UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Tracing and situating water resilience across scales Rodina, Lyudmila (Lucy) Alekseeva 2018

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
24-ubc_2018_september_rodina_lyudmila.pdf [ 7.18MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 24-1.0369054.json
JSON-LD: 24-1.0369054-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 24-1.0369054-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 24-1.0369054-rdf.json
Turtle: 24-1.0369054-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 24-1.0369054-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 24-1.0369054-source.json
Full Text
24-1.0369054-fulltext.txt
Citation
24-1.0369054.ris

Full Text

		TRACING	AND	SITUATING	WATER	RESILIENCE	ACROSS	SCALES		 	by		Lyudmila	(Lucy)	Alekseeva	Rodina			B.A.,	The	University	of	British	Columbia,	2010		M.A.,	The	University	of	British	Columbia,	2013			 	A	DISSERTATION	SUBMITTED	IN	PARTIAL	FULFILLMENT	OF		THE	REQUIREMENTS	FOR	THE	DEGREE	OF				DOCTOR	OF	PHILOSOPHY			in		THE	FACULTY	OF	GRADUATE	AND	POSTDOCTORAL	STUDIES			(Resources,	Environment	and	Sustainability)		THE	UNIVERSITY	OF	BRITISH	COLUMBIA			(Vancouver)			July	2018		Ó	Lyudmila	(Lucy)	Alekseeva	Rodina,	2018			 	 		 ii	Committee	Page		The	following	individuals	certify	that	they	have	read,	and	recommend	to	the	Faculty	of	Graduate	and	Postdoctoral	Studies	for	acceptance,	the	dissertation	entitled:		Tracing	and	Situating	Water	Resilience	Across	Scales			Submitted	by					Lyudmila	A.	Rodina				in	partial	fulfillment	of	the	requirements	for		the	degree	of	 				Doctor	of	Philosophy	in	 	 				Resources,	Environment	and	Sustainability		Examining	Committee		Prof	Leila	Harris,	IRES,	GRSJ	Doctoral	Supervisor	 		Prof	Kai	Chan,	IRES		Supervisory	Committee	Member		Prof	Stephanie	Chang,	IRES,	SCARP	Supervisory	Committee	Member		Prof	David	Boyd,	IRES	University	Examiner		Prof	Hisham	Zerriffi,	Forestry	University	Examiner		 		 	 		 iii	Abstract  	Under	increasing	urbanization	and	climate	change	impacts,	many	cities	today	are	facing	higher	risks	of	water	scarcity,	flooding,	or	water	pollution.	Building	resilience	in	the	water	sector	is	widely	recognized	as	a	key	objective	across	scales—from	global	to	local.	However,	there	remain	key	gaps	in	theoretical	and	empirical	understanding	of	how	resilience	thinking	is	to	be	applied	in	the	context	of	water	systems	and	water	governance.	In	addressing	these	gaps,	this	dissertation	draws	on	several	methods	to	theorize	and	develop	a	situated	understanding	of	“water	resilience”—attentive	to	specific	biophysical	environments,	socio-political	contexts,	and	lived	experiences.	I	first	provide	a	comprehensive	overview	of	how	resilience	ideas	articulate	with	contemporary	thinking	in	water	governance	and	water	resource	management	(Chapter	2).	I	find	that	the	resilience-informed	water	governance	literature	remains	fragmented	and	predominantly	centered	on	conventional	approaches	and	framings.	It	thus	still	lacks	integrative	or	innovative	approaches	that	encompass	the	various	dimensions	of	the	water	system.			However,	I	also	find	that	while	debates	about	how	to	theorize	or	operationalize	resilience	in	relation	to	different	systems—social	or	biophysical—may	be	unresolved,	defining	resilience	is	likely	not	a	key	factor	in	how	experts	think	it	should	be	operationalized	(Chapter	3).	Instead,	realizing	resilience	involves	focusing	on	the	trade-offs,	tensions	and	conflicts	that	arise	from	resilience	building	efforts	in	different	contexts.	I	draw	on	evidence	from	fieldwork	in	Cape	Town	to	document	and	compare	different	water	resilience	framings	and	to	critically	examine	their	implications	in	the	context	of	Cape	Town’s	municipal	water	management.	I	find	that	various	notions	of	water	resilience	co-exist	in	tension	with	each	other	and	with	resilience	frameworks	imposed	by	external	actors.	Situating	these	resilience	debates	in	Cape	Town’s	marginalized	urban	spaces	further	demonstrates	that	these	sites	are	central	to	urban	social-hydrological	resilience	despite	being	physically	located	at	the	periphery.	These	results	reveal	conflicts	and	disconnections	that	inhibit	socio-hydrological	resilience	in	Cape	Town.	Ultimately,	this	dissertation	argues	that	water	resilience	is	a	fruitful	boundary	concept	whose	application,	however,	requires	unpacking	and	addressing	fragmented	governance	processes,	power	and	inequality.	 		 	 		 iv	Lay Summary 	Under	pressure	from	climate	change	and	human	activities,	the	sustainability	of	water	resources	has	become	one	of	the	most	pressing	contemporary	challenges	worldwide.	In	managing	water	resources,	the	novel	idea	of	“resilience”	aims	to	capture	complex	interactions	between	human	activities	and	ecosystem	dynamics	to	help	guide	action	towards	sustainability.	However,	“resilience”	is	defined	in	many	different	and	competing	ways,	making	it	difficult	to	put	into	practice.	Here,	I	investigate	how	“water	resilience”	is	conceptualized	in	different	fields	of	expertise	and	analyze	expert	opinions	about	management	strategies	that	can	help	achieve	resilience	in	water	systems	and	water	governance.	Further,	I	evaluate	practical	challenges	in	strengthening	resilience	to	water	risks	in	Cape	Town,	a	city	now	experiencing	one	of	its	worst	droughts	in	history.	I	show	that	building	water	resilience	is	not	merely	a	technical	challenge,	but	a	social	and	political	one,	involving	crucial	questions	of	social	equity	and	environmental	justice.				 		 	 		 v	Preface 	This	dissertation	is	my	original,	independent	work.	Ethics	approval	was	obtained	from	the	UBC	Behavioural	Research	Ethics	Board	in	2016	and	has	been	renewed	each	year	and	amended	as	necessary	(Certificate	number	H16-00226,	project	title	Water	Governance	and	Resilience	in	Cape	Town).	For	this	dissertation	work,	I	identified	the	research	problem,	designed	the	research	program,	gathered	and	analyzed	the	data	and	wrote	the	chapters.	My	advisory	committee	(Drs.	Leila	Harris,	Kai	Chan,	and	Stephanie	Chang)	provided	feedback	at	each	stage.	My	fieldwork	hosts,	Gina	Ziervogel	and	Dianne	Scott,	provided	feedback	during	data	collection	in	South	Africa.		All	of	the	chapters	are	intended	for	journal	publication	and	were	therefore	written	as	stand-alone	pieces.	This	has	led	to	some	overlap	in	the	introductory	content	for	some	of	the	chapters.		For	Chapter	2,	I	designed	the	scoping	review	methodology,	analyzed	the	data	and	wrote	the	chapter.	I	received	feedback	from	Sameer	H.	Shah,	Kieran	Findlater,	Sally	Taylor	and	Sarah	Parker	on	the	scoping	review	methodology.	Sameer	and	Kieran	coded	roughly	1/3rd	of	the	articles	to	help	validate	the	coding	framework.	This	chapter	has	been	submitted	for	publication	as	a	single-authored	piece.		For	Chapter	3,	I	designed	the	survey	instrument,	collected	the	data	and	wrote	the	chapter.	This	chapter	is	co-authored	with	Kai	M.	Chan,	who	consulted	on	the	survey	design	and	data	analysis,	and	provided	detailed	feedback	throughout.			Chapter	4	is	a	single-authored	piece	and	has	been	submitted	for	publication.	I	collected	the	data,	analyzed	and	wrote	the	chapter.	Chapter	5	is	co-authored	with	Leila	Harris,	Gina	Ziervogel	and	Jessica	Wilson.	I	designed	the	interview	protocol,	collected	and	analyzed	the	data,	and	wrote	the	chapter.	My	co-authors	provided	feedback	and	edited	the	first	draft.	Chapters	4	and	5	draw	on	qualitative	data	from	fieldwork	in	South	Africa.		To	minimize	research	fatigue	among	participants,	several	interviews	were	conducted	collaboratively		 	 		 vi	with	Emma	Luker,	Master’s	student	at	the	time	of	this	research.	Where	applicable,	collaborative	efforts	have	been	acknowledged.	Emma	Luker	and	I	co-authored	a	policy	brief	based	on	the	preliminary	findings	of	our	fieldwork,	which	can	be	found	in	Appendix	C.		 		 	 		 vii	Table of Contents  Abstract..............................................................................................................................................	iii	Lay	Summary	....................................................................................................................................	iv	Preface	................................................................................................................................................	v	Table	of	Contents	...........................................................................................................................	vii	List	of	Tables	....................................................................................................................................	xi	List	of	Figures	..................................................................................................................................	xii	List	of	Abbreviations	....................................................................................................................xiii	Acknowledgements	......................................................................................................................	xiv	Chapter	1:	 Introduction—Water	in	a	changing	world	.......................................................	1	1.1	 The	resilience	imperative	in	global	environmental	governance.......................................	2	1.2	 Case	study	context	...................................................................................................................................	6	1.2.1	 South	Africa	.......................................................................................................................................	6	1.2.2	 Cape	Town	..........................................................................................................................................	9	1.3	 Objectives	of	the	dissertation	...........................................................................................................11	1.4	 Research	questions	...............................................................................................................................12	1.5	 Methodological	approach	...................................................................................................................12	1.6	 Overview	of	methods:	datasets	and	analyses	...........................................................................14	1.7	 Structure	of	dissertation	.....................................................................................................................16	1.8	 Dissertation	contributions	.................................................................................................................18	1.9	 A	note	on	positionality.........................................................................................................................19	PART	I	................................................................................................................................................	21	Chapter	2:	 Defining	“Water	Resilience”:	debates,	concepts,	approaches	and	gaps	.	22	2.1	 Synopsis	......................................................................................................................................................22	2.2	 Introduction	..............................................................................................................................................22	2.3	 Resilience	approaches	in	water	resource	governance	.........................................................24	2.4	 Methodology	.............................................................................................................................................27		 	 		 viii	2.4.1	 Scoping	review	...............................................................................................................................	27	2.4.2	 Analysis	..............................................................................................................................................	29	2.5	 Summary	results.....................................................................................................................................30	2.6	 Definitions,	systems,	scale,	objects	and	characteristics	of	water	resilience	..............34	2.6.1	 Definitions	of	resilience	..............................................................................................................	34	2.6.2	 Water	domains	and	scale	..........................................................................................................	37	2.6.3	 Resilience	of	what	(of	whom)	and	to	what?.......................................................................	38	2.6.4	 Characteristics	of	water	resilient	systems	..........................................................................	39	2.6.5	 Institutional,	governance	and	practical	dimensions	of	water	resilience	..............	42	2.7	 Discussion	..................................................................................................................................................47	2.7.1	 Integrative	approaches	in	water	governance...................................................................	49	2.7.2	 New	governance	and	institutional	arrangements	..........................................................	50	2.8	 Conclusions	...............................................................................................................................................53	Chapter	3:	 Expert	views	on	strategies	to	increase	resilience	in	water	governance	55	3.1	 Synopsis	......................................................................................................................................................55	3.2	 Introduction	..............................................................................................................................................55	3.3	 What	do	we	(not)	know	about	building	resilience	in	water	systems?	.........................58	3.4	 Methodology	.............................................................................................................................................62	3.4.1	 Sampling	strategy	.........................................................................................................................	64	3.4.2	 Analysis	..............................................................................................................................................	65	3.5	 Results	.........................................................................................................................................................65	3.5.1	 Summary	and	resilience	building	strategies	.....................................................................	65	3.5.2	 PCA	and	MANOVA	results	..........................................................................................................	71	3.6	 Discussion	..................................................................................................................................................77	3.7	 Conclusion	.................................................................................................................................................80	PART	II	..............................................................................................................................................	82	Chapter	4:	 Planning	for	“Water	Resilience”:	competing	agendas	among	Cape	Town’s	planners	and	water	managers	.....................................................................................	87	4.1	 Synopsis	......................................................................................................................................................87		 	 		 ix	4.2	 Introduction:	Situating	water	resilience	in	Cape	Town,	South	Africa	..........................87	4.3	 The	resilience	imperative	in	urban	water	planning	..............................................................90	4.4	 Cape	Town,	South	Africa:	context	and	water	security	challenges	..................................92	4.5	 Methodology	.............................................................................................................................................94	4.6	 Competing	notions	of	resilience	among	Cape	Town’s	water	managers	......................96	4.6.1	 Comparing	engineering	and	eco-hydrological	notions	of	resilience	......................	96	4.6.2	 External	resilience	discourses	and	Cape	Town’s	unique	urbanization	...............	106	4.7	 Discussion	...............................................................................................................................................	108	4.8	 Conclusion	..............................................................................................................................................	113	Chapter	5:	 Resilience	Counter-Currents:	risk,	inequality	and	informality	in	Cape	Town,	South	Africa	......................................................................................................................	115	5.1	 Synopsis	...................................................................................................................................................	115	5.2	 Introduction	...........................................................................................................................................	115	5.3	 Revisiting	resilience	through	the	lens	of	urban	political	ecology	................................	119	5.4	 Case	study	context	..............................................................................................................................	121	5.5	 Methodology	..........................................................................................................................................	123	5.6	 Counter-currents:	aspects	of	socio-hydrological	resilience	in	Cape	Town	.............	125	5.6.1	 Negotiating	uneven	urban	geographies:	informality	and	risk	...............................	126	5.6.2	 Accessing	the	city:	Social	Justice	Coalition’s	social	audits	........................................	132	5.6.3	 Connecting	ecosystems	and	people:	Source	to	Sea	river	restoration	project	...	135	5.7	 Discussion:	towards	an	equitable	and	resilient	Cape	Town...........................................	138	5.8	 Conclusion	..............................................................................................................................................	140	Chapter	6:	 Conclusion—Situating	“water	resilience”	...................................................	142	6.1	 A	note	on	the	Cape	Town	water	crisis.......................................................................................	143	6.2	 Summary	of	key	findings	.................................................................................................................	144	6.3	 Notes	on	the	methodology:	strengths	and	limitations	......................................................	150	6.4	 Research	reflections	and	dissertation	contributions.........................................................	153	6.4.1	 Resilience	as	a	boundary	concept	.......................................................................................	153		 	 		 x	6.4.2	 A	focus	on	Southern	urbanism	helps	elucidate	the	relationship	between	inequality	and	resilience	.............................................................................................................................	155	Bibliography	.................................................................................................................................	158	Appendices....................................................................................................................................	180	Appendix	A:	 Scoping	review	protocol	and	supplementary	materials	...................................	180	A.1	 Scoping	review	protocol	...............................................................................................................	180	A.1.1	 AND/OR	vs	NEAR	Boolean	operators	........................................................................	180	A.1.2	 Complete	list	of	search	terms	.........................................................................................	181	A.1.3	 Search	databases	..................................................................................................................	181	A.1.4	 Papers	reviewed	...................................................................................................................	182	A.1.5	 Inclusion	criteria	..................................................................................................................	183	A.1.6	 Exclusion	criteria	.................................................................................................................	183	A.1.7	 Analysis	.....................................................................................................................................	184	A.2	 Summary	Results	.............................................................................................................................	185	A.3	 PRISMA	Flow	Diagram	.................................................................................................................	193	A.4	 Coding	Manual	.................................................................................................................................	194	A.5	 List	of	reviewed	articles	................................................................................................................	198	Appendix	B:	 Survey	materials	...................................................................................................................	212	B.1	 Letter	of	initial	contact	.................................................................................................................	212	B.2	 Survey	instrument	...........................................................................................................................	214	B.3	 Supplementary	survey	results	....................................................................................................	222	Appendix	C:	 Policy	brief	...............................................................................................................................	223			 		 	 		 xi	List of Tables 	Table	1.1	Summary	of	methods	and	objectives	of	the	empirical	chapters.....................................16	Table	2.1	Resilience	definitions	as	articulated	in	the	bodies	of	the	reviewed	papers.	.............37	Table	2.2	Features,	or	characteristics,	of	water	resilient	systems.	