce supply chain single-use plastics, ASU will need the cooperation of suppliers on efforts like piloting plastic free packaging programs, packaging take back programs, alternative packaging opportunities, or promoting alternative products that contain little-to-no single-use plastic. Creating a proposed approach through identifying strategic external partners, a high-level approach to implementation, and obstacles will impact how future goals and policies are set. Determining impact and added value of the project will help cultivate support from leadership, internal stakeholders, and suppliers. The project focus will include multiple deliverables, but the final output will be a timeline that maps out what plastic streams to eliminate and when to help ASU reach their waste diversion goals. It begins with “low-hanging fruit” like straws and plastic bags and ends with a university free from all non-essential single-use plastic.

ASU’s waste diversion goal is 90% by the fiscal year 2025 and will require collaboration across many departments and programs to be successful. Reducing plastic use, especially single-use plastic, is critical in reaching 90% waste diversion in the supply chain. To reduce supply chain single-use plastics, ASU will need the cooperation of suppliers on efforts like piloting plastic free packaging programs, packaging take back programs, alternative packaging opportunities, or promoting alternative products that contain little-to-no single-use plastic. Creating a proposed approach through identifying strategic external partners, a high-level approach to implementation, and obstacles will impact how future goals and policies are set. Determining impact and added value of the project will help cultivate support from leadership, internal stakeholders, and suppliers. The project focus will include multiple deliverables, but the final output will be a timeline that maps out what plastic streams to eliminate and when to help ASU reach their waste diversion goals. It begins with “low-hanging fruit” like straws and plastic bags and ends with a university free from all non-essential single-use plastic.

ASU’s waste diversion goal is 90% by the fiscal year 2025 and will require collaboration across many departments and programs to be successful. Reducing plastic use, especially single-use plastic, is critical in reaching 90% waste diversion in the supply chain. To reduce supply chain single-use plastics, ASU will need the cooperation of suppliers on efforts like piloting plastic free packaging programs, packaging take back programs, alternative packaging opportunities, or promoting alternative products that contain little-to-no single-use plastic. Creating a proposed approach through identifying strategic external partners, a high-level approach to implementation, and obstacles will impact how future goals and policies are set. Determining impact and added value of the project will help cultivate support from leadership, internal stakeholders, and suppliers. The project focus will include multiple deliverables, but the final output will be a timeline that maps out what plastic streams to eliminate and when to help ASU reach their waste diversion goals. It begins with “low-hanging fruit” like straws and plastic bags and ends with a university free from all non-essential single-use plastic.