....................................................40	Table	2.3	Institutional	and	governance	characteristics	and	practices	that	increase	resilience.	.......................................................................................................................................................................42	Table	3.1	PCA	Rotated	Component	Matrix.	...................................................................................................72	Table	3.2	MANOVA	results.	...................................................................................................................................75	Table	4.1	Interview	participants.	.......................................................................................................................95	Table	4.2	Engineering	and	eco-hydrological	perspectives	on	resilience,	compared.	...............99	Table	5.1	Summary	of	interview	participants.	..........................................................................................	124	Table	5.2	Summary	of	case	study	examples.	..............................................................................................	125	Table	A.1	Final	search	string.	............................................................................................................................	182	Table	A.2	List	of	journals.	....................................................................................................................................	185	Table	A.3	Additional	summary	results.	........................................................................................................	188	Table	B.1	MANOVA	and	post	hoc	tests	(Tukey	HSD).	............................................................................	222		 		 	 		 xii	List of Figures 	Figure	2.1	Cumulative	graph	of	all	papers.	....................................................................................................30	Figure	2.2	Co-citation	network.	...........................................................................................................................32	Figure	2.3	Resilience	definitions.	.......................................................................................................................36	Figure	2.4	Responsibility	for	resilience	building.	.......................................................................................46	Figure	3.1	Familiarity	and	novelty	of	resilience..........................................................................................66	Figure	3.2	General	water	resilience	strategies.	...........................................................................................67	Figure	3.3	Strategies	that	build	resilience	to	drought.	.............................................................................69	Figure	3.4	Strategies	that	build	resilience	to	flooding.	............................................................................70	Figure	3.5	Strategies	that	build	resilience	in	freshwater	systems.	....................................................71	Figure	3.6	Scree	plot	of	the	outputs	of	the	PCA.	..........................................................................................74	Figure	3.7	The	variation	in	favoured	strategies	based	on	participants’	choice	of	definitions	of	resilience.	..................................................................................................................................................................76	Figure	3.8	Map	of	the	Cape	Town	Metropolitan	Area.	.............................................................................82	Figure	4.1	Summary	of	codes	used	in	qualitative	analysis	of	the	interview	data.	......................98	Figure	5.1	Informal	settlements	along	the	N2	highway	in	Cape	Town.	........................................	126	Figure	5.2	Communal	toilets	in	Khayelitsha.	.............................................................................................	132	Figure	A.1	Cumulative	graph	of	the	different	types	of	definitions	of	resilience	identified	in	the	sample...................................................................................................................................................................	187	Figure	A.2	PRISMA	Flow	Diagram.	..................................................................................................................	193			 		 	 		 xiii	List of Abbreviations  	CCT	 	 City	of	Cape	Town	DWAF		 Department	of	Water	Affairs	and	Forestry	ICLEI	 Local	Governments	for	Sustainability	(formerly	International	Council	for	Local	Environmental	Initiatives)	NGO	 	 Non-governmental	organization	PCA	 	 Principle	Component	Analysis	UK	 	 United	Kingdom	 	UN	 	 United	Nations	UNDP	 	 United	Nations	Development	Programme		  	 	 		 xiv	Acknowledgements 	These	pages	would	not	have	been	written	without	the	various	forms	of	invaluable	support	I	received	from	family,	friends,	colleagues	and	mentors.			I	had	the	privilege	of	working	with	a	truly	inspiring	advisory	committee,	who	pushed	me	to	my	limits,	and	were	patient	with	me	as	I	went	along.	I	thank	my	doctoral	advisor,	Leila	Harris,	for	her	contagious	energy,	enthusiasm,	keen	support	and	mentorship.	I	thank	Kai	Chan	for	pushing	me	towards	new	domains	of	thought,	and	Stephanie	Chang	for	her	kindness	and	ongoing	encouragement.				My	research	was	supported	by	funding	from	the	Social	Sciences	and	Humanities	Research	Council	of	Canada,	as	well	as	the	University	of	British	Columbia—namely	the	Peter	Wall	Institute	for	Advanced	Studies	and	the	Liu	Institute	for	Global	Issues.	I	am	grateful	for	the	funding	and	research	assistantships	which	gave	me	the	freedom	to	conduct	this	work.		This	work	would	have	been	inconceivable	without	the	kind	support	of	my	South	African	partners	at	the	African	Climate	&	Development	Initiative	(University	of	Cape	Town),	the	Environmental	Monitoring	Group	and	members	of	the	International	WaTERS	research	network	who	gave	me	space	to	speculate,	test	out	my	ideas,	and	meet	and	connect	with	new	people.	I	am	particularly	grateful	to	Gina	Ziervogel,	Dianne	Scott	and	Jessica	Wilson,	whose	wisdom	guided	me	through	the	messy	and	complex	fieldwork	process.	This	research	would	not	have	been	possible	without	the	generosity	of	all	research	participants	in	South	Africa	and	beyond,	who	shared	their	time	and	invaluable	insights	with	me.		I	thank	the	many	friends	and	collaborators	I	had	the	pleasure	to	work	with.	In	particular,	Emma	Luker,	who	made	even	the	hardest	parts	of	fieldwork	fun.	Sameer	Shah,	for	the	friendship,	conversations	and	exchange	of	ideas	that	truly	shaped	my	work.	The	EDGES	research	collaborative,	the	Program	on	Water	Governance	and	the	entire	IRES	community	for	humbling	me	and	helping	me	grow.			 	 		 xv	I	further	extend	my	gratitude	to	many	more	friends	for	the	comradery	and	laughter	we	shared	along	this	journey.	I	warmly	thank	Kiely	for	her	unending	support	and	kindness,	Ashlee	for	running	to	the	mountains	with	me,	and	Rachel	for	her	strength	and	truly	contagious	laughter.	I	am	deeply	inspired	by	the	smart	and	courageous	women	that	were	a	big	part	of	my	life	in	IRES—Alejandra,	Tugce,	Nancy,	Jackie,	Ghazal,	and	Liz.			I	am	eternally	grateful	to	my	family	for	always	bringing	much	needed	perspective	to	my	life.	My	parents,	Yanka	and	Aleksey,	who	relentlessly	fought	to	give	their	children	a	future	they	themselves	could	not	imagine.	I	am	forever	in	your	debt.	My	little	sister	Lily,	for	always	reminding	me	of	who	I	am,	and	making	me	want	to	be	a	better	person.	My	late	grandpa,	Radko,	for	being	the	shining	light	that	guided	me	through	grad	school	in	the	darkest	of	times.	The	Findlaters	and	Seibels	for	making	Canada	my	true	second	home.		And	most	of	all,	my	darling	Kieran,	who	believes	in	me	when	I	cannot,	who	surrounds	me	with	comfort,	warmth	and	trust,	picks	me	up	when	I’m	down,	and	makes	me	smile	when	I	feel	hopeless.	Thank	you	for	giving	me	love,	hope,	and	stability	when	I	needed	them	the	most.	I	wouldn’t	be	here	without	you.			 		 	 		 xvi				For	my	dear	grandpa.		You	are	always	in	my	thoughts.			Посветено	на	моят	скъп	дядо	Радко.	Ти	си	винаги	в	моите	мисли.					 1	Chapter 1: Introduction—Water in a changing world 	Water	is	multifaceted	and	complex,	assuming	multiple	meanings,	forms	and	shapes.	Water	is	necessary	for	all	life	on	the	planet,	human	and	non-human,	and	has	been	a	driving	force	in	shaping	human	settlements	for	millennia.	Water	is	a	protagonist	in	many	cultures,	literatures,	languages	and	songs,	and	is	as	poetic	as	much	as	biophysical	(Wagner,	2012).	Our	planet’s	water	systems	are	increasingly	under	pressure	from	an	unprecedented	accumulation	of	anthropogenic	impacts	on	ecosystems	worldwide	as	a	result	of	damming	and	diverting	of	rivers,	loss	of	wetlands,	increasing	pollutants,	and	climate	change	impacts	(Grafton	et	al.,	2013;	IPCC,	2014a,	2014b;	2014c;	Jackson	et	al.,	2001;	Rockström	et	al.,	2014a;	Steffen	et	al.,	2011;	Vorosmarty	et	al.,	2013).	As	projected	by	the	Intergovernmental	Panel	on	Climate	Change	(IPCC),	many	countries	will	face	changing	precipitation	patterns,	drier	summers	and	stormier	winters,	with	increasing	uncertainty	around	the	timing,	frequency	and	intensity	of	future	floods	and	droughts	(IPCC,	2014a).	These	pressures	are	particularly	acute	in	less	developed	contexts	lacking	the	social	or	infrastructural	capacity	to	deal	with	water	stresses,	to	effectively	engage	communities	in	water	governance,	or	to	adapt	in	the	face	of	dynamically	changing	climatic,	hydrologic	or	socio-political	conditions	(IPCC	2014b;	2014c).	As	a	result,	water—its	sustainability,	quality,	access,	governance	and	justice	dimensions—is	one	of	the	most	pressing	contemporary	governance	challenges.			Resilience—or	the	ability	of	complex	systems	to	cope	with	or	adapt	and	transform	in	the	face	of	shocks	or	change	(Folke,	2016)—is	now	a	widely	used	concept	that	aims	to	encapsulate	the	complex	interactions	between	human	activities	and	ecosystem	dynamics	to	ultimately	inform	action	towards	sustainability	in	natural	resource	governance.	Resilience	is	an	amorphous,	multidimensional	concept	that	captures	the	complex	co-existence	of	humans	and	ecosystems	on	a	fragile	planet,	facing	change	or	increasing	risks.	With	its	flaws,	conceptual	ambiguity,	blind	spots,	and	controversies	(Cote	and	Nightingale,	2012;	Cutter,	2016;	Olsson	et	al.,	2015;	Watts,	2016;	Welsh,	2014),	resilience	has	been	alternately	embraced	and	resisted	by	various	communities	of	knowledge	and	practice.	As	resilience	is			 2	applied	in	various	domains,	from	urban	planning	to	climate	change	adaptation,	promoted	and	funded	through	transnational	organizations	and	donors,	such	as	the	Rockefeller	Foundation,	The	World	Bank	or	the	World	Health	Organization	(e.g.,	100ResilientCities.org;	WHO,	2017;	World	Bank,	2016),	its	meaning	and	applications	have	diverged	from	its	theoretical	origins	in	engineering	and	ecology	(Walker,	2004).	As	academics,	resource	managers,	planners	and	communities	in	the	global	North	and	South	engage	or	resist	resilience	discourses,	resilience	has	become	a	highly	contested	and	politicized	concept.		In	light	of	the	multiple	and	complex	ways	resilience	is	understood	and	applied	in	relation	to	water	systems,	this	dissertation	aims	to	trace	precisely	how	resilience,	as	a	concept	and	a	way	of	thinking,	has	infiltrated	and	(re)shaped	scholarly	and	policy	discourses	in	water	governance,	and	how	it	alters	or	creates	new	pathways	when	applied	in	specific	contexts.	In	particular,	this	work	will	investigate	how	resilience	is	articulated	in	global	academic	debates	on	water	governance	(in	Part	I)	and	is	in	turn	embraced	and	enacted	in	Cape	Town,	South	Africa,	a	city	with	a	tremendously	progressive	water	agenda,	alarmingly	high	inequality,	contested	governance,	and,	at	the	time	of	writing,	facing	one	of	its	worst	droughts	in	history	(Part	II).	Below,	I	will	provide	an	overview	of	key	resilience	debates,	and	important	lessons	and	insights	from	work	in	political	ecology	and	Southern	urbanism—key	literatures	that	offer	opportunities	to	critically	re-evaluate	and	situate	resilience	through	the	lens	of	the	complex	urban	dynamics	of	the	global	South.	Particularly,	a	focus	on	Southern	cities	helps	bring	to	light	the	complex	ways	through	which	inequality	and	fragmented	social-ecological	systems	inhibit	efforts	to	build	water	resilience.				1.1 The resilience imperative in global environmental governance Resilience,	as	a	theory,	approach	or	a	metaphor,	has	become	widely	used	in	a	growing	number	of	domains.	This	is	evidenced	by	the	steep	rise	of	resilience	citations,	global	and	local	resilience	building	initiatives,	and	the	growing	use	of	the	language	of	resilience	in	international	agreements,	the	Sustainable	Development	Goals,	and	broader	international	development	discourses	(Bahadur	et	al.,	2015;	Brand	and	Jax,	2007;	Brown,	2016;	Xu	and	Marinova,	2013).	Resilience	is	conventionally	understood	as	the	ability	of	a	system			 3	(however	defined)	to	withstand	shocks	or	disturbances	in	a	way	that	maintain	its	essential	function	and	structure,	or	the	ability	of	a	system	to	adapt	or	transform	into	a	more	desirable	state	(Berkes	et	al.,	2012;	Folke,	2016).	This	conventional	definition	is	rooted	in	work	in	ecology	and	social-ecological	systems	and	is	often	linked	to	the	work	of	the	Stockholm	Resilience	Center	and	the	associated	Resilience	Alliance	(Folke,	2016).	Today,	resilience	is	applied	to	different	types	of	systems,	from	engineered,	to	social	or	ecological,	and	tends	to	refer	to	different	kinds	of	processes,	which	in	part	contributes	to	its	conceptual	ambiguity.	However,	as	will	be	shown	in	this	dissertation,	this	conceptual	complexity	does	not	necessarily	inhibit	the	possibility	of	theory	bridging	towards	more	comprehensive	water	research	and	governance.		In	parallel	with	its	rising	prominence,	there	has	been	growing	debate	around	the	implementation	and	utility	of	the	concept.	Despite	increasing	attention	to	questions	of	power	and	governance	in	resilience	scholarship	(Eakin	et	al.,	2017;	Folke,	2016;	Galaz,	2005),	a	key	ongoing	critique	is	that	resilience	pays	only	limited	attention	to	important	societal	questions,	such	as	inequality	and	power,	and	is	therefore	ill-equipped,	and	even	dangerous,	as	a	tool	to	guide	social	policy	(Cote	and	Nightingale,	2012;	MacKinnon	and	Derickson,	2012).	Further,	albeit	widely	accepted,	mainstream	conceptualizations	of	resilience	have	received	merited	critique	from	the	social	sciences	for	being	apolitical,	decontextualized,	conservative,	pessimistic,	entangled	in	neoliberal	agendas,	inattentive	to	social	justice	concerns,	and	for	being	overly	preoccupied	with	risk	and	emergency	(Cote	and	Nightingale,	2012;	Derickson,	2016;	MacKinnon	and	Derickson,	2012;	Rodina	et	al.,	2017;	Vale,	2014;	Watts,	2016).	In	other	words,	arguably	there	is	a	risk	that	adopting	resilience	framings	in	water	governance,	or	indeed	in	other	domains,	may	contribute	to	sidelining	these	important	societal	debates,	or	that	resilience	building	agendas	might	actually	deepen	social	and	spatial	inequality.	Responding	to	these	questions,	this	dissertation	will	demonstrate	that	social	inequality,	spatial	fragmentation	and	power	are	key	factors	that	inhibit	resilience	(Part	II)	and	should	therefore	be	focal	points	in	resilience	research	and	resilience	building	efforts.	As	such,	this	research	serves	to	put	in	conversation	the	more	abstract	and	decontextualized	notions	of	resilience	with	the	complex	and	messy	ways	resilience	is	operationalized	on	the	ground.				 4		Further,	in	relation	to	concerns	with	the	enhanced	focus	on	risk	in	resilience	scholarship	(e.g.,	Watts,	2016),	it	should	be	noted	that	resilience	has	gained	traction	precisely	at	a	time	when	adverse	anthropogenic	impacts,	including	climate	change,	have	become	key	challenges	for	governance	worldwide.	For	example,	resilience,	particularly	in	the	domain	of	urban	governance	and	water	planning,	has	been	employed	directly	in	response	to	increasing	social	and	environmental	shocks	and	risks	(e.g.,	Bahadur	et	al.,	2013;	Meerow	et	al.,	2016;	WHO,	2017).	While	a	“crisis”	rhetoric	risks	consolidating	power	or	promoting	narrow	risk	management	approaches	(Pelling	and	Dill,	2010;	Watts,	2016),	many	residents	in	Cape	Town’s	informal	settlements	and	other	contexts	in	the	global	South,	face	multiple	daily	risks	that	cannot	be	simply	ignored.	Today,	resilience	has	become	a	pluralist	discourse,	with	multiple	co-existing	definitions	and	articulations	(e.g.,	Brown,	2016;	Harris	et	al.,	2017;	Simon	and	Randalls,	2016;	Olsson	et	al.,	2015).	There	is	also	a	widespread	acceptance	that	resilience	cannot	be	universally	measured	due	to	the	high	degree	of	variability	of	different	factors,	and	due	to	the	sheer	complexity	of	goals	and	objectives	that	play	a	role	in	maintaining	or	building	resilience	(Folke,	2016).			In	this	dissertation	I	treat	“water	resilience”	as	a	boundary	concept	(cf.	Baggio	et	al.,	2014;	Olsson	et	al.,	2015)	whereby	different	ontologies,	epistemologies	and	worldviews	are	put	in	conversation	to	arrive	at	cross	disciplinary	notions	of	water	governance.	Several	other	authors	have	conceptualized	resilience	in	similar	ways.	For	example,	Baggio	et	al.	(2014)	argue	that	resilience,	with	its	focus	on	various	systems	and	forms	of	knowledge,	allows	for	coordination	of	different	groups	seeking	consensus.	As	such,	distinctly	different	communities	of	knowledge	engage	in	reconciling	and	reinterpreting	what	resilience	might	mean	across	disciplines	(Baggio	et	al.,	2014).	Further,	Davoudi	et	al.	(2012)	and	Olsson	et	al.	(2015)	trace	how	resilience	is	translated	from	the	natural	to	the	social	sciences	and	then	applied	to	planning	and	governance.	In	this	process,	resilience	binds	different	epistemic	communities,	enabling	knowledge	sharing	and	bridging	between	science	and	policy.	In	science	and	technology	studies,	boundary	objects	are	concept	that	are	adaptable	to	different	viewpoints,	or	types	of	knowledge,	but	distinctive	and	robust	enough	to	make	sense	across	different	epistemic	communities	(Cohen,	2012).	Conceptualized	in	these	ways,			 5	water	resilience	is	not	bound	to	any	one	specific	discipline—whether	engineering,	hydrology	or	ecology—but	instead	speaks	to	and	draws	from	various	science	and	planning	discourses	on	water.	As	such,	this	dissertation	will	argue	that	“water	resilience”	holds	the	potential	to	open	up	new	pathways	towards	a	more	integrative	thinking	in	the	water	context,	even	though	there	is	still	limited	practical	guidance	on	how	to	achieve	it.		While	only	a	handful	of	authors	have	used	the	term	“water	resilience”	as	such	(e.g.,	Eriksson	et	al.,	2014;	Falkenmark	and	Rockström,	2010;	Rockström	et	al.,	2014b),	resilience	thinking	and	cognate	terms	have	been	increasingly	used	in	relation	to	various	aspects	of	water	governance—from	drought	and	flood	management,	to	climate	change	adaptation	in	the	water	services	sector,	and	watershed	and	catchment-scale	water	resource	management.	Over	the	last	two	decades,	there	has	been	a	stark	increase	in	policies	and	strategic	frameworks	that	apply	resilience	concepts	in	different	aspects	of	water	governance	(e.g.,	UN	Water,	2012;	2015;	UNEP,	2017).	Overall,	resilience	thinking	manifests	itself	in	multiple	yet	distinct	trends	that	together	represent	the	contours	of	an	emerging	discourse	in	water	governance.	However,	this	emerging	“water	resilience”	paradigm	remains	mainly	conceptual,	with	scant,	albeit	growing,	specificity	and	evidence	of	actual	applications	on	the	ground.		In	addition	to	comparing	and	reconciling	the	different	tenets	of	resilience	thinking,	this	doctoral	work	also	engages	with	the	broader	domain	of	water	governance	by	investigating	approaches	in	the	fields	of	natural	resource	management	and	urban	water	supply	systems	(Chapters	2,	3	and	4).	In	situating	water	resilience	in	the	context	of	Cape	Town,	this	work	draws	from	literatures	on	urban	planning,	political	ecology	and	Southern	urbanism.		Specifically,	I	draw	on	work	by	Lawhon	et	al.	(2013;	2017)	and	Pieterse	(2011)	to	put	resilience	in	conversation	with	the	lived	realities	of	Southern	urbanism,	which	helps	bring	in	a	“broader	range	of	experiences	to	inform	how	urban	environments	are	shaped,	politicized	and	contested”	(p.	498).	This	research	traces	how	Western/Northern	resilience	ideas	are	alternately	adopted	and	resisted	by	Cape	Town’s	water	managers.	As	such,	ideas	of	water	resilience	interact	in	complex	ways	with	ongoing	agendas	and	challenges	to	ultimately	shape	new	pathways	in	water	governance.		Work	on	Southern	urbanism	is			 6	particularly	insightful	as	it	problematizes	the	imposition	of	decontextualized	notions	of	resilience	in	different	contexts.	Specifically,	I	echo	Lawhon’s	et	al.	(2013)	argument	that	Northern	theory	tends	to	draw	on	specific	forms	of	knowledge	creation	(e.g.,	expert-driven,	scientific,	technocratic)	that	often	miss	out	and	even	exclude	the	lived	experiences	in	particular	sites,	such	as	those	of	African	cities,	including	the	realities	of	inequality	or	marginality	(Chapter	5).	The	evidence	presented	in	the	following	chapters	will	demonstrate	some	of	the	tensions	and	limitations	of	the	Northern	discourse	on	resilience	when	applied	in	cities	with	high	levels	of	inequality,	contested	governance	and	complex	urban	dynamics.		As	such,	a	key	objective	of	this	dissertation	is	to	refocus	and	rethink	resilience	debates	through	the	lens	of	various	ways	of	knowing	and	experiencing	water	risks	in	different	contexts,	and	by	different	populations.		1.2 Case study context 1.2.1 South Africa Water	supply	and	distribution	systems	in	South	Africa	have	been	historically	shaped	by	colonial	and	apartheid	planning	respectively,	resulting	in	a	highly	uneven	waterscape,	aspects	of	which	are	still	lingering	today	(Beck	et	al.,	2016;	Funke	et	al.,	2007;	McDonald	and	Pape,	2012).	Specifically,	while	South	Africa	has	been	undergoing	significant	changes	since	the	end	of	apartheid,	persistent	legacies	of	inequality	remain	in	access	to	water	services	or	exposure	to	water	risks	(Funke	et	al.,	2007;	Orthofer	et	al.,	2016;	Turok,	2014).	The	post-apartheid	Constitution	of	South	Africa	(1996)	introduced	considerable	socio-political	transformation	in	attempt	to	redress	these	inequalities	through	a	suite	of	universal	socio-economic	rights,	including	the	rights	to	sufficient	water	and	adequate	housing.	With	respect	to	water,	South	Africa	is	often	highlighted	as	a	leading	example	for	its	constitutional	guarantee	of	the	right	of	citizens	to	access	sufficient	water	(Constitution	of	South	Africa,	1996),	national	guidelines	that	pose	limitations	on	discontinuation	of	services	for	non-payment	(Water	Services	Act	No.	108	of	1997),	and	a	policy	that	sets	a	minimum	amount	of	water	for	basic	needs	for	free—the	Free	Basic	Water	policy	(Bond	and	Dugard,	2008;	Mirosa	and	Harris,	2012).	As	such,	South	Africa’s	water	legislation	features	several	important	requirements	that	arguably	lay	the	background	for	a	more	resilient	water			 7	governance—namely,	requirements	for	an	ecological	reserve,	basic	humans	needs,	as	well	as	for	a	more	equitable	and	inclusive	water	management	(Beck	at	al.,	2016;	Funke	et	al.,	2007).		From	a	water	resource	management	perspective,	in	South	Africa	the	national	government,	and	the	Department	of	Water	and	Sanitation	in	particular,	are	ultimately	responsible	for	bulk	water	supply	throughout	the	country.	At	the	local	level,	however,	municipalities	are	responsible	for	ensuring	the	provision	of	water	services	in	compliance	with	national	guidelines.	One	key	aspect	of	democratizing	South	Africa	after	apartheid	has	been	the	devolution	of	responsibilities	from	the	national	to	the	local	government	(Funke	et	al.,	2007;	McDonald	and	Pape,	2002).	As	a	result,	several	high	capacity	municipalities,	such	as	Cape	Town	or	eThekwini	(Durban),	have	made	notable	progress	in	achieving	many	of	the	national	water	objectives,	while	other	municipalities,	particularly	in	the	Eastern	and	Northern	Cape,	struggle	to	achieve	these	goals	due	to	limited	capacity.	As	a	result,	the	national	water	services	landscape	in	South	Africa	remains	highly	uneven.	Cape	Town	specifically	stands	out	in	key	ways.	As	the	only	municipality	in	the	country	to	be	run	by	the	opposition	party	(the	Democratic	Alliance),	Cape	Town	has	had	a	strained	relationship	with	the	national	government.	Cape	Town	tends	be	outward	looking,	seeking	to	align	with	other	cities	around	the	world	in	pursuing	economic	grown	and	innovation	in	climate	change	adaptation,	sustainability	and	other	domains	(see	more	on	this	in	McDonald,	2008).		Among	South	Africa’s	most	praised	water	policies	is	the	national	Free	Basic	Water	(FBW)	policy,	officially	announced	in	February	2001,	five	years	after	the	post-apartheid	Constitution,	and	nearly	10	years	before	the	United	Nations	recognized	water	as	a	human	right.	The	FBW	policy	mandates	municipalities1	to	“provide	6000	litres	of	safe	water	per	household	(of	eight)	per	month,”	or	25	litres	per	person	per	day,	within	200	meters	from	home	(DWAF,	2007b).	Part	of	the	movement	towards	recognizing	a	universal	right	to	water	in	South	Africa	came	as	a	result	of	concerted	social	mobilization	around	the	installation	of																																																									1	The	implementation	of	the	FBW	varies	slightly	across	municipalities,	as	the	national	government	mandates	municipalities	to	comply	with	this	policy	within	their	own	resources.			 8	pre-paid	meters	and	other	issues	of	water	access	and	inequality.	In	South	Africa,	the	use	of	pre-paid	meters	that	cut	off	water	after	a	certain	limit	has	demonstrated	the	multiple	challenges	and	conflicts	that	arise	when	technocratic	water	solutions	do	not	match	the	lived	realities	of	social	inequality	(Loftus,	2006;	von	Schnitzler,	2008).	This	and	many	other	similar	struggles	in	South	Africa	serve	as	a	constant	reminder	of	the	need	to	critically	examine	the	implications	of	various	technical	or	engineered	water	solutions	and	linked	policy	interventions.	Today,	as	water	meters	are	becoming	a	widely	adopted	water	demand	management	technology	in	Cape	Town	before	and	during	the	most	recent	water	crisis,	the	equitable	dimensions	of	water	technologies	remain	a	particularly	important	debate.				Overall,	South	Africa’s	progressive	water	legislation	has	contributed	to	improving	access	to	water	in	many	places	throughout	the	country	since	the	end	of	apartheid	(Funke	et	al.,	2007;	Rodina,	2016).	However,	some	ongoing	challenges	remain,	including	the	need	to	establish	constructive	state-society	relations	and	to	address	persisting	social	and	spatial	inequalities	(Bond	and	Dugard,	2008;	Mahlanza	et	al.,	2016;	McDonald	and	Pape,	2012;	Rodina	and	Harris,	2016;	Smith,	2001;	Thompson,	2003;	Tissington,	2009;	Wilson	and	Pereira,	2012).	For	example,	the	implementation	of	the	FBW	policy	has	not	gone	without	challenges	and	failures.	The	25	liters	per	person	per	day	legislated	in	the	FBW	policy	does	not	match	WHO	standards	for	50	litres	of	water	required	for	basic	needs	(Howard	&	Bartram,	2003).2		Second,	this	amount	does	not	include	toilet	flushing	and	is	not	linked	to	sanitation	policies,	which	is	particularly	problematic	in	impoverished	urban	areas	in	South	Africa	where	sanitation	service	provision	lags	behind	the	delivery	of	potable	water	(DWAF,	2007b).	Third,	the	FBW	has	been	criticized	for	being	discriminatory	against	large	households	(Bond	&	Dugard,	2008).	Implemented	within	a	cost-recovery	scheme,	a	major	shortcoming	of	this	policy	has	been	the	question	of	affordability,	namely	payment	for	the	costs	of	service	connections,	payment	for	water	above	the	free	basic	minimum	allocation	and	disconnections	for	non-payment,	which	have	been	shown	to	pose	significant	burden	on	impoverished	households	(Bond	&	Dugard,	2008;	Smith	&	Hanson,	2003).	Consequently,	I																																																									2	The	WHO	defines	basic	access	as	the	“average	quantity	unlikely	to	exceed	20/litres/per	person/per	day.”	Further,	this	amount	poses	high	levels	of	health	concern	and	is	not	sufficient	for	laundry	and	bathing	(unless	carried	out	at	the	source)	(Howard	&	Bartram,	2003,	p.	3)			 9	believe	that	applying	a	resilience	lens	to	water	management	will	inevitably	map	onto	this	already	complex	and	contested	waterscape,	and	therefore	it	is	important	to	better	understand	how	novel	approaches	to	water	governance	interact	with	on	the	ground	realities	of	water	access	and	exposure	to	water-related	risks	(Chapter	5).	This	is	a	key	focus	of	the	concepts	and	methods	associated	with	Southern	urbanism,	and	one	that	helps	to	structure	and	organize	the	pages	of	this	dissertation.			1.2.2 Cape Town A	coastal	city	of	over	3.5	million	(CCT,	2012d),	Cape	Town	is	located	in	the	Western	Cape	province.	From	a	water	resource	management	perspective,	Cape	Town	has	been	awarded	several	excellence	awards	nationally	and	internationally	for	their	Water	Demand	Management	Strategy	and	for	achieving	nearly	universal	access	to	piped	water.	Various	aspects	of	water	demand	management,	including	metering	and	the	use	of	demand	management	devices,	have	also	faced	heated	controversy	around	their	social	justice	and	equity	implications	(Mahlanza,	2016;	Rodina,	2016;	Wilson	and	Pereira,	2012).	Currently,	Cape	Town	is	facing	acute	water	security	challenges	as	the	city’s	water	supplies	are	at	a	critically	low	point	(Archer	et	al.,	2017).	Since	2015,	as	a	result	of	lower	than	usual	rainfall	and	a	relatively	slow	governance	response,	Cape	Town	has	been	experiencing	one	of	its	most	severe	water	crises	in	over	a	century.	In	recent	years,	the	experiences	with	acute	droughts	in	California,	Australia,	Saõ	Paulo	(Brazil),	Spain	and	other	contexts,	have	raised	important	questions	about	the	ability	of	urban	water	systems	to	become	more	resilient	in	the	face	of	changing	hydrological	regimes,	industrialization	and	urban	growth.	As	many	cities	look	towards	Cape	Town’s	unfolding	water	crisis,	building	resilience	to	drought,	in	addition	to	flooding	and	other	water-related	risks,	has	become	a	debate	of	global	importance.		In	terms	of	urbanization	challenges,	Cape	Town	has	more	than	220	informal	settlements	throughout	the	city—a	persisting	legacy	of	apartheid	spatial	planning—with	an	estimated	total	population	of	900,000	people	(Mels	et	al.,	2009,	of	note	is	that	different	sources	cite	different	numbers,	which	generally	tend	to	range	between	400,000	and	1,000,000).			 10	Informal	settlements	face	inadequate	access	to	basic	services,	disaster	relief	and	livelihood	resources,	and	are	thus	subject	to	highly	differentiated	vulnerabilities	to	water-related	risks	(Ziervogel	et	al.,	2010).	As	Cape	Town	is	expected	to	face	increasing	risks	from	both	droughts	and	floods	(Archer	et	al.,	2017;	Davis-Reddy	and	Vincent,	2017;	Ziervogel	et	al.,	2014b),	many	of	these	settlements	will	likely	be	exposed	to	higher	risk	in	the	future.	It	should	be	noted	that	informal	settlements	occupy	contested	spaces	in	cities	in	South	Africa	and	the	global	South	more	broadly	(Hossain,	2011;	Huchzermeyer,	2006).	The	term	“informal	settlement”	is	often	used	to	describe	what	some	have	called	“shantytown	landscapes”—spaces	characterized	by	self-built,	substandard	and	often	unsafe	housing,	poor	infrastructure	provision,	high	levels	of	crime,	and	endemic	poverty	(Davis,	2006).	There	are	ambiguities	around	the	terms	“informality”,	“informal	housing”	and	“informal	settlements”,	as	pointed	out	by	Landman	and	Napier	(2010)	and	others,	that	can	be	problematic	as	the	use	of	these	terms	and	associated	discourses	can	have	significant	political	implications3.	In	addition,	the	discursive	binary	“formal-informal”	does	not	accurately	represent	realities	on	the	ground.	It	often	incorrectly	implies	that	informal	spaces	and	populations	are	physically	and	symbolically	separated	from	the	“formal”	economy	and	broader	governance	systems,	and	are	therefore	practically	excluded	from	full	citizenship	rights,	even	if	those	are	guaranteed	by	law.			In	practice,	however,	informal	urban	growth	is	often	not	geographically	separate	from	formally	planned	urbanization—in	Cape	Town,	as	well	as	other	cities,	many	informal	settlements	emerge	in	proximity	to	key	services	and	roads,	often	at	the	margins	of	formally	planned	urban	areas	(Donaldson	and	Du	Plessis,	2013;	Jurgens	et	al.,	2013;	Rodina,	2016).	For	example,	Khayelitsha	and	other	areas	where	informal	settlements	are	located	were	planned	and	formally	organized	during	apartheid	to	separate	white,	coloured	and	black	populations.	As	such,	many	of	Cape	Town’s	informal	settlements	are	a	result	of	“formal”	urban	planning	(Donaldson	and	Du	Plessis,	2013).	Therefore,	in	this	research	I	engage	with																																																									3	While	I	fully	recognize	the	inaccuracies	of	the	formal-informal	binary,	here	and	in	Chapters	4	and	5	I	use	the	term	“informal”	in	order	to	be	able	to	(1)	engage	directly	with	the	existing	narratives	around	informality	in	Cape	Town,	and	(2)	to	bring	to	light	the	complex	urban	dynamics	in	Cape	Town	and	other	cities	in	the	global	South	that	contrast	many	Northern/Western	cities.			 11	informal	urban	spaces	as	hybrid,	treating	“formal”	and	“informal”	as	mutually	constitutive	(see	also	Ranganathan,	2016).	In	other	words,	I	conceptualize	shack	settlements,	particularly	in	the	case	at	hand,	as	hybrid	spaces,	in	which	“formal”	and	“informal”,	regulated	and	unregulated	processes	exist	together	(Part	II).		1.3 Objectives of the dissertation  Despite	emerging	work	that	articulates	resilience	and	resilience	principles	in	the	context	of	water	(e.g.,	Rockström	et	al.,	2014b),	resilience	in	water	systems,	and	water	governance	more	broadly,	remains	loosely	theorized	and	provides	only	limited	practical	guidance.	As	such,	the	first	objective	of	this	doctoral	study	is	to	investigate	key	themes	in	resilience	thinking	in	urban	water	governance	as	they	are	expressed	or	articulated	by	various	communities	of	knowledge	and	practice—from	scholars,	researchers	to	urban	water	managers	and	urban	residents.	The	urban	water	system	in	the	context	of	this	work	comprises	the	various	green	and	gray	infrastructures	that	move	water	from	the	source	to,	through	and	out	of	the	city	via	water	supply,	distribution,	stormwater	and	wastewater	networks,	as	well	the	formal	and	informal	social	institutions	and	networks	that	govern	urban	water	flows	(cf.	Wiek	and	Larson,	2012).	For	the	purposes	of	this	research,	I	defined	“water	resilience”	in	a	broader	sense	as	(a)	the	ability	of	water	systems	to	withstand	a	variety	of	water-related	shocks	and	stressors	(floods,	droughts,	changes	in	water	quality)	without	losing	their	ability	to	support	key	functions	and	(b)	the	ability	of	water	systems	to	transform	and	adapt	to	new	hydrologic	regimes.	This	definition	is	adapted	from	the	conventional	definitions	of	resilience	(e.g.,	Folke,	2016)	to	apply	specifically	to	water	systems.	The	bridging	concept	of	“water	resilience”—or	“socio-hydrological	resilience”	as	I	refer	to	at	times—enables	an	analytical	focus	on	the	ecological,	technological	and	social	dimensions	of	urban	water	and	how	they	interact	with	multiple	stressors.		The	second	objective	of	this	doctoral	research	is	to	investigate	and	situate	the	uptake	and	use	of	key	constituents	of	resilience	thinking	in	specific	contexts.	With	a	focus	on	a	case	study	from	South	Africa,	the	goal	is	to	theorize	and	develop	a	situated	understanding	of	water	resilience—attentive	to	specific	biophysical	environments,	socio-political	and			 12	governance	contexts,	and	lived	experiences.	Through	this	approach,	this	study	informs	the	possibilities	for	addressing	equity	and	social	justice	concerns	by	investigating	the	links	between	informality,	inequality	and	differentiated	water-related	vulnerabilities	and	resilience.	Ultimately,	this	project	aims	to	critically	engage	with	resilience	thinking	by	investigating	the	different	dimensions	in	which	resilience	can	be	evaluated,	and	to	provide	a	synthesis	of	the	key	understandings,	challenges,	gaps	and	opportunities	that	a	resilience	lens	might	offer.		1.4 Research questions  The	overarching	research	question	of	this	dissertation	is:	How	is	resilience	thinking	(re)shaping	water	governance	across	global,	local	and	community	scales?		The	following	secondary	research	questions	helped	guide	this	work:		1. How	are	diverse	resilience	framings	(re)shaping	ideas	and	trends	in	water	governance,	and	what	are	the	linked	implications?	(Chapters	2	and	3)		With	a	focus	on	Cape	Town,	South	Africa:	2. How	do	water	experts	and	decision-makers	in	the	City	of	Cape	Town	understand,	conceptualize	and	operationalize	resilience	in	the	context	of	water	governance?	(Chapter	4)		3. How	are	the	specific	challenges	of	Southern	urbanism	(e.g.,	informality	and	inequality)	informing	urban	resilience	agendas	and	potential	outcomes	in	Cape	Town?		(Chapter	5)		1.5 Methodological approach This	doctoral	project	aims	to	address	the	overarching	question—how	is	resilience	(re)shaping	water	governance	across	global,	local	and	community	scales?—by	utilizing	several	different	methods	and	datasets,	and	by	effectively	leveraging	different	worldviews			 13	and	ways	of	knowing	and	experiencing	environmental	change.	The	methodology	behind	this	doctoral	work	is	driven	by	the	idea	of	triangulation	in	social	science	research,	as	articulated	by	Andrea	Nightingale	(Nightingale,	2009;	see	also	Fielding,	2012).	Specifically,	each	empirical	chapter	of	this	dissertation	applies	different	methods	and	draws	on	different	data	sets	(with	overlap	between	Chapters	4	and	5),	while	the	concluding	chapter	summarizes	how	the	findings	from	each	of	these	studies	inform	a	more	in-depth	knowledge	of	the	different	ways	“water	resilience”	can	be	understood—or	what	Nightingale	(2009)	calls	“triangulation	for	complementarity”.	This	type	of	triangulation	aims	to	combine,	rather	than	cross	validate,	information	and	results	from	different	methods	(Nightingale	2009,	p.	490)	and	thus	leads	to	a	more	nuanced	understanding,	attentive	to	the	limitations	and	tensions	that	each	methodology	entails.			The	methodological	approach	for	this	doctoral	project	revolves	around	two	axes.	The	first	is	the	notion	of	epistemological	pluralism—or	the	acknowledgement	that	there	are	multiple	different	ways	of	knowing	(Nightingale,	2015;	Miller	et	al.,	2008).	Nightingale	(2015)	makes	a	strong	argument	that	research	on	“climate	change	adaptation”	(not	unlike	resilience),	aims	to	capture	the	complex	relationships	between	human,	climate,	and	resource	use	and	politics,	which	necessarily	require	an	interdisciplinary	approach	that	works	across	epistemologies.	Research	on	complex	dynamic	phenomena,	such	as	change	in	socio-ecological	systems,	has	to	simplify	these	relationships	by	necessity.	As	Nightingale	(2015)	comments,	this	is	not	problematic	in	itself,	but	it	does	mean	that	simplifications	need	to	be	understood	as	only	partial	representations	of	reality.	Interdisciplinary	work	is	thus	in	essence	reconciling,	combining	or	contrasting	simplifications	of	complex	processes	that	stem	from	various	disciplines.	Indeed,	ecologists,	resource	managers,	urban	planners,	decisions-makers,	politicians,	communities,	and	individuals	all	possess	parts	of	the	knowledge	needed	to	better	understand	and	manage—and	indeed	transform—socio-ecological	systems	in	a	changing	climate.	Their	partial	knowledge	is	in	turn	rooted	in	multiple	and	at	times	truly	irreconcilable	worldviews,	value	systems	and	ways	of	knowing.			This	leads	to	the	second	axis	of	the	methodological	approach	of	this	dissertation—the	notion	that	knowledge	is	never	universal,	but	always	situated,	shaped	by	various			 14	dimensions,	such	as	positionality,	socio-political	context	and	the	limits	of	what	is	known	or	can	be	known.	Situatedness	as	a	concept	has	been	explored	by	geographers	and	feminist	political	ecologists,	among	others,	to	investigate	the	subjective	aspect	of	knowledge	production	(Rose,	1997).	Largely	influenced	by	Donna	Haraway’s	(1991)	work,	the	notion	of	situated	knowledge	conveys	the	idea	that	knowledge	is	partial	and	linked	to	the	socio-political	contexts	and	embodied	experiences	through	which	it	is	created	(Nightingale,	2003).	In	other	words,	knowledge,	expert	or	lay,	is	situated	within	various	contexts,	epistemologies,	ideologies,	paradigms,	professions,	occupations	and,	indeed,	politics.	This	is	relevant	for	studying	resilience,	which	despite	its	origins	as	a	value-neutral	concept,	has	indeed	assumed	a	political	meaning,	particularly	in	contemporary	global	environmental	governance.	Specifically,	the	goal	of	becoming	more	resilient	in	the	face	of	multiple	risks	is	in	fact	a	political	project,	where	a	multitude	of	disciplinary	expertise,	political	agendas	and	social	and	environmental	specificities	of	different	contexts	are	conflicting	or	complementing	each	other	in	shaping	unique	pathways	towards	hopefully	a	better,	more	sustainable	and	socially	just	future.	With	this	mind,	this	research	situates	the	boundary	concept	of	“water	resilience”	within	various	communities	of	knowledge	and	practice,	which	together	build	a	nuanced	and	multi-dimensional	picture	of	what	it	means	to	understand,	anticipate	and	plan	for	a	more	resilient	and	sustainable	water	future.		1.6 Overview of methods: datasets and analyses In	the	first	part	of	this	dissertation,	I	focus	on	the	state	of	scholarly	knowledge	on	achieving	resilience	in	water	systems	by	compiling	and	synthesizing	insights,	evidence	and	opinions	from	experts	in	various	domains	of	water	governance.	To	this	effect,	I	conducted	a	systematic	scoping	review	of	the	English	language	peer-reviewed	academic	literature	to	date	that	uses	resilience	framings	in	the	context	of	water	governance	and	water	resources	management	(Chapter	2).	Complementary	to	the	systematic	literature	review,	I	surveyed	the	views	of	experts	in	various	aspects	of	water	governance	(e.g.,	stormwater	management,	water	resource	management,	water	and	sanitation,	etc.)	who	are	familiar	with	resilience,	as	a	concept	or	a	theory.		Specifically,	I	conducted	an	online	survey	(n=420)	by	recruiting	authors	of	academic	publications	on	these	topics,	identified	through	a	keyword	search	in	a			 15	scholarly	database	(Web	of	Science).	Descriptive	statistics,	Principle	Component	Analysis	and	Multivariate	Analysis	of	Variance	(MANOVA)	and	Tukey	(HSD)	post	hoc	tests	were	used	to	analyze	the	survey	data	(Chapter	3).		In	the	second	part	of	the	dissertation,	I	draw	on	evidence	from	fieldwork	conducted	between	April	and	September	2016	in	Cape	Town,	South	Africa,	including:	• site	visits	(e.g.,	Steenbras	water	supply	dam,	Cape	Flats	Wastewater	Treatment	Plant,	stormwater	management	project	in	Phola	Park	informal	settlement,	etc.),		• formal	recorded	interviews	with	key	stakeholders	and	experts	at	the	City	of	Cape	Town,	prominent	NGOs	and	consultants	who	work	on	water-related	issues	(n=33,	several	interviews	included	more	than	one	participant,	for	a	total	of	36	participants)	• informal,	or	unrecorded4,	interviews	with	key	stakeholders	and	experts	(n=10),	• 1	focus	group	with	6	NGO	representatives,	and		• observations	(of	community	meetings,	events,	etc.)			Drawing	on	fieldwork	data,	I	compare	and	critically	evaluate	the	various	understandings	and	narratives	of	building	water	resilience,	informed	by	broader	discourses	as	well	by	the	specific	agendas	and	contextual	challenges	facing	Cape	Town’s	water	managers	and	experts	(Chapter	4).	Lastly,	in	Chapter	5,	I	provide	a	contrasting	perspective	on	what	it	means	to	strengthen	water	resilience.	This	chapter	investigates	three	aspects	of	Cape	Town’s	contested	waterscape	to	inform	ideas	about	socio-hydrological	resilience.	In	Chapter	4	I	draw	on	a	subset	of	the	interviews	(mostly	water	expert	interviews),	while	in	Chapter	5	I	draw	on	a	bigger	proportion	of	the	qualitative	data	(43	interviews	and	1	focus	group).	As	such,	there	is	overlap	in	the	interviews	used	for	Chapters	4	and	5.																																																										4	These	interviews	were	not	recorded	because	either	the	participant	did	not	want	to	be	recorded,	or	they	were	an	academic	or	a	researcher,	who	wished	to	speak	to	me	informally.	While	I	do	not	use	direct	quotes	from	these	interviews,	they	served	to	inform	part	of	my	understanding	of	the	context,	and	provided	key	leads	and	background.				 16	Table	1.1	Summary	of	methods	and	objectives	of	the	empirical	chapters.	Chapter	 Data	 N	 Objective	2	 Systematic	scoping	review	 149	(papers)	 Systematically	investigate	how	resilience	theory	has	influenced	scholarly	thinking	in	various	aspects	of	water	governance.	3	 Online	expert	survey	 420	 Compile	and	synthesize	expert	views	on	strategies	for	increasing	resilience	in	water	systems.	4	 Interviews	with	experts,	planners	and	managers	at	the	City	of	Cape	Town	 33	 Investigate	expert	notions,	perceptions,	challenges	and	tensions	within	Cape	Town’s	water	system	and	factors	that	contribute	to	or	challenge	its	resilience.	5	Interviews	with	key	informants	from	civil	society	organizations,	environmental	and	social	justice	NGOs,	and	experts	in	the	City	of	Cape	Town	43	 Situate,	politicize	and	contextualize	resilience	within	the	contested,	messy	and	complex	realities	of	Cape	Town.	&	 	Focus	group	with	environmental	and	social	justice	ENGOs	members	 1	(6)		1.7 Structure of dissertation  With	a	focus	on	anthropogenic,	or	human,	dimensions	of	water	governance	the	next	chapter	deals	with	key	trends,	concepts	and	insights	that	the	resilience	scholarship	is	offering	to	the	domain	of	water	resource	management	and	governance.	Chapter	2	looks	at	the	water	domain	in	a	broad	sense	(i.e.,	including	water	supply,	stormwater	management	and	water	ecosystem	management,	among	other	dimensions	of	water)	and	investigates	how	resilience	theory	has	influenced	thinking	in	various	aspects	of	water	governance,	including	drought	management,	flood	management,	water	supply,	sanitation,	etc.;	what	principles,	tools	or	practices	are	said	to	contribute	to	water-related	resilience;	the	scale	of	resilience-	building	efforts;	and	who	is	responsible	for	and	who	benefits	from	them.		Complementing	the	findings	of	the	scoping	review,	Chapter	3	sheds	light	on	the	various			 17	practices	that	can	help	water	systems	become	more	resilient	in	the	face	of	change.	This	chapter	draws	on	a	survey	(n=420)	with	experts	in	resilience	and	various	aspects	of	water	management	and	governance	and	aims	to	synthesize	their	views	on	the	strategies	that	can	help	enhance	resilience	in	water	systems	and	water	governance.	I	discuss	the	best	practices	for	resilience	building,	as	well	as	a	number	of	specific	themes	that	emerged	from	the	analysis.	This	chapter	concludes	with	a	discussion	of	key	strategies	for	increasing	resilience	in	water	systems.		To	provide	a	more	grounded	investigation	of	the	implementation	of	resilience,	Chapter	4	unpacks	the	different	framings	of	water	resilience	and	what	they	enable	planners	and	water	managers	to	consider,	what	solutions	are	thus	prioritized,	and	what	are	some	key	implications.	To	do	so,	I	trace	how	the	water	resilience	agenda	is	unfolding	in	Cape	Town	by	documenting	the	various	framings	city	experts	draw	on	in	defining	and	operationalizing	resilience.	I	then	discuss	the	implications	for	building	water	resilience	in	Cape	Town.	Lastly,	Chapter	5	provides	a	contrasting	perspective	by	engaging	ideas	from	urban	political	ecology.	I	argue	that	Cape	Town’s	profoundly	unequal	urban	form	and	historical	legacies	are	key	barriers	to	fostering	socio-hydrological	resilience.	To	illustrate	this,	I	examine	aspects	of	Cape	Town’s	urban	form	related	to	informality	and	urban	risk,	inequality	in	water	and	sanitation	services,	and	river	corridor	restoration	projects.	These	examples	help	illustrate	diverse,	but	complementary	aspects	of	Cape	Town’s	waterscape,	and	offer	opportunities	to	situate	socio-hydrological	resilience	in	the	context	of	Southern	cities.	I	highlight	that	Cape	Town’s	marginalized	urban	spaces,	while	physically	located	at	the	periphery,	are	indeed	central	to	the	city’s	social-ecological	systems.	Ultimately,	I	illustrate	key	conflicts	and	disconnections	that	inhibit	efforts	to	build	socio-hydrological	resilience—namely,	disconnected	state-civil	society	knowledge	flows	and	disconnected	socio-ecological	systems.	I	will	argue	that	addressing	these	disconnections	and	centering	on	the	city’s	most	marginalized	spaces	is	paramount	in	Cape	Town’s	resilience	building	efforts—to	water	risks,	and	climatic	and	environmental	change	more	broadly.				 18	1.8 Dissertation contributions  This	doctoral	study	provides	a	synthesis	and	a	critical	evaluation	of	the	uptake	of	key	constituents	of	resilience	thinking	in	the	context	of	water	governance,	both	conceptually	and	in	practice.	The	analyses	help	assess	how	resilience	is	reframing	the	way	we	manage	urban	water	and	water-related	risks,	its	potential	strengths	and	weaknesses,	and	its	practical	implications	in	terms	of	fostering	adaptive	capacity	in	the	water	sector.	Overall,	this	research	helps	characterize	the	specific	challenges	that	resilience	poses	for	water	governance,	as	well	as	the	opportunities	that	it	creates	for	more	ecologically	sustainable	and	socially	just	urban	water	environments.	From	the	several	studies	conducted	as	part	of	this	research,	“water	resilience”	emerges	as	a	boundary	concept	that	encompasses	the	various	ontological	and	epistemological	dimensions	of	water,	as	well	as	the	tensions	and	convergences	that	arise	when	bridging	these	diverse	dimensions.			Further,	this	dissertation	culminates	in	developing	a	situated	understanding	of	resilience,	with	particular	attention	to	power,	marginalization	and	differentiation	as	key	dimensions	of	how	resilience	is	lived,	experienced	and	imagined	in	different	locales	and	by	different	populations.	More	specifically,	situating	water	resilience	in	the	context	of	Cape	Town	helps	uncover	the	ways	informal	urbanism,	as	one	of	many	dimensions	of	urban	inequality	and	marginality	that	characterise	many	cities	in	the	Global	South,	shapes	or	inhibits	resilience	outcomes.	I	chose	to	focus	on	informality	as	one	axis	to	juxtapose	Southern	cities	with	Northern	urban	contexts,	where	urban	form	is	more	often	centrally	planned.	The	complex	interactions	of	formal	and	informal	urbanism	in	cities	like	Cape	Town	give	rise	to	organic,	emerging	and	at	times	ungovernable	urban	processes	that	make	Southern	cities	differ	in	many	ways	from	their	Northern	counterparts	(Rakodi,	2002).	While	informality	in	Cape	Town	is	only	one	dimension	of	urban	inequality	and	marginality,	conceptually	it	allows	us	to	recalibrate	socio-hydrological	resilience	in	a	Southern	context	by	bringing	out	unique	urban	processes	and	challenges	that	have	important	implications	for	the	theory	and	practice	of	resilience.					 19	Lastly,	using	a	multiscalar	approach,	this	work	identifies	linkages	between	understandings	and	applications	of	resilience	at	the	global,	the	local	(municipal)	and	the	community	levels,	highlighting	cross-scalar	connections	or	discordances.	As	will	be	seen	later,	global	academic	and	policy	debates	highlight	the	“local”	as	a	key	scale	at	which	to	apply	resilience.	In	practice	as	well,	cities	have	become	leaders	in	resilience	initiatives	and	key	sites	of	resilience	building	experimentation.	As	such,	the	empirical	basis	of	this	study	provides	important	insights	towards	the	implementation	of	resilience-based	urban	water	governance	in	policy	and	practice,	which	is	presently	constrained	by	the	persistently	conceptual	nature	of	the	resilience	scholarship.		1.9 A note on positionality  Lastly,	as	knowledge	is	partial	and	situated,	so	is	my	own	understanding	and	interpretation	of	the	processes	I	studied	for	my	doctoral	research.	While	English	is	not	my	native	language,	I	work,	write	and	publish	in	English.	As	a	consequence,	I	have	prioritized	scholarship	on	resilience	only	in	this	language.	Indeed,	the	term	resilience	does	not	easily	translate	into	other	languages,	in	part	due	to	its	complex	meaning—resilience	does	not	simply	describe	an	object,	but	rather	a	combination	of	processes	and	outcomes	of	complex	system	interactions.	As	Berkowitz	(2013)	points	out,	there	is	richness	in	understanding	resilience	outside	its	strictly	technical	connotations,	which	likely	exists	in	other	languages	as	well.	For	example,	community	resilience	is	often	meant	to	mean	“strong,	self-reliant,	prepared	and	prosperous”.	In	ancient	Latin,	the	closest	words	to	the	concept	of	“resilience”	are	“fortitudo”	and	“constantia,”	which	approximately	mean	strength,	courage,	steadfastness,	and	perseverance	(Berkowitz,	2013).	In	Xhosa	(one	of	South	Africa’s	11	official	languages),	translations	of	resilience	tend	to	revolve	around	the	notion	of	“empowerment”	(personal	communication,	July	2016).	However,	as	English	is	the	dominant	language	in	much	of	the	scholarship	on	resilience,	the	English	language	literature	likely	encompasses	the	majority	of	this	work,	although	it	does	not	include	other	ways	of	understanding	resilience	as	might	be	articulated	in	non-English	work.	Further,	this	dissertation	engages	with	resilience	as	an	expert-driven	discourse,	particularly	in	decision-		 20	making	and	strategic	planning,	and	can	thus	be	alienating	to	those	who	are	not	fluent	in	this	discourse	or	for	non-English	speakers.			I	am	also	a	researcher	from	a	European	origin	and	conducted	my	doctoral	research	with	funding	from	the	Canadian	government.	I	had	the	privilege	to	travel	and	conduct	research	in	a	foreign	context.	More	importantly,	I	worked	in	South	Africa,	a	context	where	race	continues	to	play	an	important	role	in	shaping	spatial,	social	and	political	inequality	and	mediates	experiences	of	marginality.	My	being	white,	and	a	foreigner,	have	likely	led	to	limitations	in	understanding	the	deep	histories	and	inequalities	in	this	context.	As	a	representative	of	an	internationally	respected	university	and	with	the	support	of	several	local	professors	and	collaborators,	I	also	had	the	privilege	to	access	spaces	and	meet	people	who	are	largely	inaccessible	to	impoverished	residents	in	Cape	Town.	With	this	comes	a	great	responsibility	to	treat	with	care	and	represent	as	fairly	as	possible	what	I	have	learned	from	a	context	where	I	was	an	outsider.				 			 21	PART I 	In	the	first	part	of	this	dissertation,	I	will	engage	with	the	contours	of	“water	resilience”	as	a	scholarly/scientific	discourse.	Here	I	query	the	scientific	and	expert	knowledge	of	resilience	in	the	context	of	water	systems	and	water	governance.	I	first	analyze	how	resilience	as	a	concept	articulates	with	contemporary	thinking	in	the	academic	literature	on	water	governance	and	water	resource	management	across	various	and	often	disconnected	fields.	Specifically,	I	investigate	what	trends,	themes	and	propositions	emerge	from	the	water	governance	literature	that	draws	on	resilience	as	a	concept	(encompassing	water	engineering	disciplines	as	well	as	scholarship	on	social-hydrological	systems)	(Chapter	2).	In	Chapter	3	I	present	and	discuss	results	from	an	online	expert	survey	on	resilience	in	water	governance	to	compile	and	synthesize	a	more	comprehensive	understanding	of	the	various	strategies	that	can	help	build	water	resilience.	Chapter	3	serves	to	complement	Chapter	2	by	focusing	explicitly	on	practices	for	building	water	resilience—a	topic	that	is	much	less	clearly	articulated	in	the	academic	peer-reviewed	literature.	The	two	chapters	together	synthesize	the	academic	knowledge	on	“water	resilience”	at	the	global	scale	and	how	it	is	to	be	achieved,	while	also	highlighting	key	gaps	and	limitations	of	a	resilience	lens	in	water	governance.		 			 22	Chapter 2: Defining “Water Resilience”: debates, concepts, approaches and gaps  	2.1 Synopsis  Resilience	thinking	is	increasingly	applied	in	the	context	of	water	governance	in	response	to	climate	change	impacts,	hydrologic	variability,	and	uncertainty	associated	with	various	dimensions	of	global	environmental	change.	Drawing	on	a	systematic	scoping	review	of	the	peer-reviewed	academic	literature	and	an	analysis	of	ongoing	debates	in	water	resilience	literatures,	this	chapter	addresses	the	questions:	how	are	diverse	resilience	framings	(re)shaping	ideas	and	trends	in	water	governance,	and	what	are	the	associated	implications?	The	analysis	found	that	the	resilience-informed	water	governance	literature	remains	fragmented	and	predominantly	centered	on	conventional	approaches	and	framings	of	water	planning,	with	a	predominant	focus	on	engineering	resilience	in	water	supply	infrastructure.	More	recently	however,	a	newer	engagement	with	resilience	in	the	water	sector	draws	on	more	diverse	framings	and	theories	and	calls	for	a	shift	towards	more	integrative	and	ecologically-centered	thinking	in	water	governance.		Despite	this,	significant	empirical	and	conceptual	gaps	remain,	particularly	around	the	integration	of	the	various	sub-sectors	of	water	governance	and,	more	importantly,	around	the	institutional,	governance	and	equity	dimensions	of	building	water	resilience.			2.2 Introduction  Resilience	has	played	an	important	role	in	global	environmental	research	over	the	past	several	decades,	due	to	its	focus	on	managing	complexity,	emergence	and	change	across	scales,	all	of	which	pose	important	challenges	for	social-ecological	systems	worldwide.	With	the	growing	appreciation	of	complex	system	dynamics	in	a	human-dominated	planet,	or	what	is	referred	to	as	the	Anthropocene	(Biermann	et	al.,	2015;	Crutzen	and	Steffen,	2003),	environmental	resource	governance	is	shifting	from	managing	for	efficiency	and	optimization,	towards	enabling	and	fostering	the	ability	of	systems	to	change,	to	be	flexible,	to	reorganize	and	adapt	(Berkes	et	al.,	2012;	Folke	2016).	Indeed,	many	resilience	building			 23	principles,	such	as	flexibility,	interconnectedness,	or	social	learning	(Bigg	et	al.,	2012),	are	still	not	well	articulated	and	in	turn	operationalized	in	relation	to	specific	design,	planning	or	governance	practices	in	various	contexts	and	domains.	As	a	result,	resilience	thinking	has	received	merited	social	science	critiques	for	being	too	abstract,	apolitical	and	ahistorical	(Cote	and	Nightingale,	2012;	Olsson,	et	al.,	2015;	Vale,	2014).	However,	resilience	continues	to	be	relevant	and	widely	debated	(e.g.,	Eakin	et	al.,	2017;	Folke	2016),	as	there	is	now	a	growing	body	of	work	that	aims	to	situate	and	(re)contextualize	resilience	within	the	complex	realities	of	environmental	change	and	resource	governance	in	specific	contexts	(e.g.,	Brown,	2016;	Meerow	&	Newell,	2016;	Rockström	et	al,	2014b;	Rodina	et	al.,	2017;	Vale	2014;	Ziervogel	et	al.,	2017).			Water	systems	are	among	the	systems	most	critically	affected	by	global	environmental	change	and	other	stressors.	Much	research	has	already	highlighted	the	multiple	cumulative	pressures	on	global	water	resources—groundwater	depletion	(Aldaya,	2017),	rising	flood	risks	(Gaines,	2016),	and	critically	approaching	planetary	freshwater	boundaries	(Rockström	et	al.,	2009),	among	others.	From	a	water	security	perspective,	the	implications	of	these	changes	are	vast	and	far-reaching,	posing	threats	to	economic	growth	and	human	livelihoods.	In	response	to	these	challenges,	Bakker	(2012),	Farrelly	and	Brown	(2016),	Dunn	et	al.	(2016),	and	others	have	stated	the	need	to	transform	water	governance	towards	sustainability	by	integrating	complexity	and	uncertainty	in	water-related	decision-making	and	planning.	Over	the	past	decade	there	has	been	a	growing	acceptance	that	increasing	uncertainty	and	variability	in	the	hydrologic	cycle	will	pose	tremendous	challenges	for	water	planners	worldwide.	For	example,	many	would	agree	that	climate	change	undermines	the	long-held	assumption	of	stationarity,	or	the	idea	that	natural	systems	fluctuate	within	an	unchanging	envelope	of	variability	(Milly	2008,	p.573).	The	recent	acute	water	crises	in	California,	Saõ	Paolo	(Brazil),	and	Cape	Town	strongly	indicate	that	many	urban	water	systems	are	not	resilient	to	the	combined	effects	of	changes	in	the	hydrologic	cycle,	increasing	urbanization	pressures	and	governance	challenges.	Global	policy	discourses	are	now	also	embracing	resilience	thinking	as	a	necessary	approach	in	water	governance	that	can	help	address	the	impacts	of	climate	change	and	other	ongoing	stressors	(e.g.,	Brown	et	al.,	2009;	Salinas	Rodriguez,	2016).			 24		Water	systems	worldwide	are	embedded	in	infrastructural	legacies	and	design	paradigms	that	have	been	inflexible	and	slow	to	adapt	to	change	(Bell	et	al.,	2017;	Brown	et	al.,	2009;	White,	2010).	Despite	growing	evidence	for	the	need	to	transform,	the	water	sector	has	yet	to	adopt	fundamentally	innovative	and	transformative	practices.	As	we	will	see	below,	big	gaps	remain	between	the	policy	goals	of	building	water	resilience	and	the	scholarly	and	scientific	claims	and	evidence	base.	Specifically,	there	is	still	a	lack	of	sufficient	evidence	and	understanding	of	precisely	how	the	water	sector	is	to	adapt	to	fundamentally	different	hydrologic	futures,	not	only	in	terms	of	technology,	but	also	in	terms	of	governance	or	broader	behavioural	or	structural	changes,	among	other	dimensions	of	transformation.	Further,	there	remains	significant	conceptual	ambiguity	in	defining	resilience	and	the	systems	it	is	meant	to	apply	to.	This	is	likely	due	to	the	multidisciplinary	origins	of	resilience	and	its	openness	to	multiple	interpretations	(e.g.,	Olsson	et	al.,	2015)	that	have	inevitably	posed	tremendous	challenges	in	operationalizing	resilience	in	the	water	sector	(e.g.,	Johannesen	and	Wamsler,	2017).			To	address	these	gaps,	this	chapter	draws	on	evidence	from	a	systematic	scoping	review	of	the	peer-reviewed	literature	to	identify	key	trends,	concepts	and	insights	that	resilience	theories	are	offering	to	the	domain	of	water	resource	management	and	governance.	The	chapter	investigates	how	resilience	theory	has	influenced	thinking	in	various	aspects	of	water	governance,	including	drought	management,	flood	management,	water	supply,	sanitation,	etc.;	what	principles,	tools	or	practices	are	said	to	contribute	to	water-related	resilience;	the	scale	of	resilience	building	efforts;	who	is	responsible	for	them	and	who	benefits	from	them.	A	key	contribution	of	this	chapter	is	an	evaluation	and	an	overarching	assessment	of	the	theoretical	and	empirical	knowledge	base	on	water	resilience	in	global	water	governance	discourses,	highlighting	fruitful	avenues	for	future	research.		2.3 Resilience approaches in water resource governance Resilience	is	commonly	understood	as	the	ability	of	systems	(social	or	biophysical)	to	withstand	or	cope	with	risks,	shocks	or	stressors	(be	they	climate	change,	social	crises,			 25	economic	shocks	or	catastrophic	events)	while	continuing	to	maintain	certain	key	functions	or	structures.	Recently,	understandings	of	resilience	have	been	extended	to	include	the	idea	of	adapting	in	the	face	of	change	towards	more	desirable	states	(Folke,	2016).	Resilience	as	a	concept,	and	resilience	thinking	as	an	approach	to	conceptualizing	social-ecological	systems	as	complex	adaptive	systems,	has	been	widely	contested	and	(re)defined.	In	particular,	critiques	from	the	social	sciences	have	problematized	the	overly	abstract	and	technical	connotations	of	resilience	for	having	the	tendency	to	ignore	or	overly	simplify	questions	of	power	or	broader	social	dynamics	(Cote	and	Nightingale,	2012;	Harris	et	al.	2017;	MacKinnon	and	Derickson,	2012;	Rodina	et	al.,	2017;	Ziervogel	et	al.,	2017).	However,	today	resilience	remains	a	common	discourse	across	many	domains	(see	Xu	and	Kajikawa,	2017).	More	importantly,	resilience	thinking	has	arguably	become	a	dominant	discourse	in	the	domain	of	natural	resource	governance,	in	part	as	a	response	to	climate	change	and	related	adaptation	debates	(Bahadur	et	al.,	2013;	also	confirmed	by	bibliometric	studies	such	as	Xue	et	al.	2017,	Xu	and	Marinova,	2013	and	Xu	and	Kajikawa,	2017)	and	in	part	due	to	the	influential	work	of	the	Resilience	Alliance	(Folke,	2016).	Finally,	resilience	thinking	is	also	increasingly	applied	specifically	in	the	context	of	water	governance5	across	many	water-related	domains:	water	governance	at	urban	and	watershed	scales,	flood	management,	drought	management,	water	supply,	water	demand;	integrated	water	resource	management,	etc.	(e.g.,	Baird	et	al.,	2016a;	2016b;	Rockström	et	al.,	2014a;	Rijke	et	al.,	2013;	Salinas	Rodriguez	et	al.,	2014;	Shin	et	al.,	2018;	White	et	al.,	2016;	Xu	and	Kajikawa,	2017).			While	there	is	no	single	unified	definition	of	“water	resilience”,	building	resilience	in	the	water	sector	is	often	loosely	framed	as	contributing	to	improved	water	security	in	the	face	of	climate	change,	or	reduced	vulnerability	to	water-related	risks	and	hazards.	Resilience	is																																																									5	Water	governance	is	commonly	defined	as	the	range	of	political,	organizational	and	administrative	processes	through	which	communities	articulate	their	interests,	their	input	is	absorbed,	decisions	are	taken	and	implemented,	and	decision-makers	are	held	accountable	for	the	development	and	management	of	water	resources	and	delivery	of	water	services	(Bakker	and	Cameron	2005).	In	this	chapter	I	refer	to	water	governance	in	broader	sense,	to	include	management	at	various	aspects	of	the	water	cycle—flood	risk	management,	drought	management,	water	resource	management,	etc.						 26	rarely	explicitly	distinguished	from	water	security	or	other	related	terms,	and	this	leads	to	further	conceptual	ambiguity.	Arguments	from	work	on	water	resilience	have	been	made	for	increased	flexibility	in	the	water	sector	and	for	increased	reliance	on	natural,	or	green	infrastructure	as	a	flexible	option	with	multiple	benefits—from	flood	risk	mitigation	to	improving	water	supply	and	quality	(Bell	et	al.,	2017;	White,	2010).	Several	authors	have	highlighted	key	governance	dimensions	for	resilience,	such	as	polycentric	governance,	and	others	are	debating	the	benefits	of	decentralized	forms	of	governance	in	terms	of	increased	resilience	to	water-related	stressors	(Pahl-Wostl	et	al.,	2012;	Rijke	et	al,	2013).	Within	the	field	of	flood	risk	management	for	example,	articulations	of	resilience	thinking	are	found	in	arguments	for	a	shift	from	mitigation	of	flood	risk	(or	preventing	flooding)	to	adaptation	to	flood	risk,	meaning	accepting	some	levels	of	flooding	as	normal	and	adapting	through	allowing	flood	waters	to	run	through	the	city,	wet-proofing	basements,	etc.	(e.g.,	White	et	al.,	2016).	Overall,	the	literature	on	water	resilience	is	very	diverse	and	focuses	on	various	water	sectors,	dimensions	or	risks,	and	poses	both	conceptual	and	practical	challenges	for	water	governance.		At	the	global	water	policy	level,	in	addition	to	discourses	on	water	resilience	as	part	of	the	IPCC	reports,	UN	Water,	the	Global	Water	Partnership,	the	World	Bank,	OECD,	UNDP	and	The	European	Commission—organizations	playing	important	roles	in	global	water	governance—are	also	embracing	the	language	of	water	resilience.	Among	the	key	messages	is	the	need	to	increase	resilience—a	normative	imperative	that	implies	that	communities,	cities	and	hydrological	systems	need	enhanced	resilience	to	growing	water	stressors.	Further	highlighted	is	the	need	to	adapt	to	uncertainties	in	the	future	water	cycle	and	to	hazards,	such	as	floods	or	droughts.	More	importantly,	“water	resilience”	is	also	cast	as	a	counterpoint	to	conventional	water	planning,	which	is	perceived	to	be	ill-equipped	to	handle	future	hydrologic	variability.	For	example,	“conventional	water	planning	is	too	rigid	to	meet	the	challenges	ahead,	which	require	the	development	of	adaptive	governance	frameworks	and	institutions”	(UN	Water	2012,	p.	146).	However,	several	aspects	remain	unclear:	What	does	“water	resilience”	mean?	Who	benefits	from	it	and	what	are	the	appropriate	scales	for	governance	for	resilience?	A	second	key	theme	in	the	global	water	governance	discourse	on	building	resilience	to	climate	change	is	the	growing	attention	to			 27	non-technical	solutions	(i.e.,	related	to	behavioural	change,	design,	governance),	rather	than	relying	exclusively	on	technological	fixes.	This	echoes	scholars	who	have	argued	that	resilience	building	is	primarily	a	question	of	governance	(e.g.,	Allen	et	al.,	2017;	Biggs	et	al.,	2012,	Cutter,	2016;	Eakin	et	al.,	2017;	Harris	et	al.,	2017)—a	theme	that	will	be	developed	further	in	this	chapter.	Lastly,	there	is	a	call	for	innovation	and	transformation	of	water	governance	to	include	new	and	more	diverse	actors,	outside	the	traditional	water	management	departments	(UN	Water,	2012).	To	make	sense	of	these	diverse	claims,	this	chapter	provides	a	systematic	scoping	review	of	the	literature	that	operationalizes	resilience	in	the	context	of	water	management	and	governance,	to	provide	a	synthesis	of	the	key	trends,	debates,	knowledge	gaps	and	possibilities	for	a	resilient	water	governance.			2.4 Methodology The	chapter	presents	(1)	quantitative	analysis	of	coded	data	that	was	used	to	identify	themes	that	were	then	investigated	in	more	detail	through	a	(2)	qualitative	analysis	(i.e.,	detailed	review),	including	an	evaluation	of	key	governance	debates	and	characteristics	of	water	resilient	systems.	The	scoping	review	covers	the	English	language	peer-reviewed	academic	literature	to	date	in	the	Web	of	Science	and	ProQuest	scholarly	databases	that	uses	resilience	framings	in	the	context	of	water	governance	and	water	resources	planning	(including	drought	management,	flood	management,	water	access,	water	supply,	sanitation,	etc.)	Secondly,	academic	papers	that	discuss	aspects	of	governance	were	further	investigated	to	identify	practices,	solutions,	evidence	and	debates	that	emerge	from	the	literature	to	provide	further	insights	into	key	governance	dimensions	of	water	resilience.		2.4.1 Scoping review For	this	research,	a	scoping	review	was	conducted	following	Joanna	Briggs	Institute’s	methodology	(Joanna	Briggs	Institute,	2015),	adapted	to	meet	this	study’s	specific	questions	(as	per	Ford	et	al.,	2015).	Scoping	reviews	are	exploratory	and	most	often	used	to	map	the	conceptual	boundaries	and	the	extent	and	nature	of	evidence	on	a	topic	(Joanna			 28	Briggs	Institute,	2015)6.	They	follow	the	same	search	methodology	as	systematic	reviews,	which	are	growing	in	use	in	many	fields	(Grant	and	Booth,	2009),	in	part	due	to	the	rise	in	interdisciplinary	work	that	applies	multidimensional	concepts	such	as	resilience,	sustainability,	climate	change	adaptation	and	vulnerability,	that	span	across	diverse	literatures,	methodologies,	etc.	(Ford	et	al.,	2015).		The	scope	of	this	review	included	all	English-language	peer-reviewed	academic	literature	to	date	that	captures	human/anthropogenic	dimensions	of	water	in	a	range	of	water-related	domains.	To	be	as	comprehensive	as	possible,	a	wider	selection	of	keywords	was	used	than	has	been	observed	in	other	similar	reviews	(e.g.,	Bassett	and	Fogelman,	2013;	Cook	and	Bakker,	2012;	Gerlak	et	al.,	2018;	Shin	et	al.,	2018;	Righi	et	al.,	2015).	The	search	terms	resilience,	resilient	and	resiliency	were	used	in	proximity	to	over	20	water-related	search	terms,	such	as	water	resources,	water	security,	water	policy,	etc.,	in	the	titles,	abstracts	keywords,	full	texts	and	bibliography	(see	Appendix	A	for	supplementary	material).			Using	the	Boolean	operators	AND	and	OR,	which	are	commonly	used	in	systematic	reviews	[see	Ford	et	al.	(2015)	for	a	review	of	systematic	review	protocols],	produced	over	7000	search	results,	a	large	proportion	of	which	were	not	relevant,	because	the	term	resilience	often	appears	in	non-water	specific	contexts	such	as	climate	modelling,	energy,	transportation,	etc.	In	order	to	narrow	the	study	to	articles	that	explicitly	connect	resilience	to	some	aspect	of	water,	the	proximity	Boolean	operator	NEAR	was	used	instead	of	OR	or	AND.	Specifically,	I	searched	for	resilience,	resiliency	and	resilient	within	5	words	of	the	water-related	search	terms,	which	produced	narrower,	much	more	targeted	results.	The	revised	search	yielded	352	results	after	de-duplication.	This	approach	helped	to	scope	out	the	literature	that	explicitly	articulates	resilience	in	relation	to	water	planning,	governance	or	management	and	to	shed	light	on	the	key	theoretical	and	conceptual	insights.	In	consultation	with	specialists	from	the	Library	Research	Commons	at	the																																																									6	Scoping	reviews	and	systematic	reviews	overlap	in	their	search	methodology,	but	they	differ	in	their	objective.	Systematic	reviews	tend	to	have	a	narrowly	defined	focus,	while	scoping	reviews	are	broader	and	exploratory,	and	aim	to	identify	the	nature	and	extent	of	evidence,	theory	and	concepts	in	new	or	emerging	fields	(Grant	and	Booth,	2009;	Joanna	Briggs	Institute	2015).	In	this	study,	elements	of	systematic,	scoping	and	critical	(i.e.,	qualitative)	reviews	(as	per	Grant	and	Booth,	2009)	were	combined	for	a	comprehensive	assessment	of	an	emerging	topic—resilience	in	water	governance.				 29	University	of	British	Columbia	(Sally	Taylor	and	Sarah	Parker),	the	following	databases	were	identified	as	relevant	for	the	scope	of	the	research:	Web	of	Science,	ProQuest	EASD	and	ProQuest	PAIS	(see	Appendix	A	for	full	list	of	search	terms	and	how	they	were	identified).	149	papers	were	coded	following	the	coding	manual,	provided	in	Appendix	A.4)			This	scope	of	this	review	excludes	non-English	language	peer	reviewed	articles	as	well	as	texts	from	the	grey	literature,	which	while	important	are	difficult	to	capture	effectively.	To	focus	on	the	human	dimensions	of	water	governance	(e.g.,	pertaining	to	access	to	water	or	water	risks	to	humans)	amidst	a	large	and	growing	literature	(i.e.,	thousands	of	articles),	I	excluded	fields	such	as	biochemistry,	soil	science,	limnology	or	computational	fields,	as	well	as	articles	that	address	the	dynamics	in	specific	biotic	communities.	This	study’s	approach	might	also	have	missed	papers	that	do	not	use	the	term	“resilience”	specifically	while	still	referring	to	similar	framings	(e.g.,	reliability	in	the	water	engineering	fields).	For	more	details	on	the	scoping	review	methodology,	see	Appendix	A.		2.4.2 Analysis  The	focus	of	this	review	was	on	articles	where	resilience	was	explicitly	articulated	in	relation	to	aspects	of	water	management	or	governance.	For	example,	if	the	paper	mentioned	that	climate	change	impacts	necessitate	new	approaches	to	build	resilience	in	water	supply	systems,	“climate	change”	was	considered	as	the	stressor,	or	the	risk,	under	Resilience	to	What	(see	Appendix	A.4	for	a	coding	manual).	If	a	paper	discussed	resilience	to	drought,	but	did	not	explicitly	focus	on	climate	change,	then	the	paper	was	coded	for	resilience	to	drought,	as	separate	from	climate	change.	Most	categories	in	the	coding	manual	included	an	option	for	“other”	that	generated	additional	data	(e.g.,	additional	resilience	characteristics)	which	were	in	turn	added	to	the	final	analysis.	As	the	papers	were	very	diverse,	a	degree	of	subjective	interpretation	was	required	in	some	stages	of	the	coding	process.	The	coding	process	helped	identify	a	subset	of	papers	that	address	governance	aspects	of	applying	or	building	resilience	(e.g.,	stakeholder	engagement,	integration	across	governance	sectors,	etc.),	which	in	turn	were	subject	to	a	detailed	qualitative	review	to	help	contextualize,	elaborate,	or	find	examples	for	specific			 30	characteristics,	practices	or	actions	these	papers	address.	Lastly,	follow	up	co-citation	analysis	was	conducted	in	January	2018,	using	CitNetExplorerÓ		tool7,	to	identify	the	relationships	between	the	papers	in	the	dataset	and	to	create	a	network	that	represents	the	intellectual	lineages	within	the	dataset.		2.5 Summary results Figure	2.1	Cumulative	graph	of	all	papers.	This	graph	shows	the	papers	that	matched	the	search	criteria	(see	Appendix	A).	N=149,	no	papers	matching	the	search	criteria	were	found	before	1982.	Data	for	2017	is	partial,	as	the	bibliometric	data	was	acquired	in	July	2017.			In	line	with	other	overviews	of	the	resilience	scholarship	in	general	(Xu	and	Marinova,	2013),	the	top	countries	that	produce	English	language	literature	on	water	resilience	are																																																									7	Van	Eck,	N.J.,	&	L.	Waltman,	(2014)				 31	United	States,	Australia	and	the	UK	(followed	by	China,	Sweden,	The	Netherlands,	South	Africa,	Italy	and	others).	In	terms	of	university	affiliations,	the	sample	was	quite	dispersed,	showing	little	concentration	in	specific	institutions,	with	the	exception	of	Monash	University	in	Australia,	the	source	of	the	majority	of	Australian	publications.	This	shows	that	a	large	proportion	of	the	literature	informing	water	resilience	debates	is	produced	mainly	in	Western/Northern	industrialized	contexts.	The	literature	is	also	scattered	across	over	70	different	journals	(see	appendix	A.2	for	a	full	list),	which	speaks	to	the	multiplicity	and	variety	of	venues	that	address	topics	related	to	water	resilience.	Further,	the	co-citation	analysis	below	shows	that	the	academic	literature	on	“water	resilience”	is	fragmented,	mainly	between	work	on	engineered	systems,	ecosystems	management	and	urban	water	planning	and	governance	(see	Figure	2.2).					 32	Figure	2.2	Co-citation	network.	This	graph	shows	the	40	most	frequently	cited	publications	in	all	of	the	search	results	(n=352).	Each	circle	represents	a	publication,	the	label	shows	the	last	name	of	the	first	author,	with	cited	publications	located	above	the	citing	one:	i.e.,	the	earliest	papers	appear	at	the	top,	starting	at	1973	with	Holling’s	work,	and	the	latest	at	the	bottom.	The	colours	represent	3	clusters	of	publications	that	are	closely	related	to	each	other	in	the	citation	network.	The	green	cluster	represents	papers	mostly	drawing	on	engineering	notions	of	resilience	(see	below	for	definitions	and	examples),	the	blue	mostly	ecological	or	socio-ecological	work	focusing	on	water	resource	management,	and	the	purple	cluster	is	predominantly	focused	on	hybrid	urban	water	systems,	including	integrative	frameworks	such	was	Water	Sensitive	Urban	Design.	Overall,	this	diagram	serves	to	show	that	clusters	of	papers	cite	each	other,	forming	co-citations	subgroups	(e.g.,	the	green	group	at	the	bottom	left),	showing	a	degree	of	fragmentation	in	the	sample.	In	other	words,	the	field	of	scholars	who	use	resilience	terms	in	the	context	of	water	systems,	or	water	governance,	is	not	a	coherent	field,	but	rather	fragmented.				The	top	5	journals	are	Journal	of	Water	Resources	Planning	and	Management	(12	articles),	Water	Resources	Research	(10),	Journal	of	Hydrology	(9),	Ecology	and	Society	(8)	and	Water	(7).	The	scoping	review	results	demonstrate	that	engineering	notions	of	resilience,	typically	referring	to	a	measure	of	reliability	of	engineered	urban	water	supply	and	distribution	systems	to	continue	services,	have	been	used	since	at	least	1982,	and	likely	earlier	according	to	Hashimoto	(1982).	Engineering	resilience	of	water	systems	is			 33	concerned	with	the	ability	of	water	systems	to	maintain	pressure	and	continuous	supply	water.	Hashimoto	(1982)	shows	theoretical	bridging	of	engineering	and	ecological	notions	of	resilience	in	the	water	sector.	Specifically,	the	idea	that	highly	stable	systems	are	not	necessarily	resilient—because	they	cannot	accommodate	variability—has	contributed	to	some	theoretical	innovation	in	water	sector	(i.e.,	planning	for	greater	variability,	rather	than	enforcing	system	stability).	Around	2007,	the	literature	involving	resilience	framings	in	close	relation	to	water-related	systems	saw	a	stark	growth,	likely	due	to	the	growing	use	of	the	term	overall,	and	specifically	in	relation	to	climate	change	adaptation.	Indeed,	many	of	the	earlier	works	identified	in	the	study	have	“climate	change”	in	their	titles—for	example,	“Modeling	the	impacts	of	climatic	change	and	variability	on	the	reliability,	resilience	and	vulnerability	of	a	water	resource	system”	(Fowler,	2003),	“Adapting	to	climate	change	water	management	for	urban	resilience”	(Muller,	2007);	and	“Incorporating	climate	change	in	water	planning”	(Freas,	2008),	to	name	a	few	examples	(see	Appendix	A.5	for	a	list	of	the	reviewed	articles).			Around	the	same	time	(2008)	the	first	IPCC	Working	Group	Technical	Report	on	the	impacts	of	climate	change	on	freshwater	resources	drew	attention	to	the	language	of	resilience	by	referring	to	resilient	strategies	for	flood	management	(p.	51),	resilience	to	climate	variability	(p.	67),	or	resilience	of	water	supplies	(p.	71)	(Bates	et	al.,	2008).	Other	bibliometric	studies	of	resilience	scholarship	have	found	a	correlation	between	increased	interest	in	resilience	and	several	key	global	reports,	namely	the	Millennium	Ecosystem	Assessment	Reports	(2005),	the	Stern	Review	(2006),	the	Intergovernmental	Panel	on	Climate	Change	(IPCC)’s	4th	Assessment	Report	(2007)	(Xu	and	Marinova,	2013).	The	analysis	in	this	chapter	further	showed	that	the	literature	since	2007	draws	on	a	larger	variety	of	resilience	framings	beyond	engineering,	drawing	from	multiple	disciplines,	such	as	ecology,	social-ecological	systems,	and	more	recently	urban	resilience,	community	resilience,	and	institutional	resilience.	This	contrasts	with	the	papers	found	before	2007	that	tend	to	be	engineering	focused,	with	only	two	papers	referring	to	ecological	definitions	of	resilience	(Beck,	2005	and	Fiering,	1982).	Since	2007,	the	reviewed	literature	also	engaged	with	a	higher	diversity	of	systems,	components,	stressors,	and	so	forth	(see	Appendix	A.2	for	summary	reports).	Below	I	provide	further	detail	about	the	specific	ways			 34	in	which	resilience	is	articulated	in	various	water-related	domains,	with	a	focus	on	what	definitions	of	resilience	are	explicitly	articulated	in	the	papers,	in	relation	to	what	systems	resilience	is	defined,	at	what	scale	resilience	is	considered,	and	what	objects	are	to	be	made	resilient,	by	whom,	and	how.				2.6 Definitions, systems, scale, objects and characteristics of water resilience 2.6.1 Definitions of resilience In	this	section	I	discuss	the	types	of	resilience	definitions	used	in	the	reviewed	papers.		Overall,	many	papers	do	not	provide	explicit	definitions	of	resilience,	or	tend	to	use	the	terms	in	broad	or	vague	ways	(e.g.,	“unspecified”	is	the	third	most	common	category	of	definition	below,	see	Figure	2.3).	Among	those	that	do	define	resilience	more	explicitly,	the	differences	in	how	resilience	is	conceptualized	in	relation	to	water	systems	tend	to	revolve	around	two	main	axes:		• the	ability	to	bounce	back/return	to	normal,	or	the	ability	to	adapt	or	transform	in	response	to	changes	or	disturbances;	• types	of	systems	to	which	resilience	is	applied	to—coupled	social-ecological,	ecological,	the	built/grey	infrastructure,	or	social	systems.		Of	note	is	that	these	categories	can	and	do	overlap—for	example	notions	of	resilience	can	be	applied	to	different	kinds	of	systems,	from	social	to	engineered.	But	more	importantly,	key	disciplinary	divides	are	also	notable	in	the	water	literature	itself,	which	ranges	from	work	on	measuring	various	specific	capacities	of	water	supply	and	reticulation	systems,	to	work	on	community	resilience	to	drought.	One	of	the	observed	trends	from	the	analysis	was	that	the	biggest	proportion	of	papers	in	the	field	of	water	systems	engineering	(a	big	component	in	the	sample)	tend	to	draw	on	or	align	with	engineering	definitions	of	resilience	as	well.	As	such	engineering	notions	of	water	resilience	typically	tend	to	refer	to	specific	measurable	attributes	of	engineered	infrastructure	systems,	such	as	reliability,	recovery	or	ability	to	“bounce	back”	from	disruptions	(45%	of	the	papers;	see	also	recent	review	in	Shin	et	al.,	2018).	In	contrast,	water-related	literature	that	is	focused	on	eco-hydrological	systems	(i.e.,	wetlands,	rivers)	tends	to	draw	on	resilience	work	from	ecology			 35	and	social-ecological	systems	(see	Table	2.1	for	examples	of	these	definitions).	As	shown	below,	this	“ecological	water	resilience”	lineage	is	growing	more	noticeably	in	recent	years,	potentially	showing	a	creative	moment	in	terms	of	theory	bridging	in	the	water	management	literature	as	more	scholarly	work	draws	on	understandings	of	resilience	beyond	conventional	engineering	approaches.	As	noted	earlier,	the	number	of	papers	that	do	not	explicitly	define	resilience	has	also	been	on	the	rise—likely	a	driver	of	(or	an	effect	of)	the	conceptual	ambiguity	of	resilience	thinking	in	the	literature.	While	these	types	of	definition	are	necessary	simplifications,	and	do	not	capture	perfectly	the	more	nuanced	ways	of	articulating	“water	resilience”,	they	help	demonstrate	key	trends	and	fragmentation	in	the	literature	overall.	As	will	be	discussed	later,	the	ambiguity	and	tension	that	arise	from	these	diverse	and	potentially	incompatibles	ways	of	conceptualizing	“water	resilience”	pose	important	implementation	challenges.				In	terms	of	evidentiary	basis,	while	this	scoping	review	did	not	focus	in	depth	on	the	nature	of	the	evidence	in	the	reviewed	literature,	it	identified	in	broad	strokes	the	types	of	evidence	used	in	each	paper—i.e.,	whether	the	papers	drew	on	models,	conceptual	arguments	or	empirical	basis	(which	includes	a	range	of	approaches).	Overall,	38%	of	the	papers	based	their	claims	on	models,	42%	provided	some	form	of	empirical	evidence,	typically	from	case	studies,	and	8%	were	mostly	conceptual	pieces	(see	Appendix	A.2	for	more	details).				 36	Figure	2.3	Resilience	definitions.	This	is	a	cumulative	graph	of	the	different	types	of	definitions	of	resilience	identified	in	the	sample	since	2006.	The	majority	of	papers	align	with	engineering	notions	of	water	resilience	(see	Appendix	A.2	for	data	before	2006).	This	graph	shows	that	while	engineering	notions	of	water	resilience	are	predominant	in	the	sample,	there	are	also	growing	trends	in	other	framings	or	approaches	of	resilience	in	the	context	of	water.	Notable	is	also	a	growing	number	of	papers	that	do	not	define	resilience	(i.e.,	unspecified).					 37	Table	2.1	Resilience	definitions	as	articulated	in	the	bodies	of	the	reviewed	papers.	Numbers	are	non-cumulative	given	that	an	article	may	be	classified	into	multiple	non-exclusive	categories.	N	=	149,	time	period	1982	–	July	2017.	Examples	are	provided	as	illustrations,	although	there	might	be	some	variability	in	how	different	papers	articulate	these	different	principles.	Resilience	definitions,	as	articulated	in	the	papers	 Notable	examples	Number	of	papers	 %	Engineering	 The	time	it	takes	a	system	(typically	built	infrastructure)	to	return	to	normal,	or	maintain	reliability	and	functionality,	after	a	disturbance	(examples	in	Hashimoto	et	al.,	1982;	Fowler	at	al.	2003;	Todini	et	al.,	2000),	often	synonymous	with	or	linked	to	system	reliability.	68	 45.6%	Social-ecological	systems	 The	capacity	of	coupled	social-ecological	systems	to	cope	or	transform	in	the	face	of	change	(Wong	et	al.,	2009;	Schluter	et	al.,	2007)	 28	 18.8%	Ecological	 The	capacity	of	a	system	(typically	ecological	system)	to	absorb	a	shock	without	changing	states	(Beck	et	al.,	2005;	Falkenmark	et	al.,	2010;	Richey	et	al.,	2015)	 17	 11.4%	Community	 The	ability	of	communities	to	cope	or	adapt	in	the	face	of	change	(D’Odorico	et	al.,	2010;	Schelfaut	et	al.,	2011;	Lopez	Marrero	et	al.,	2011)	 12	 8.1%	Institutional	 The	ability	of	institutions/governments	to	cope	or	adapt	in	the	face	of	change	(Green	et	al.,	2013;	Head	et	al.,	2014;	Odom	et	al.,	2011)	 10	 6.7%	Unspecified	 Papers	that	use	resilience	framings	but	do	not	explicitly	define	what	they	mean	by	resilience.	 18	 12.1%		2.6.2 Water domains and scale  The	quantitative	analysis	showed	that	the	most	prominent	domain	in	the	context	of	which	resilience	is	applied	is	water	supply	(61%),	followed	by	water	resource	management	(33%),	and	drainage/stormwater	management	(12%)	(for	more	details	refer	to	Appendix	A.	2).	Other	water-specific	sectors,	such	as	sanitation	and	wastewater	management	are	much	less	frequently	the	focus	of	resilience	in	the	reviewed	studies.	Resilience	of	sanitation	and	resilience	of	water-related	institutions	were	only	mentioned	a	handful	of	times	and	are	therefore	underrepresented	in	the	review.	The	scale	at	which	resilience	is	applied	varies	from	water	distribution	systems	(being	the	most	common,	mentioned	by	36%	of	the	papers),	followed	by	ecological	scales	(this	includes	examples	such	as	watersheds	and			 38	rivers,	25%)	and	the	city	scale	(21%).	There	is	also	a	growing	number	of	mentions	of	resilience	across	scales	(although	the	papers	often	do	not	explicitly	mention	which	ones).	These	nonetheless	focus	primarily	on	local	or	urban	scales	with	less	explicit	focus	on	national	or	global	scales.	This	signifies	an	overall	recognition	of	the	multiplicity	of	scales	that	are	relevant	for	resilience	building,	with	water	distribution	systems	being	the	main	focus	of	concern.	However,	there	remains	a	persistent	lack	of	specificity	around	boundaries	and	cross-scalar	interactions.	To	capture	more	nuance,	the	“city”	scale	was	separated	from	other	delimitations	of	the	“local”	in	the	coding	process—with	“local”	typically	used	to	refer	to	the	scales	smaller	than	cities,	such	as	communities	or	neighbourhoods.	However,	if	we	include	cities	as	local	scales,	it	becomes	obvious	that	the	majority	of	the	literature	on	water	resilience	considers	localized	places	(cities,	communities,	watersheds)	as	the	scales	at	which	resilience	is	to	be	built,	as	opposed	to	national,	transnational/regional,	or	global	scales.		While	some	conceptual	papers	have	suggested	the	need	for	greater	attention	to	cross-scalar	interactions,	to	date	this	is	not	well	evidenced	in	the	literature	(see	Appendix	A.2	for	summaries).			2.6.3 Resilience of what (of whom) and to what? In	terms	of	systems,	the	literature	reviewed	in	this	study	focused	on	built	infrastructure	systems,	such	as	dams	or	pipes	(52%	of	papers),	eco-hydrological	systems,	such	as	wetlands	or	rivers	(17%),	followed	by	hybrid	systems	that	encompass	some	combination	of	the	above	mentioned	(10%)	and	social	systems,	such	as	communities	or	institutions	(8%).	The	built	environment	is	the	main	focus,	with	more	research	on	the	resilience	of	the	built	infrastructure	than	other	water-related	systems,	including	social	systems.	This	conclusion	in	combination	with	the	fact	that	the	vast	majority	of	the	papers	(around	70%)	do	not	specify	explicitly	who	resilience	is	for	(i.e.,	whether	building	resilience	is	for	specific	communities,	or	types	of	consumer	groups)	potentially	signifies	an	assumption	that	resilient	non-human	systems	benefit	society	universally,	with	little	discussion	of	whether	some	groups	of	society	are	more	likely	to	benefit	from	specific	resilience	building	actions	than	others.	Of	course,	this	does	not	mean	that	biophysical	and	ecological	systems	do	not	contribute	to	societal	resilience;	however,	this	focus	on	biophysical	systems	has	possibly			 39	resulted	in	a	lack	of	comprehensive	understanding	of	the	various	social	dimensions	that	may	affect	resilience	to	water-related	risks	differently	for	different	groups.	From	the	papers	that	do	specify	who	resilience	is	for,	the	most	common	mentions	are	communities,	used	in	a	general	sense	(24%).	Resilience	of	vulnerable	communities	or	water-related	institutions	is	mentioned	much	less	often.	In	terms	of	the	risks	to	which	resilience	building	is	framed,	climate	change	impacts	are	the	most	commonly	cited	stressor	(41%),	followed	by	drought	(30%),	socio-economic	and	political	stressors	(22%).	This	finding	supports	the	argument	that	climate	change	is	driving	much	of	the	resilience	informed	literature	(see	Appendix	A.2	for	more	details).		2.6.4 Characteristics of water resilient systems The	coding	of	the	papers	revealed	a	large	number	of	characteristics	or	attributes	that	are	important	for	or	contribute	to	increased	resilience	in	water-related	systems	(see	question	22	in	the	coding	manual	in	Appendix	A.4).	For	clarity	I	grouped	the	resilience	characteristics	yielded	through	the	coding	process	under	the	following	categories:	general	design	characteristics	(i.e.,	those	that	can	apply	to	any	kind	of	system,	social	or	biophysical),	biophysical	characteristics	and	social	system	characteristics.	Several	of	the	characteristics	were	added	from	the	open-ended	entries	under	“other”	after	the	coding.		In	terms	of	general	design	characteristics	that	could	apply	to	social,	natural	or	built/engineered	systems,	adaptive,	interconnected	and	flexible	are	the	most	common	characteristics	noted,	with	adaptive	used	in	relation	to	various	systems	and	practices,	including	governance	(see	Table	2.2)				 40	Table	2.2	Characteristics,	of	water	resilient	systems.	As	part	of	the	scoping	review,	the	papers	were	coded	for	which	aspects	they	mention	as	characteristic	of	resilient	systems.	They	were	then	organized	by	category	(referring	to	systems	in	general,	or	to	social	or	biophysical		systems).	Numbers	are	non-cumulative	given	that	an	article	may	be	classified	into	multiple	non-exclusive	categories.	N	=	149,	time	period	1982	–	July	2017.	Category	 System	characteristics	 Count	 %	of	all	papers		Biophysical	characteristics		Robust			Having	redundancy			Able	to	recover	quickly			Having	buffer	capacity			Multi-functional	systems				44		21		9		5		2			29.5%		14.1%		6%		3.4%		1.3%			Social	characteristics		Collaborative		Involving	social	learning			Decentered			Participatory			Involving	diverse	knowledge			Able	to	deal	with	uncertainty			Equitable			Resourceful			Legitimate			Transparent				41		25		24		23		15		6		5		3		3		1			27.5%		16.8%		16.1%		15.4%		10.1%		4%		3.4%		2%		2%		0.7%			General	system	properties	(may	apply	to	social,	built	or	ecological	systems)		Adaptive			Interconnected			Flexible			Having	diversity			Transformative			54		49		45		19		18			36.2%		32.9%		30.2	%		12.8%		12.1%			To	provide	more	context	for	these	characteristics,	examples	from	the	papers	are	provided	below.	For	example,	some	authors	argue	that	resilient	systems	are	those	capable	of	adapting	to	a	wide	range	of	potential	climate	scenarios	(Howard	et	al.,	2010).			 41	Interconnectivity	can	relate	to	connections	across	scales	or	sectors	or	having	high	levels	of	integration	across	different	levels	of	governance.	As	one	example,	Chappells	and	Medd	(2012)	argue	for	increased	resilience	through	greater	network	interconnectivity	among	water	companies	to	work	together	on	a	local	or	regional	grid	basis	to	improve	the	supply-demand	balance.	From	another	example,	in	discussing	Water	Sensitive	Urban	Design	as	a	strategy	to	achieve	urban	water	resilience,	Wong	and	Brown	(2009)	cite	flexible	technology,	flexible	infrastructure	and	urban	form	as	well	as	flexibility	to	access	a	“portfolio”	of	water	sources	as	highly	important.			Several	of	the	characteristics	refer	to	design	principles	for	biophysical	systems	(refer	to	Table	2.2).	Among	the	most	common	are	robust,	having	redundancy	and	able	to	recover	quickly—all	referring	to	the	abilities	of	systems	to	withstand	and	persist,	rather	than	adapt	and	transform,	contrary	to	what	some	authors	are	calling	for	(only	12%	of	papers	argue	that	transformation	or	transformative	potential	is	key	for	a	resilient	water	system).	The	analysis	also	showed	a	number	of	characteristics	that	apply	to	social/governance	systems,	with	collaborative	being	the	most	common.	Collaboration	points	to	connections	across	sectors	that	have	been	previously	disconnected,	or	between	science,	policy	and	the	public.	For	example,	Dunn	et	al.	(2017)	point	to	cross-sectoral	collaboration	as	one	key	characteristic	of	successful	urban	transitions	towards	resilient	urban	water	management	in	Rotterdam.			Decentered	(16%	of	papers)	refers	to	several	governance	characteristics—polycentric,	decentralized	or	having	a	mix	of	centralized	and	decentralized	structures	(see	more	details	below).	The	quantitative	analysis	showed	that	a	smaller	number	of	papers	mention	participatory,	equitable,	legitimate	and	transparent	as	important	governance	characteristics	for	water	resilience.	However,	a	detailed	review	of	these	papers	did	not	find	sufficient	empirical	evidence	for	these	claims.	In	sum,	adaptability,	flexibility	and	connectivity	across	scales	and	sectors	are	considered	highly	important	characteristics	of	resilient	water	systems	by	many	authors,	and	collaboration	is	identified	as	one	key	factor	that	can	enable	connectivity.	Upon	reading	the	papers,	I	found	little,	if	at	all,	discussion	about	trade-offs	and	relative	importance	of	these	various	dimensions	of	water	resilience,	which	is	an			 42	important	consideration	to	be	addressed	in	future	research	[of	note	is	recently	emerging	literature	on	resilience	trade-offs	by	Chelleri	et	al.	(2015)	and	others,	even	though	it	does	not	directly	deal	with	resilience	in	water	systems,	and	therefore	was	not	captured	in	this	review].			2.6.5 Institutional, governance and practical dimensions of water resilience  In	this	section,	I	delve	in	more	detail	into	the	governance	and	institutional	processes	for	building	resilience	identified	in	the	reviewed	literature	(see	question	20	in	the	coding	manual	in	Appendix	A.4).	Several	principles	were	added	from	the	open-ended	entries	under	“other”.	Overall,	while	much	of	the	literature	on	water	resilience	focuses	on	technological	solutions,	a	smaller	number	of	scholars	look	at	the	institutional	and	governance	aspects	of	building	resilience	(see	Table	2.3).	The	quantitative	analysis	shows	that	57%	of	the	reviewed	papers	(85	papers)	do	not	mention	any	specific	institutional	or	governance	processes	as	important	or	necessary.	Further,	I	investigated	how	papers	frame	the	responsibility	to	build	resilience	(in	other	words,	who	is	typically	tasked	with	resilience	building)	and	what	institutional	or	governance	processes	and	practices	are	recommended	as	important	for	resilience	building	efforts.		Table	2.3	Institutional	and	governance	characteristics	and	practices	that	increase	resilience.	This	table	shows	which	institutional	or	governance	processes,	broadly	defined,	have	been	identified	as	important	for	building	water-related	resilience.	Some	of	the	processes	were	identified	before	coding,	and	some	emerged	during	the	coding	process.	Numbers	are	non-cumulative	given	that	articles	may	be	classified	into	multiple	non-exclusive	categories.	The	reported	numbers	indicate	%	of	all	papers	in	the	sample	that	mention	each	principle.	Several	of	the	characteristics	are	mentioned	by	a	very	small	number	of	papers,	but	as	they	may	signify	emerging	or	nascent	ideas,	they	were	included	in	the	table.	Examples	are	provided	as	an	illustration,	although	there	is	some	variability	in	how	different	papers	articulate	different	principles,	which	would	benefit	from	further	study.	N	=	149,	time	period	1982	–	July	2017.	Through	what	governance	institutional	processes	is	resilience	achieved?	Details/examples	 Number	of	papers	 %	of	all	papers	Unspecified	 Papers	that	did	not	discuss	or	specify	any	institutional	or	governance	processes	as	necessary	or	important	for	building	resilience.	 85	 57.0%			 43	Through	what	governance	institutional	processes	is	resilience	achieved?	Details/examples	 Number	of	papers	 %	of	all	papers	Collaborative	processes	 Example:	Ericksen	(2015)	argue	for	collaborative	watershed	governance,	involving	coordination	between	watershed	groups,	institutions	and	agencies	at	different	governance	scales,	and	policy	makers	as	key	for	building	resilience.	36	 24.2%	Stakeholder	engagement	 Example:	Kirchoff	and	Dilling	(2015)	argue	that	collaboration,	coordination,	and	deliberation	among	diverse	stakeholders	across	scales	is	critical	for	adaptive	and	resilient	water	governance.	31	 20.8%	Government-led	(top	down)	 Example:	Watson	et	al.	(2017)	discuss	a	case	of	building	resilience	to	water	scarcity	in	Australia	as	an	institutional	and	regulatory	effort,	i.e.,	resilience	can	be	enhanced	through	government-led	policy	and	incentives.		24	 16.1%	New	cross-sectoral	institutions/arrangements	 Salinas	Rodriguez	et	al.	(2014)	discuss	resilience	in	the	context	of	water-sensitive	urban	design	and	highlight	the	need	for	new	programs	or	alliances	at	the	municipal	level	that	cross	beyond	traditional	water	departments	and	institutions	to	be	able	to	address	complex	and	interconnected	challenges.	15	 10.1%	Inclusive	governance	 Example:	Kirchhoff	and	Dilling	(2015)	argue	that	one	of	the	features	of	adaptive	resilient	water	governance	is	diverse	and	representative	participation,	collaboration,	and	deliberation.	12	 8.1%	Community/civil	society-led	 Example:	Altaweel	et	al.	(2010)	discuss	resilience	building	to	changes	in	freshwater	in	rural	Alaska	as	a	community	effort,	stressing	community	decision-making	processes	and	strong	social	relationships	as	central	to	increased	social	resilience.	10	 6.7%	Equity	 Example:	Gooch	and	Rigano	(2010)	identified	lack	of	equity	as	a	barrier	to	community-scale	social	resilience	in	a	study	from	Northern	Queensland,	presumably	implying	that	equity	enables	or	strengthens	social	resilience.	4	 2.7%	Transparent		governance	 Akamani	(2016)	argues	for	analytic	deliberation	(i.e.,	well-structured	dialogue	involving	scientists,	resource	users,	and	interested	publics,	and	informed	by	analysis	of	key	information	about	environmental	and	human-environment	systems)	as	a	way	to	address	the	need	for	inclusive	and	integrative	institutional	mechanisms	for	the	transparent	and	evidence-based	negotiation	of	trade-offs	among	stakeholders	in	the	water	governance	process	for	resilience.	4	 2.7%	Capacity	building	 Green	et	al.	(2013)	stress	both	institutional	and	local	capacity	building	as	key	for	resilience	of	transboundary	treaties	in	the	Okavango	river	basin.	 3	 2.0%			 44	Through	what	governance	institutional	processes	is	resilience	achieved?	Details/examples	 Number	of	papers	 %	of	all	papers	Multi-level	governance	 According	to	Lu	et	al.	(2013),	among	the	characteristics	of	urban	resilience	to	flood	risk	(in	Rotterdam)	is	multi-level	coordination	in	decision-making	between	national,	provincial	and	local	governments		3	 2.0%	Participatory	processes	 Green	et	al.	(2013)	further	argue	that	meaningful	public	participation—the	exchange	of	information	and	input	that	occurs	at	a	time	and	place	convenient	to	local	citizen	volunteers—is	key	for	institutional	resilience.		3	 2.0%	Integrated	governance	 Caniglia	et	al.	(2016)	see	fragmentation	as	a	barrier	to	adaptive	and	resilience	governance	and	therefore	argue	for	integration	and	open	communication	between	the	different	actors	or	agencies.	2	 1.3%	Adaptive	governance	 Clarvis	et	al.	(2014)	apply	resilience	to	re-conceptualize	water	law	as	a	complex	adaptive	system	and	argue	that	legal	frameworks	should	be	more	adaptive	and	flexible	to	meet	new	and	diverse	challenges.		2	 1.3%	Accountability	 Johannessen	and	Wamsler	(2017)	discuss	what	resilience	in	urban	water	systems	means	and	highlight	accountability	(and	particularly	improved	accountability	in	urban	water	systems)	as	an	enabling	factor	of	socio-economic	resilience	as	it	helps	builds	trust	and	enhance	human	agency	and	thus	facilitate	more	easily	transition	processes	towards	water	sensitive	cities.	1	 0.7%	Mix	of	centralized	and	decentralized	processes	 Rijke	et	al.	(2013)	provides	important	insights	regarding	the	need	for	a	mix	of	centralized	and	decentralized,	and	formal	and	informal,	governance	approaches	to	support	effective	governance	of	water	infrastructure	during	different	stages	of	adapting	to	drought	and	transitioning	to	a	water	sensitive	city	that	is	resilient	to	immediate	and	gradual	change.	1	 0.7%	Social	legitimacy	 Cosens	and	Williams	(2012)	identify	social	legitimacy	(public	acceptance	of	governmental	action)	as	a	big	gap	in	thinking	about	social	resilience.	Specifically,	they	argue	that	decisions	about	whether	to	use	adaptive	management,	what	to	monitor,	and	how	to	make	incremental	adjustment	must	be	made	in	a	manner	that	fosters	legitimacy.	1	 0.7%		Among	the	governance	processes,	the	most	commonly	mentioned	attribute	is	collaborative	processes	(24%),	followed	by	stakeholder	engagement	(20%),	and	government-led	processes	(16%).	New	cross-sectoral	arrangements	are	mentioned	in	10%	of	the	papers,	indicating	some	(albeit	small)	support	for	the	idea	that	current	formal	processes	and	institutional			 45	organizations	are	in	fact	ill-equipped	to	deal	with	the	complex	cross-scalar	dynamics	of	building	water	resilience.	A	range	of	other	processes	are	occasionally	mentioned	as	well,	however,	there	does	not	seem	to	be	converging	knowledge	around	the	most	important	institutional	processes	for	building	resilience,	except	for	collaborative	processes	and	stakeholder	engagement.	Of	note	is	also	the	lack	of	explicit	articulation	of	the	differences	between	these	processes—i.e.,	how	collaborative	processes	differ	or	overlap	with	stakeholder	engagement—which	opens	up	many	critical	questions	for	further	research.				Despite	the	acknowledgement	of	the	importance	of	collaborative	processes,	the	majority	of	the	reviewed	papers	frame	resilience	building	in	the	water	sector	as	the	responsibility	of	water	managers	(93	papers,	or	62	%	of	all	papers	in	the	sample),	typically	including	operators,	people	who	run	facilities,	and	people	who	are	responsible	for	strategic	planning	for	water	resources,	followed	by	governments	or	water-related	institutions	(33%),	or	multiple	(often	unspecified)	stakeholders	(12%)	(See	Figure	2.4).	In	other	words,	while	many	calls	are	made	for	opening	up	the	water	governance	space	to	broader	sets	of	actors	and	stakeholders,	the	literature	predominantly	frames	resilience	building	as	a	task	for	conventional	actors	in	the	water	resource	sector,	namely	local	governments	and	water	managers.	A	deeper	engagement	with	these	papers	shows	that	stakeholder	engagement	and	participation	tend	to	be	seen	as	processes	that	help	get	buy-in	or	social	acceptance	of	resilience	building	actions	that	remain	predominantly	decided	on	by	governments	and	water	managers.	This	implies	that	participation	tends	to	be	seen	as	important	only	in	later	stages	of	resilience-building,	not	necessarily	in	the	planning	and	strategic	decision-making	ones.	This	can	be	problematic	because	for	decision	making	processes	to	be	truly	collaborative	and	flexible,	as	the	water	resilience	literature	is	calling	for,	decision	spaces	need	to	be	opened	up	for	more	diverse	input	at	earlier	stages	as	well.					 46	Figure	2.4	Responsibility	for	resilience	building.	This	cumulative	graph	shows	the	main	actors	that	the	papers	mention	or	assume	as	responsible	for	building	water	resilience,	shown	in	order	of	frequency	from	highest	to	lowest.	The	most	common	actors	are	water	managers,	governments/institutions,	and	multiple	stakeholders	(often	not	specified	which	ones).			In	terms	of	management	practices	in	the	water	sector,	a	large	proportion	of	the	water	resilience	literature	advocates	for	managing	resilience	at	the	supply	side	as	opposed	to	the	demand	side	(see	Appendix	A.2).	For	example,	Chappells	and	Medd	(2012)	in	their	case	study	in	the	UK	found	that	“for	many	water	managers	long-term	resilience	is	still	firmly	associated	with	the	domain	of	supply,	with	strategies	focused	on	developing	supply	interconnectivity,	increasing	winter	abstraction	for	recharge,	and	exploring	opportunities	for	effluent	recycling	or	desalination.	This	focus	means	“marginalizing	investing	in	less	certain	options	such	as	household	demand	management	or	in-house	recycling”	(p.313).	Further,	their	case	study	suggests	that	this	effectively	stifles	adaptive	or	resilience-enhancing	strategies	at	smaller/micro-scales.			 47		It	appears	therefore	that	attempts	by	consumers	to	manage	resilience	through	flexible	adaptation	and	transformation	locally	are	thwarted	by	entrenched	forms	of	resistance	at	the	regime	level.	In	this	context	it	is	difficult	to	envisage	how	the	need	to	build	momentum	around	certain	niche	developments	or	indeed	the	need	for	strategic,	integrative	and	adaptive	water	systems,	as	outlined	in	the	[UK]	government’s	future	water	strategy,	might	be	realized	without	more	comprehensive	regime-level	change	(Chappells	and	Medd,	2012,	p.	313)		In	other	words,	these	authors	argue	that	there	is	a	risk	that	the	dominant	conventional,	supply	and	infrastructure-centered	thinking	about	water	resilience	can	effectively	stifle	potentially	transformative	shifts	towards	more	flexible	and	adaptive,	and	ultimately	more	resilient	forms	of	water	management.		2.7 Discussion Overall,	the	impact	and	application	of	resilience	as	a	concept	in	research	on	water	governance	remains	somewhat	ambiguous;	however,	several	emerging	trends	are	of	note.	As	the	water	governance	literature	that	draws	on	resilience	thinking	is	proliferating,	so	are	the	conceptualizations	and	approaches	to	resilience	in	various	domains	of	water.	As	a	result,	there	are	multiple	and	competing	notions	of	“water	resilience”,	including	claims	for	why	and	how	it	should	be	achieved	in	the	context	of	various	water	systems.	However,	this	review	found	very	few	papers	that	specifically	define	and	articulate	what	“water	resilience”	is,	what	novel	tools	or	practices	it	brings,	and	how	it	is	different	from	conventional	approaches	to	water	governance	(notable	exceptions	include	Johannessen	and	Wamsler,	2017;	Rockström	et	al	2014b;	Salinas	Rodriguez	et	al.,	2014,	Shanze,	2015).	“Water	resilience”	thus	emerges	as	a	boundary	concept,	loosely	encompassing	the	various	ways	scholars	conceptualize	and	theorize	the	ability	of	various	water	systems,	from	social	to	biophysical,	to	cope	with	and	transform	in	the	face	of	multiple	risks.			Overall,	resilience	thinking	in	the	academic	literature	on	water	governance	is	applied	in	patchy	ways,	separated	into	sub-domains	of	water	governance	(e.g.,	resilience	for	urban	water	systems	vs.	flood	resilience),	without	significant	theoretical	or	empirical			 48	convergence	around	definitions	or	characteristics	of	resilient	water	systems.	One	likely	reason	for	this	is	the	nature	of	the	water	sector	itself—it	is	highly	fragmented,	with	water	supply,	flood	management	and	other	aspects	of	water	being	dealt	with	by	different	disciplines	and	managed	in	siloed	ways	(Bell	et	al.,	2017).	However,	applying	resilience	thinking	in	a	more	meaningful	way	will	require	incorporating	emerging	knowledge	of	cross-scalar	interactions	and	complex	system	dynamics,	which	in	the	water	governance	literature	would	be	mean	shifting	towards	more	holistic,	or	integrative	ways	of	managing	water	along	the	hydrological	cycle	(e.g.,	Wong	and	Brown,	2008).	This	would	mean	bridging	and	combining	insights	and	lessons	from	the	rather	disconnected	domains	of	socio-ecological	and	engineering	water	resilience.					A	second	important	observation	is	the	persistence	of	disciplinary	divides	in	resilience	thinking	[also	observed	by	Meerow	et	al.	(2016)	in	their	systematic	review	of	“urban	resilience”].	Research	in	water	resource	management	remains	predominantly	engineering	focused	and,	as	seen	in	the	results	above,	engineering	notions	of	resilience	tend	to	dominate	this	work.	A	key	limitation	of	this	lineage	is	the	narrow	focus	on	technical	system	performance	without	explicitly	linking	in	to	broader	socio-ecological	processes	that	shape	water	supply	and	water	access.		As	many	authors	have	highlighted,	building	resilience,	from	local	to	global	contexts,	is	fundamentally	a	socio-political	and	governance	challenge,	beyond	being	a	merely	technical	issue	(e.g.,	Eakin	et	all,	2017;	Harris	et	al.,	2017;	Trell	et	al.,	2018).	Indeed,	resilience	building	is	embedded	in	complex	interactions	between	social	behaviour,	norms,	politics,	values,	and	economics	embedded	in	socio-ecological	systems.	The	same	applies	for	engineered	water	systems—they	do	not	operate	outside	hydrological,	climatic,	and	social	processes—instead	they	interact	with	urbanization,	demand	for	hydrological	services	from	humans	and	nature,	changing	behaviours	and	habits,	and	even	politics,	as	we	see	in	highly	politicized	water	crises,	such	as	the	recent	case	with	Cape	Town	(Olivier,	2017).	Once	again,	this	signals	the	value	and	indeed	the	need	to	bridge	these	distinct	ways	of	thinking	about	water	resilience.			In	assessing	various	claims	and	propositions,	this	scoping	review	found	a	lack	of	agreed	upon	principles,	or	unifying	work,	as	the	evidentiary	basis	does	not	support	any	one			 49	particular	set	of	characteristics	of	resilient	water	systems,	either	from	a	technical	or	a	governance	point	of	view.	This	could	be	attributed	to	the	nascent	nature	of	the	resilience	informed	scholarship	on	water	governance,	with	the	possibility	of	more	theoretical	innovation	later	on.	Two	themes	that	emerged	from	the	analysis	are	of	note.	First,	while	much	of	the	work	on	water	resilience	is	fragmented,	there	is	a	smaller	but	promising	literature	that	points	to	more	integrative	ways	of	managing	water	that	draw	on	engineering,	ecological	and	hybrid	notions	of	resilience	(e.g.,	Water	Sensitive	Urban	Design).	Secondly,	I	elaborate	on	the	governance	dimensions	that	emerge	from	this	literature	as	they	lend	key	insights	for	planning	for	water	resilience,	particularly	around	centralized	versus	decentralized	modes	of	governance,	equity,	and	other	key	social	goals	in	relation	to	resilient	water	systems.		2.7.1 Integrative approaches in water governance In	terms	of	innovative	water	management	practices,	the	literature	on	Water	Sensitive	Urban	Design	(WSUD)	is	the	only	example	found	in	the	scoping	review	of	efforts	to	re-imagine	in	transformative	ways	how	water	is	managed	at	the	city	level.	This	sub-literature	promotes	a	series	of	innovative	practices	that	draw	on	flexible	and	green	infrastructure	to	capture	stormwater	and	other	aspects	of	the	water	cycle.	Sustainable	Urban	Drainage	Systems	(SUDS)	are	highlighted	as	important	resilience	enhancing	practices	with	multiple	benefits:	source	control	(or	reducing	the	quantity	of	discharge	and	thus	influencing	both	flooding	and	scarcity),	permeable	conveyance	(which	slows	the	velocity	of	run-off),	and	storage	and	pollution	management	(through	“natural”	ponds	and	wetlands)	(White,	2010).	Soft	or	green	infrastructure	also	manages	precipitation,	rather	than	just	run-off,	by	keeping	it	locally	rather	than	transporting	it	far	away,	in	line	with	Rockström	and	Falkenmark’s	blue-green	framework	(Brown,	2014).		SUDS	and	WSUD	in	general,	however,	have	been	applied	in	very	few	instances	and	therefore	still	lack	reliable	evidence	base.	WSUD	is	further	advocating	for	total	water	cycle	management—meaning	integration	across	the	different	dimensions	of	the	water	cycle	(precipitation,	run-off,	etc.).	However,	many	of	the	solutions	proposed	under	this	paradigm	will	likely	involve	important	trade-offs,	particularly	depending	on	the	contexts	in	which	they	are	applied.	For	example,	using			 50	natural	ponds	as	mitigation	options	might	be	very	challenging	to	implement	in	contexts	where	there	is	high	competition	or	even	conflict	over	how	land	is	used.	I	will	return	to	this	theme	in	Chapter	5.			2.7.2 New governance and institutional arrangements In	the	water	resilience	domain	there	is	an	emerging	sub-literature	that	deals	with	the	principles	of	adaptiveness	and	flexibility	(both	key	for	resilience)	in	the	context	of	water	governance.	In	addition	to	the	literature	on	adaptive	co-governance,	several	authors	have	suggested	that	polycentric,	modular	and	flexible	governance	systems	are	key	for	the	resilience	of	both	social	and	biophysical	systems.	A	key	debate	within	this	work	is	the	question	of	whether	centralized,	decentralized	or	hybrid	systems	(either	biophysical	or	institutional)	are	more	likely	to	contribute	to	increased	resilience	and	what	that	might	look	like	in	practice.		Modelling	studies	have	demonstrated	that	decentralized	rainwater	management,	including	retention,	storage,	and	water	reuse	strategies	that	are	integrated	into	spatial	planning	and	urban	design,	can	reduce	flood	risks	while	simultaneously	enhancing	freshwater	availability	(Schuetze	and	Chelleri,	2013).	Others	promote	hybrid	approaches	drawing	on	both	centralized	and	decentralized	models.	Rijke	et	al.	(2013)	argued	that	when	compared	to	the	centralized-only	system,	hybrid	water	supply	scenarios	are	found	to	be	more	resilient	in	terms	of	adjusting	to	changing	population	and	climatic	conditions.	The	authors’	model	suggested	that	the	physical	aspects	of	resilience,	such	as	multi-functionality	or	the	ability	to	meet	changing	demands,	favour	decentralization	as	decentralized	systems	are	perceived	to	be	more	flexible.	Their	research	suggests	that	decentralized	and	informal	governance	approaches	are	particularly	effective	in	early	stages	of	transformation	processes	(i.e.,	adaptation	and	transition	processes),	whilst	formal	and	centralized	approaches	become	more	effective	during	later	stages	of	transformation.	To	the	contrary,	Schluter	and	Pahl-Wostl	(2007)	found	that	centralized	regimes	perform	better	because	decisions	taken	by	national	authorities	can	equalize	access	for	all	water	users	to	sufficient	levels	of	water	and	financial	resources.	This	debate	is	an	important	avenue	for	further	research	as	it	has	important	implications	for	water	planning	and	governance.	As	decentralization	in	water	governance	has	been	a	widely	promoted	and	indeed	practiced	in			 51	many	developing	contexts	(Mutondo,	2016),	understanding	whether	decentralized	water	systems	are	more	resilient	or,	to	the	contrary,	deplete	water	resources	faster,	is	rather	crucial.	The	emerging	body	of	work	on	polycentric	governance	can	lend	important	insights	to	inform	these	debates	(see	Andersson	and	Ostrom,	2008;	Carlisle	and	Gruby,	2017;	Morrison	et	al.,	2017;	Oberlack	et	al,	2018).	However,	it	should	be	noted	that	most	governance	systems	today	are	indeed	nested	and	polycentric	already;	therefore,	it	is	important	to	disentangle	precisely	what	aspects	of	interconnected	governance	systems	can	contribute	for	a	more	integrative	and	collaborative	governance	for	water	resilience,	and	how	power	operates	through	them	(Morrison	et	al.,	2017).		In	addition,	adaptive	governance	is	a	key	emerging	concept	in	the	water	resilience	literature.	Cosens	and	Williams	(2012)	describe	adaptive	governance	as	moving	“from	a	focus	on	efficiency	and	lack	of	overlap	among	jurisdictional	authorities	to	a	focus	on	“diversity,	redundancy,	and	multiple	levels	of	management	that	include	local	knowledge	and	local	action”	(p.2).	In	their	study	of	the	Columbia	River	Basin	treaty,	they	find	that	“if	stakeholders	seek	a	more	resilient	form	of	river	governance,	it	will	require	a	change	in	the	operations	and	implementation	of	[water	allocation	treaties]	to	allow	more	flexible	response	at	the	international	level	and	greater	local	input	and	coordination	on	efforts	to	restore	ecosystem	health”	(p.	11),	highlighting	flexibility	as	a	key	feature	of	resilient	water	governance.	Through	its	focus	on	polycentric,	modular	and	flexible	systems,	the	emerging	adaptive	water	governance	paradigm	is	suggesting	a	change	in	the	role	of	the	state	in	water	governance.	However,	the	understanding	of	the	role	of	power,	and	particularly	political	power,	remains	relatively	nascent	in	work	on	water	resilience	(i.e.,	the	review	did	not	identify	papers	that	questioned	or	challenged	the	roles	of	the	state	or	water	managers	in	resilience	building	efforts),	despite	the	fact	that	urban	scholars	and	planners	increasingly	recognize	its	role	in	social	systems	(e.g.,	Cote	and	Nightingale,	2012;	Eakin	et	al.,	2017;	Rodina	et	al.,	2017;	Ziervogel	et	al.,	2017).	Similar	concerns	apply	for	conflict	and	legitimacy,	which	are	raised	only	in	very	few	papers	(e.g.,	Galaz,	2009;	Robards	et	al.,	2011).					 52	Lastly,	several	articles	captured	in	the	scoping	review	engage	with	the	questions	of	normative	societal	goals,	such	as	equity,	social	participation	and	fairness	in	relation	to	water	resilience.	For	example,	Medd	et	al.	(2007)	claimed	that	lack	of	equity	could	be	an	important	barrier	to	social	resilience	to	droughts,	particularly	as	increasing	resilience	to	droughts	is	largely	a	question	of	reconfiguration	of	water	resource	distribution.	The	authors	critique	water	resilience	debates	for	focusing	predominantly	on	large-scale	supply	side	technological	fixes,	instead	of	focusing	on	the	“the	social	and	cultural	dynamics	of	demand,	and	of	how	relationships	between	consumers	and	providers	are	mediated	across	scales”	(p	244).	Schelfaut	et	al.	(2011)	argued	that	public	participation	plays	an	important	role	in	improving	resilience.	Specifically,	the	authors	see	the	aim	of	participation	as	empowerment	of	vulnerable	groups	in	decision-making	related	to	how	risk	is	managed	(cf.	Shen,	2009).	More	importantly,	they	suggest	that	effective	public	participation	can	help	“build	trust	and	understanding	between	the	public	and	the	professionals	and	thus	leads	to	integration	on	different	levels	and	scales”	(p.	831).	They	also	observe	that	despite	the	importance	of	public	participation,	it	is	still	not	widely	practiced	in	flood	risk	management	(ibid.).	In	general,	while	the	language	of	participation	and	equity	does	appear	in	some	of	the	reviewed	literature,	typically	in	relation	to	recommended	practices	and	actions,	it	is	not	sufficiently	articulated	and	is	not	effectively	backed	up	by	evidence.	Also	lacking	are	discussions	or	insights	into	the	specific	practices	that	might	help	improve	equity	or	social	participation	in	water	governance,	which	could	be	improved	by	putting	resilience	into	conversation	with	literatures	that	address	these	questions.	As	such,	the	relationship	between	equity	and	resilience	remains	poorly	understood	and	constitutes	a	key	blind	spot	in	the	water	resilience	literature.			Overall,	this	review	found	that	while	resilience	is	indeed	gaining	currency	in	the	academic	literatures	on	water	governance,	and	several	authors	are	using	the	term	(e.g.,	Rockström	et	al.,	2014b),	“water	resilience”	itself	does	not	hold	up	to	be	an	easily	identifiable	or	measurable	feature	of	water	systems,	broadly	defined.	While	in	its	narrow	engineering	sense,	resilience	is	often	used	as	a	specific	measurable	system	attribute,	in	the	broader	water	governance	domain	“water	resilience”	remains	predominantly	a	conceptual	construct.	As	planners,	city	managers	and	practitioners,	strive	to	increase	the	resilience	of			 53	cities	and	communities	to	increasing	water-related	risk,	it	is	important	to	critically	evaluate	what	practices	are	being	adopted,	how	and	why,	in	light	of	a	rather	patchy	and	fragmented	guidance	from	the	academic	community.	This	does	not	mean	that	“water	resilience”	is	not	a	useful	concept.	To	the	contrary,	as	a	boundary	concept	(Baggio	et	al.,	2014),	“water	resilience”	has	the	potential	to	push	towards	theoretical	and	philosophical	innovation	to	re-imagine	water	systems	as	complex	socio-eco-technological	systems,	driven	by	non-linear	dynamics	and	unpredictable	behaviour.	However,	water	resilience	scholars	and	planners	should	not	lose	sights	of	the	complex	governance	dimensions	that	enable	or	indeed	inhibit	efforts	to	build	resilience—a	theme	that	will	be	elaborated	in	Chapter	5.		2.8 Conclusions  The	analysis	shows	that	the	peer	reviewed	academic	literature	on	water	resilience	remains	largely	fragmented	by	sectors,	mirroring	the	fragmentation	of	the	water	sector	more	broadly.	While	a	large	proportion	of	the	literature	on	water	resilience	tends	to	focus	primarily	on	building	infrastructural	resilience,	there	remains	relatively	fractured	understanding	about	the	factors,	practices,	and	governance	principles	that	help	increase	the	resilience	of	people,	communities,	or	society	at	large	to	water-related	risks.	Despite	calls	that	water	resilience	is	primarily	a	governance	challenge,	the	literature	remains	biased	towards	technocratic	management	of	infrastructural	aspects	of	resilience	building	in	the	water	sector.	As	such,	there	is	a	risk	that	the	dominant	technocratic,	infrastructure-centered	thinking	about	water	resilience	can	effectively	stifle	potentially	transformative	shifts	towards	more	flexible	and	adaptive,	and	ultimately	more	resilient	forms	of	water	management.			In	terms	of	governance	dimensions,	stakeholder	engagement	and	participation	are	typically	mentioned	as	important	for	securing	social	acceptance;	however,	the	responsibility	for	resilience	building	remains	predominantly	in	the	hands	of	governments	and	water	managers.	This	signals	that	equity	and	participation	are	considered	important	in	later	stages	of	resilience	building	actions;	however,	they	are	not	necessarily	emphasized	in	relation	to	early	planning	and	decision-making	stages.	In	contrast,	one	might	argue	(and			 54	some	have)	that	stakeholder	engagement	and	participation	are	fundamentally	important	to	resilient	water	systems	(e.g.,	Biggs	et	al.,	2012;	Krievins	et	al.	2015;	Rodina	et	al.,	2017).	These	types	of	propositions	are	inferred	in	the	literature	but	require	stronger	theorization	and	an	evidentiary	basis.	Finally,	outside	the	small	emerging	literatures	on	adaptive	and	polycentric	governance	and	work	on	applying	water-sensitive	principles	in	water	planning,	there	is	yet	little	evidence	for	innovation	or	transformation	in	the	water	sector	towards	climate	sensitive	and	equitable	water	governance.		The	literature	still	shows	very	few	examples	of	successfully	applied	innovative	approaches	to	water	resilience,	which	however	are	likely	to	increase	in	the	coming	decades	as	new	policy	initiatives	and	approaches	come	online.	This	in	itself	is	an	opportunity	for	both	researchers	and	water	planners	to	challenge	conventional	modes	of	governance	and	consider	possibilities	for	transformation	in	the	water	sector.			 			 55	Chapter 3: Expert views on strategies to increase resilience in water governance 	3.1 Synopsis  Scholars	and	policy	makers	are	advocating	for	increasing	the	resilience	of	water	systems	to	climate	change	impacts,	and	global	environmental	change	more	broadly,	but	what	is	water	resilience,	and	what	does	it	imply	for	policy	and	practice?	Generally,	water	resilience	might	include	ecological	aspects	of	water	quality	or	flood	mitigation,	engineered	infrastructure	to	ensure	safe	and	reliable	water	supply	and	mitigate	floods,	and	the	socially	inclusive	and	equitable	governance	of	these	systems.	However,	which	elements	of	water	resilience	are	emphasized	by	different	experts,	and	what	actions	do	they	favour	to	foster	resilience?	This	paper	draws	on	a	survey	(n=420)	with	experts	in	resilience	and	various	aspects	of	water	management	and	governance	and	aims	to	synthesize	their	views	on	the	specific	strategies	that	can	help	enhance	resilience	for	water	systems	and	water	governance.	Specifically,	I	investigate	how	experts	rated	various	resilience-building	strategies	and	analyze	the	degree	to	which	support	for	various	strategies	differed	by	disciplinary	traditions	in	resilience	scholarship.	Overall,	I	find	that	while	debates	about	how	to	theorize	or	operationalize	resilience	in	relation	to	different	systems—social	or	biophysical—may	be	unresolved,	there	is	considerable	convergence	among	various	experts	about	which	actions	are	likely	to	make	water	systems	more	resilient	to	increasing	risks	and	uncertainties.	The	most	widely	agreed	upon	strategies	for	building	water	resilience	revolve	around	improved	ecosystem	health,	integration	across	scales,	and	adaptation	to	change.		3.2 Introduction  Global	environmental	change	and	climate	change	impacts	are	affecting	watersheds	and	water	supply	systems	worldwide	(Ferguson	et	al.,	2013;	Rockström	et	al.,	2014a;	Steffen	et	al.,	2011).	Cities	and	communities	across	the	world	are	facing	growing	water	security	risks,	more	frequent	or	intense	flooding,	or	increasing	stress	on	eco-hydrological	systems,	such	as	rivers,	wetlands	or	groundwater.	There	is	growing	evidence	that	conventional	water			 56	resource	management	paradigms	are	not	sufficiently	equipped	to	respond	to	surprise	or	uncertainty	in	the	hydrologic	cycle	(Bell,	2015;	Huitema	et	al.,	2009;	Huntjens	et	al.,	2012;	Wong	and	Brown,	2009).	Consider	the	case	of	Cape	Town,	South	Africa,	which	is	currently	experiencing	one	of	its	worst	droughts	in	history.	In	late	2017,	extremely	low	dam	levels,	together	with	a	series	of	governance	challenges,	led	to	the	possibility	of	Cape	Town	running	out	of	water	in	2018	(at	the	time	of	writing,	it	was	moved	to	2019)—an	example	that	is	not	unique	to	Cape	Town	as	several	other	major	cities	are	facing	similar	challenges	(Welch,	2018).	Overall,	according	to	the	UN	Water	(2015)	report,	most	water	systems	around	the	world	are	not	resilient	to	increasing	risks,	and	many	of	them	are	not	able	to	provide	basic	services	in	many	areas,	particularly	in	the	global	South.				In	light	of	these	challenges,	many	scholars	have	highlighted	the	need	to	transform	water	management	and	water	governance	more	broadly.	These	contributions	include	Milly	and	colleagues’	seminal	piece	(2008)	on	accepting	non-stationarity	as	a	principle	in	water	resource	management,	Rockström	et	al.	(2014b)	who	argue	for	moving	beyond	blue	water	management	to	incorporate	precipitation,	Dunn	et	al.	(2016)	who	theorize	urban	water	practices	through	the	lens	of	complexity,	and	Ferguson	et	al.	(2013)	who	propose	a	framework	to	diagnose	and	navigate	transformative	change	in	urban	water	systems.	According	to	these	and	other	authors,	transformation	is	needed	to	increase	the	ability	of	water	systems,	and	water	governance	more	broadly,	to	deal	with	hydrologic	uncertainty,	unpredictability,	and	to	increase	connectivity	across	scales—in	other	words,	to	increase	resilience	to	various	complex	and	emerging	stressors.			However,	building	resilience	in	water	systems	is	still	not	well	understood,	in	part	due	to	a	lack	of	guidance—theoretical	or	practical—with	respect	to	what	constitutes	resilience	in	water	systems	or	how	it	may	be	achieved.	A	major	contributor	to	this	challenge	is	the	fact	that	water	systems	are	complex,	highly	fragmented,	and	typically	compartmentalized	across	disconnected	sectors—e.g.,	supply	and	demand	management,	wastewater,	or	stormwater.	Further,	water	systems	worldwide	are	embedded	in	infrastructural	legacies	and	design	paradigms	that	have	historically	been	inflexible	and	slow	to	adapt	to	change	(Bell	et	al.,	2017;	Brown	et	al.,	2009;	White,	2010).	While	efforts	have	been	made	to	rethink			 57	water	systems	in	more	integrated	and	adaptive	ways	[e.g.,	through	the	concepts	of	Integrated	Water	Resource	Management	(Biswas,	2009)	or	Water	Sensitive	Urban	Design	(Wong	and	Brown,	2009)],	disciplinary	legacies	and	sectoral	fragmentation	in	the	water	sector	are	persistent	and	difficult	to	overcome.			Resilience—commonly	understood	as	the	ability	of	systems	(social	or	biophysical)	to	withstand	or	cope	with	stressors	while	continuing	to	maintain	key	functions	or	structures	(Folke,	2016)—suffers	from	similar	limitations.	Namely,	the	multiplicity	of	epistemological,	empirical	and	applied	aspects	poses	tremendous	challenges	for	operationalizing	resilience	in	different	contexts	(Olsson	et	al.,	2015).	In	the	context	of	water	systems,	various	definitions	of	resilience	have	been	applied.	For	example,	engineering	resilience,	measuring	the	attributes	of	engineered	water	systems	and	their	ability	to	bounce	back	from	disruptions	(e.g.,	Shin	et	al.,	2018);	ecological	resilience,	focusing	on	the	capacity	of	eco-hydrological	systems	to	cope	with	stress	(Falkenmark	and	Rockström,	2010);	or	community	resilience,	focusing	on	the	ability	of	society	to	cope	with	water	stressors	or	risks	(e.g.,	D’Odorico	et	al.,	2010).	Overall,	resilience	thinking	in	water	governance	is	applied	in	patchy	ways,	without	significant	theoretical	or	empirical	convergence	around	definitions	or	characteristics	of	resilient	water	systems	(see	more	on	this	in	Chapter	2).			Further,	outside	ongoing	epistemological	and	methodological	debates	in	the	resilience	scholarship,	there	is	a	limited	shared	understanding	or	guidance	on	what	specific	practices	can	increase	resilience	in	water	systems	(Chapter	2),	whether	in	general	senses,	or	in	specific	water	systems.	While	several	authors	have	suggested	enabling	factors	for	increasing	resilience	in	specific	domains	of	water	management	(e.g.,	Johannessen	and	Wamsler,	2017;	Rockström	et	al.,	2014b,	see	section	below	for	more	details),	to	date	there	has	not	been	a	comprehensive	overview	of	the	strategies	that	can	help	increase	resilience	in	water	systems.	As	a	result,	there	is	a	lack	of	knowledge	on	how	to	increase	resilience	in	water	systems	in	a	comprehensive	sense,	encompassing	their	hydrologic,	built	and	social	dimensions.	In	this	chapter	I	ask:	to	what	extent	experts	from	various	resilience	perspectives	align	or	diverge	on	the	strategies	that	are	most	important	to	build	water	resilience?			 58		To	investigate	this	gap	and	capture	diverse	water	systems,	I	surveyed	the	views	of	experts	in	various	domains	of	water	governance	(e.g.,	stormwater	management,	water	resource	management,	water	and	sanitation,	etc.)	who	are	familiar	with	resilience	as	a	concept	or	a	theory.	I	conducted	an	online	survey	(n=420)	by	recruiting	authors	of	English	language	academic	publications	on	these	topics,	who	were	identified	through	a	keyword	search	in	a	scholarly	database	(Web	of	Science).	Survey	participants	were	asked	to	respond	to	a	range	of	resilience	questions,	and	to	rate	a	series	of	resilience	building	strategies,	identified	through	a	comprehensive	literature	review	and	through	the	early	stage	analyses	conducted	for	Chapter	2	of	this	dissertation.	I	investigate	how	experts	rated	the	strategies	and,	based	on	their	choice	of	resilience	definitions,	I	analyze	the	degree	to	which	support	for	various	types	of	strategies	is	driven	by	disciplinary	traditions	in	the	resilience	scholarship.	In	other	words,	the	analysis	aims	to	show	to	what	degree	those	who	selected	a	particular	definition	of	resilience	favour	certain	strategies	over	others.	After	conducting	Principle	Component	Analysis,	I	identified	several	key	components,	or	subsets	of	closely	related	resilience	building	strategies,	that	I	in	turn	elaborate	on.	In	addition,	I	discuss	the	highest	rated	resilience	building	strategies	to	provide	insights	on	the	best	practices	for	resilience,	according	to	the	surveyed	experts.	The	evidence	suggests	first,	that	despite	the	diversity	of	water	fields	and	resilience	orientations,	there	is	an	overwhelmingly	strong	support	for	the	majority	of	strategies	in	this	survey,	suggesting	cross-cutting	agreement	that	most	of	these	strategies	are	important	and	needed	for	enhancing	water	resilience.	Lastly,	the	results	also	indicate	that	managing	for	ecosystem	health	is	the	highest	order	of	priority	for	increased	water	resilience.		3.3 What do we (not) know about building resilience in water systems?  A	resilience-informed	approach	in	water	governance	might	involve	a	range	of	principles.	These	might	include	embracing	uncertainty	about	future	hydrologic	variability,	or	a	holistic	understanding	of	the	hydrological	cycle	to	include	run-off,	green	water,	precipitation,	etc.	Others	promote	flexible,	inclusive,	open	and	adaptive	co-governance	institutional	models	that	allow	for	effective	deliberation	with	stakeholders,	and	learning	and	policy			 59	experimentation	(Baker	et	al.,	2009;	Berkes	et	al.,	2012;	Cosens	&	Williams,	2012;	Gunderson	et	al.,	2006;	Pahl-Wostl	et	al.,	2010,	Rockström	et	al.,	2014b).	In	the	context	of	urban	water,	for	example,	Jabareen,	defines	resilient	cities	as	those	in	which	governance	is	able	to	quickly	restore	basic	services	and	resume	social,	institutional	and	economic	activities	after	a	disaster	(Jabareen,	2013).	Others	define	water	resilient	cities	as	being	able	to	manage	flood	and	water	scarcity	through	a	combination	of	measures	to	decrease	exposure	and	vulnerability	to	these	hazards,	and	to	embrace	multifunctional	use	of	land	or	integrated	upstream	and	downstream	water	management	(White,	2010).	In	light	of	looming	uncertainty	around	future	hydrological	variability,	many	authors	are	now	arguing	for	holistic	approaches	to	water	that	are	able	to	address	complex	interdependencies	(Baker	et	al.,	2009;	Cosens	and	Stow,	2014;	Pahl-Wostl,	2015).	This	includes	encompassing	the	various	dimensions	of	the	water	cycle,	such	as	green	water	(i.e.,	water	in	vegetation	and	soil	moisture),	blue	water	(i.e.,	freshwater	water,	in	lakes,	streams,	etc.,	see	Rockström	et	al.,	2014b),	as	well	as	addressing	the	complex	multi-stressor	nature	of	water	security	challenges,	including	population	growth,	aging	infrastructure,	pollution,	land	use	change,	and	others	(Cosgrove	&	Loucks,	2015).	Holistic	approaches	contrast	the	more	conventional	water	management	paradigm	that	has	largely	focused	on	isolated,	or	compartmentalized	parts	of	the	water	cycle.			With	respect	to	water	governance,	several	authors	have	argued	that	polycentric	governance	is	important	for	enhancing	resilience.	Polycentric	governance	implies	moving	away	from	hierarchical,	top-down,	often	state-led	governance	of	water	to	include	a	wider	range	of	actors	from	civil	society,	community-based	organizations	and	local	forms	of	governance	who	share	authority	and	responsibilities	in	water	management	(Bakker	&	Morinville,	2013;	Galaz,	2005;	Pahl-Wost	et	al.,	2012;	Rijke	et	al.,	2013).	Such	“independent	but	coordinated	centers	of	authority”	are	theorized	as	better	able	to	respond	to	environmental	problems	at	the	scale	at	which	they	occur	(Huntjens	et	al.,	2012).	One	key	aspect	of	this	shift	is	decentralization	of	governance,	whereby	authority	to	make	decisions	and	take	action	is	devolved	to	scales	considered	a	better	fit	to	the	scale	of	the	issues	being	addressed	(also	known	as	the	subsidiarity	principle).	The	debate	about	the	merits	and	disadvantages	of	centralized	and	decentralized	forms	of	governance	in	the	water	sector	is			 60	ongoing.	Some	authors	have	argued	that	hierarchies	are	better	able	to	solve	simple	problems	and	to	mobilize	and	coordinate	action;	however,	they	tend	to	have	low	capacity	to	solve	complex	problems	and	can	sometimes	result	in	illegitimate	and	unjust	outcomes	(Rijke	et	al.,	2013).			On	the	other	hand,	others	have	argued	that	decentralized	approaches	are	better	able	to	solve	complex	problems	by	involving	a	wider	diversity	of	stakeholders,	and,	therefore,	of	a	wider	diversity	of	knowledge,	as	well	as	the	opportunities	to	learn	through	strategic	collaboration	(Krievins	et	al.,	2015).	However,	in	some	cases	decentralized	and	poorly	coordinated	water	systems	have	resulted	in	unequal	outcomes,	as	in	the	case	of	the	highly	fragmented	water	governance	landscape	in	Canada,	which	has	yielded	inequality	in	local	capacity	to	manage	water	effectively	(Dunn	et	al.,	2017).	Resilience	scholars	also	argue	that	to	enhance	the	resilience,	as	well	as	the	transformative	capacity,	of	urban	water	systems,	there	is	a	need	for	a	mix	of	centralized	and	decentralized	governance	forms,	as	well	as	a	mix	of	formal	and	informal	institutions	(Rijke	et	al.,	2013).		Adaptive	governance	and	adaptive	co-management	have	been	proposed	by	many	scholars	as	necessary	for	dealing	with	social	and	environmental	complexity	and	unpredictability	(Huitema	et	al.,	2009).	The	adaptive	aspect	here	typically	refers	to	the	ability	of	decision-makers	and	stakeholders	to	adapt	their	approaches	through	learning	and	experimentation		in	response	to	specific	ecosystem	feedbacks	or	stressors	(Huntjens	et	al.,	2012;	Pahl-Wostl	&	Knieper,	2014).	In	addition,	flexibility	and	diversity	in	response	options	have	been	suggested	as	principles	that	foster	resilience	to	uncertain	and	variable	water	futures.	This	includes	using	multiple	and	diverse	sources	of	water	(surface	water,	groundwater,	etc.),	reclaiming	and	recycling	water	for	non-potable	uses,	such	as	using	rainwater	for	gardening	and	toilet	flushing,	which	in	turn	requires	new	infrastructures	and	regulations	to	balance	public	health	and	other	concerns.			In	the	context	of	natural	resource	management,	flexibility	and	diversity	of	response	options	have	been	proposed	as	key	resilience-enhancing	strategies	because	they	allow	the	social	system	to	adaptively	respond	to	change	(Schluter	and	Pahl-Wostl,	2007).	These	principles,			 61	however,	may	not	be	applicable	in	all	contexts.	For	example,	Srinivasan	et	al.	(2014)	demonstrated	that	while	peri-urban	households	(away	from	the	periphery	of	cities)	may	have	flexibility	and	diversity	in	resource	access	through	connection	to	the	municipal	piped	systems	as	well	as	through	their	own	private	wells,	during	times	of	scarcity	this	does	not	necessarily	make	the	water	system	more	resilient.	Drawing	on	underground	water	supplies—especially	when	unregulated—may	lessen	the	resilience	of	water	resources	for	the	whole	urban	area	(Srinivasan	et	al.,	2013).	While	polycentric	governance	with	effective	vertical	and	horizontal	distribution	of	authority	and	coordination	may	be	an	appropriate	structural	aspect	of	resilience,	politics	of	resource	use	and	social	relations	may	lead	to	very	different	outcomes.		In	the	context	of	water	infrastructure,	there	has	been	a	shift	in	emphasis	toward	soft,	or	green,	infrastructure	(Schuch	et	al.,	2017).	One	example	as	Sustainable	Urban	Drainage	Systems,	a	concept	that	has	been	proposed	as	an	innovative	way	to	manage	urban	stormwater	with	multiple	benefits—reducing	the	quantity	of	discharge	and	thus	influencing	both	flooding	and	scarcity,	permeable	surfaces,	and	storage	and	pollution	management	through	“natural”	wetlands	(White,	2010).	Green	infrastructure	also	helps	capture	precipitation	in	addition	to	run-off	(Brown,	2014).	In	flood	risk	management,	authors	have	argued	for	a	shift	away	from	thinking	of	floods	as	caused	by	natural	sources	external	to	the	city	(e.g.,	river	overflows,	coastal	floods)	to	encompassing	a	wider	set	of	sources	that	are	not	so	easily	identified,	such	as	surface	water	floods	(Salinas	Rodriguez	et	al.,	2014).	In	relation	to	water	scarcity,	supply-side	solutions	(e.g.,	new	infrastructure,	desalination	of	saltwater	or	brackish	water,	reuse	of	wastewater,	groundwater	recharge	and	so	on)	are	proving	insufficient	to	deal	with	emerging	risks.	As	such,	there	has	been	a	stronger	push	to	implement	demand-side	approaches	(e.g.,	conservation,	cutting	water	losses	in	transportation	and	distribution	systems,	implementing	tariff	systems,	etc.).	Use	of	recycled	water	is	an	emerging	idea	(e.g.,	Attwater	and	Derry,	2017),	although	it	remains	widely	debated	due	to	concerns	with	social	acceptance	and	public	safety	(Watson	et	al.,	2017).				 62	In	sum,	there	are	multiple	propositions	in	the	literature	on	water	governance	with	respect	to	practices	and	approaches	that	can	help	enhance	the	resilience	of	water	systems	(broadly	defined)	to	a	range	of	known	and	unknown	risks.	However,	while	many	authors	have	written	about	water	resilience	(including	resilience	of	engineered	water	systems,	flood	resilience,	drought	resilience	and	resilience	in	freshwater	systems),	there	is	a	lack	of	integrated	or	comprehensive	understanding	of	the	key	cross-sectoral	strategies	that	can	help	the	various	dimensions	of	water	systems	become	more	resilient	to	change.	To	address	this	gap,	this	chapter	aims	to	shed	light	on	some	of	the	different	underlying	philosophies,	or	trends,	pertaining	to	the	applied	aspects	of	building	water	resilience—namely,	how	to	achieve	resilience	in	the	water	sector.			3.4 Methodology  This	research	was	conducted	under	the	approval	of	University	of	British	Columbia’s	Behavioural	Research	Ethics	Board.		The	survey	data	reported	in	this	chapter	was	collected	through	a	web-based	survey,	hosted	by	Fluid	SurveysÔ,	licensed	to	the	University	of	British	Columbia	and	compliant	with	the	BC	Freedom	of	Information	and	Protection	of	Privacy	Act	(FIPPA).	The	survey	was	piloted	with	several	experts	on	resilient	water	governance	and	was	conducted	online	from	June	to	October	2017.	The	survey	design	was	informed	by	data	collected	during	the	initial	phase	(i.e.,	the	exploratory	phase	prior	to	finalizing	the	search	strategy)	of	the	systematic	review	documented	in	Chapter	2.	Namely,	I	used	data	from	the	bibliographic	search	in	Web	of	Science	of	academic	publications	with	the	keywords	resilien*	(which	captures	resilience,	resilient,	and	resiliency)	and	one	or	more	of	the	following	water-related	search	terms:	watershed,	drought,	flood,	water,	sanitation,	river,	stormwater,	graywater,	drainage,	wastewater,	hydrology,	and	freshwater,	published	between	1950	and	2016	(see	Appendix	A.1	for	more	details).		In	the	survey,	participants	were	asked	to	rate	a	series	of	strategies	that	have	been	identified	as	potentially	important	to	increase	resilience	in	water	systems	and	water	governance.	At	the	time	of	research,	there	has	not	been	another	comprehensive	study	or	synthesis	work	that	compiles	the	range	of	resilience	building	strategies	for	various	water			 63	sectors.		As	a	result,	part	of	the	objective	of	this	survey	was	to	capture	the	range	of	strategies	that	have	been	identified	or	suggested	in	the	published	academic	literature.	To	this	end,	first	an	initial	literature	review	was	conducted	of	work	on	watershed	resilience,	drought	resilience,	and	flood	resilience,	captured	above	in	section	3.3.		Second,	a	further	review	was	conducted	on	bibliographic	data	derived	in	the	initial	phase	of	the	systematic	review.	Specifically,	a	review	of	a	random	sample	of	100	abstracts	from	the	nearly	7000	initial	search	results	was	conducted	to	identify	additional	strategies.	The	derived	strategies	were	then	grouped	by	similarity	and	reduced	to	a	smaller	number	that	were	included	in	the	survey	(see	survey	instrument	in	Appendix	B.2).	While	this	method	did	not	capture	systematically	all	of	the	water	resilience	strategies	mentioned	in	the	literature,	in	part	due	to	the	fact	that	much	of	the	literature	is	ambiguous	or	lacking	specificity	on	the	practices	needed	to	increase	water	resilience,	it	provided	a	good	starting	to	explore	the	most	prominent	ones.		In	the	survey,	the	strategies	were	grouped	in	4	categories:	1)	general	strategies	for	building	resilience	in	the	water	sector,	2)	strategies	for	drought	resilience,	3)	flood	resilience	and	4)	resilience	in	freshwater	systems	(i.e.,	eco-hydrological	systems).			As	I	discussed	earlier,	there	are	multiple	and	diverse	ways	to	define	resilience.	In	order	to	examine	whether	different	ways	of	conceptualizing	resilience	might	be	associated	with	different	favoured	strategies,	I	offered	the	survey	participants	a	choice	of	three	conventional	and	distinctive	definitions	(adopted	from	Brand	and	Jax,	2007,	and	Baggio	et	al.,	2014).	Namely:		a) engineering	resilience:	the	time	it	takes	a	system	to	return	to	normal	after	a	disturbance,		b) ecological	resilience:	the	capacity	of	a	system	to	absorb	shocks	without	changing	states,			c) community	resilience:	the	ability	of	communities	or	society	to	cope	with,	adapt	or	transform	in	the	face	of	change.					 64	I	also	offered	the	opportunity	to	add	open-ended	responses	in	all	parts	of	the	survey,	including	survey	questions	related	to	the	governance	and	equity	dimensions	of	increasing	resilience,	which	will	be	analyzed	and	presented	separately	(see	Appendix	B.2.	for	details	on	the	survey	instrument).		3.4.1 Sampling strategy  I	sought	to	reach	a	broad	range	of	water	experts,	including	water	planners,	engineers,	policy	makers,	and	researchers	who	have	familiarity	with	resilience	as	a	theory,	or	as	a	concept.	I	was	interested	in	identifying	the	ways	resilience	thinking	can	be	applied	in	the	context	of	water	governance,	not	necessarily	based	on	specific	pre-determined	definitions	of	“water	resilience”	but	in	a	broader	sense,	including	intuitive	senses	of	what	water	resilience	might	mean.	To	identify	potential	participants,	I	used	data	from	the	initial	stage	of	the	systematic	scoping	review	documented	in	Chapter	2	(see	also	Appendix	A.1).	From	the	bibliographic	data,	I	identified	6700	authors	(specifically	lead	authors)	who	were	all	invited	to	participate	in	the	survey,	using	the	contact	information	provided	in	the	publications.			A	total	of	5816	authors	received	the	survey	(nearly	1000	contacts	bounced,	which	is	not	surprising	considering	the	temporal	range	of	the	scholarly	search	and	the	fact	that	authors	may	no	longer	be	using	older	email	addresses).	536	surveys	were	filled	out	(response	rate	9.2%),	of	which	420	were	used	in	the	analysis	(those	that	were	completed	in	full).	While	the	response	rate	may	appear	to	be	small,	it	should	be	noted	that	given	that	“water	resilience”	is	a	boundary	concept	and	not	an	established	field	or	sub-discipline,	and	that	the	water	governance	domain	is	diverse	and	spread	over	multiple	sectors,	there	is	no	easily	identifiable	community	of	experts	I	could	contact.	As	a	result,	I	cast	a	wide	net,	which	was	able	to	successfully	capture	over	400	experts	who	were	familiar	with	resilience	as	well	as	with	various	aspects	of	water	governance	(following	the	expert	elicitation	survey	of	Beaudrie	et	al.,	2013,	with	modifications	as	needed).						 65	3.4.2 Analysis A	total	of	420	responses	were	analyzed	using	SPSS	software	(version	24).	In	addition	to	descriptive	statistics,	I	conducted	Principal	Component	Analysis8	(PCA)	on	the	strategy	rating	questions	from	the	survey	(33	variables	in	total)	using	Varimax	orthogonal	rotation,	which	produced	a	correlation	matrix	with	KMO	=	0.929	and	a	statistically	significant	Bartlett’s	test	of	sphericity	(p	<	.0005).	According	to	Kaiser	(1974),	both	of	these	measures	indicate	that	the	PCA	was	suitable	for	this	data.	The	PCA	was	conducted	to	reduce	the	number	of	variables,	specifically	the	variables	pertaining	to	strategies	to	build	resilience,	in	order	to	arrive	at	a	smaller	set	of	variables.		Using	MANOVA,	I	then	analyzed	participants’	favoured	strategies	for	enhancing	resilience,	using	the	PCA	components	as	proxies,	in	relation	to	participants’	favoured	definitions	of	resilience.		3.5 Results 3.5.1 Summary and resilience building strategies The	analyzed	survey	responses	consisted	of	mostly	male	(65%),	white	(64.7%)	participants,	between	the	ages	of	35	and	54.	A	large	proportion	of	the	survey	participants	worked	in	research	positions	(81%),	with	91%	stating	that	research	is	a	significant	component	of	their	work.	The	sample	was	highly	educated,	with	83%	having	doctoral/PhD	degrees	(or	equivalent),	and	79%	indicating	that	they	worked	in	academia.	The	survey	participants	include	experts	in	the	fields	of	stormwater	management,	disaster	risk	management,	water	and	sanitation,	water	resources	management,	flood	management,	and	water	governance.		Many	participants	indicated	that	they	worked	in	more	than	one	of	these	fields.	The	vast	majority	of	participants	were	familiar	with	resilience	(95%),	applied	resilience	concepts	in	their	work	(83.6%),	but	were	also	somewhat	less	confident	in	its	novelty,	conceptual	or	practical	dimensions	(see	Figure	3.1).	In	terms	of	definitions,	nearly	half	of	the	participants	selected	community	resilience	as	their	preferred	definition	(44.5%),																																																									8	Clarification:	we	used	principle	component	analysis	(PCA)	instead	of	factor	analysis	(FA),	because	we	did	not	have	a	pre-determined	model	what	of	the	relationship	between	definitions	and	strategies	would	be.	FA	is	more	suitable	for	testing	whether	pre-determined	latent	factor	are	responsible	for	the	observed	variation,	while	PCA	is	better	suited	for	more	exploratory	analysis,	like	this	one,	with	the	goal	to	develop	themes,	or	the	key	components,	through	the	analysis.	(Jolliffe,	1986)			 66	about	one	third	choose	the	ecological/socio-ecological	(29.4%)	and	a	smaller	number	(17%)	of	the	participants	selected	engineering	resilience.	A	small	number	indicated	that	none	of	the	definitions	resonated	with	them	(8.7%).			Figure	3.1	Familiarity	and	novelty	of	resilience.	The	Likert-scale	questions	are	listed	on	the	left.	This	graph	shows	that	the	majority	survey	participants	were	familiar	with	resilience,	and	used,	or	applied	it,	in	their	work.	Most	participants	also	found	resilience	to	bring	novel	approaches,	however,	a	smaller	majority	of	participants	indicated	that	they	did	things	differently	in	practice	as	a	result	of	applying	resilience	concepts.				Below,	I	show	summaries	of	how	survey	participants	scored	the	different	resilience	building	strategies	in	the	context	of	drought,	flood,	freshwater	and	general	water	governance.	The	survey	data	suggests	that	despite	the	diversity	in	definitions	of	resilience	(and	therefore	conceptualizations	of	resilience),	there	is	a	potential	convergence	around			 67	specific	sets	of	practices	across	experts	from	various	water-related	fields.	Specifically,	I	find	evidence	of	support	for	most	of	the	resilience-building	strategies	as	rated	by	experts	from	various	fields,	ranging	from	water	resource	management,	to	stormwater	management	and	water	governance.	Of	the	general	strategies	(see	Figure	3.2),	restoring	healthy	ecosystems	was	overwhelmingly	voted	the	most	important	strategy	to	increase	resilience	in	water	systems,	followed	by	dealing	with	uncertainty,	and	ability	to	quickly	respond	to	change.	As	the	biggest	fraction	of	survey	participants	favored	community	resilience	as	their	preferred	definition	(44.5%),	this	finding	suggests	that	while	researchers	may	be	mainly	concerned	with	water	resilience	as	it	benefits	communities,	they	nevertheless	recognize	the	crucial	role	ecosystems	play	in	achieving	that.		Figure	3.2	General	water	resilience	strategies.	Survey	respondents	were	asked	to	rate	on	a	scale	of	1	to	5	each	of	these	aspects	in	terms	of	how	important	they	are	for	achieving	general	(or	overall)	resilience	in	water	governance.	While	the	strategies	were	randomly	ordered	on	the	survey,	here	are	shown	from	the	highest	rated	at	the	top	to	the	lowest	rated	at	the	bottom.				 68	In	the	terms	of	strategies	that	relate	specifically	to	drought	resilience,	flood	resilience	or	resilience	in	freshwater	systems,	I	found	the	following	trends.	In	the	context	of	drought	resilience,	diversifying	water	supply	sources	was	rated	the	highest	in	terms	of	importance,	while	expanding	water	supply	schemes	was	the	lowest	rated	strategy	overall	(see	Figure	3.3).	This	shows	that	a	bigger	proportion	of	people	rated	water	supply	expansion	(such	as	building	new	dams,	etc.)	as	“not	at	all	important”	for	building	resilience	to	drought.	With	water	recycling	and	switching	to	less	water	intensive	livelihoods	rated	2nd	and	3rd,	I	suspect	that	“drought	resilience”	for	many	of	the	survey	participants	is	more	aligned	with	the	notion	of	living	within	the	limits	of	available	water	resources.	Demand	management,	as	opposed	to	supply	side	expansion,	thus	appears	to	be	more	heavily	favoured	for	increasing	resilience	to	drought.				 69	Figure	3.3	Strategies	that	build	resilience	to	drought.	Survey	respondents	were	asked	to	rate	on	a	scale	of	1	to	5	each	of	these	aspects	in	terms	of	how	important	they	are	for	achieving	resilience	to	drought.	While	the	strategies	were	randomly	ordered	on	the	survey,	here	are	shown	from	the	highest	rated	at	the	top	to	the	lowest	rated	at	the	bottom.			In	terms	of	flood	resilience,	the	results	show	strongest	support	for	integrated	approaches	that	draw	on	“soft”	solutions	(such	as	green	infrastructure	as	opposed	to	grey	infrastructure),	and	diversity	in	response	options	(see	Figure	3.4).	Increasing	infrastructure	redundancy	in	flood	risk	management	has	less	support	compared	to	other	strategies	for	flood	resilience,	highlighting	soft	and	non-structural	approaches	as	more	prominent.					 70	Figure	3.4	Strategies	that	build	resilience	to	flooding.	Survey	respondents	were	asked	to	rate	on	a	scale	of	1	to	5	each	of	these	aspects	in	terms	of	how	important	they	are	for	achieving	resilience	to	flooding.	While	the	strategies	were	randomly	ordered	on	the	survey,	here	are	shown	from	the	highest	rated	at	the	top	to	the	lowest	rated	at	the	bottom.			In	the	context	of	freshwater	systems,	participants	characterized	resilience	as	very	strongly	associated	with	restoring	healthy	ecosystems,	followed	by	integrated	land	use	and	water	planning	(see	Figure	3.5).	Strict	regulation	on	water	withdrawals	received	less	support	overall,	even	though	it	was	still	voted	by	many	as	somewhat	important.	Notions	of	resilience	in	freshwater	systems	likely	draw	on	ecological	understandings	of	resilience	and	highlight	ecosystem	management	for	resilience	as	a	key	strategy.					 71	Figure	3.5	Strategies	that	build	resilience	in	freshwater	systems.	Survey	respondents	were	asked	to	rate	on	a	scale	of	1	to	5	each	of	these	aspects	in	terms	of	how	important	they	are	for	achieving	resilience	in	water	resource	management.	While	the	strategies	were	randomly	ordered	on	the	survey,	here	are	shown	from	the	highest	rated	at	the	top	to	the	lowest	rated	at	the	bottom.			3.5.2 PCA and MANOVA results The	PCA	revealed	7	components	with	eigenvalues	greater	than	one,	with	the	first	component	explaining	33%	of	the	total	variance,	while	the	remaining	six	explained	smaller	proportions	of	the	variance	(between	3%	and	6%	each).	These	components,	or	index	variables,	demonstrate	subsets	of	resilience-building	strategies	that	were	closely	related	to	each	other—i.e.,	they	tend	to	vary	together.	Overall,	the	first	component	explains	most	of	the	variance	in	the	data	(Figure	3.6).	The	top	5	components	were	extracted	based	on	the	rotated	matrix	table	(see	Table	3.1)	as	they	made	the	most	sense	conceptually.	Together	they	explain	53%	of	the	total	variance	(sources	Catell,	1966;	Kaiser,	1974).						 72	Table	3.1	PCA	Rotated	Component	Matrix.	This	table	shows	which	variables	are	included	in	each	component	(C1-5).		On	the	left-hand	side	are	the	strategies,	in	brackets	are	the	categories	they	were	included	under:	general	strategies	for	building	resilience	in	the	water	sector,	strategies	for	drought	resilience,	flood	resilience	and	resilience	in	freshwater	systems	(i.e.,	eco-hydrological	systems).	Only	loadings	above	0.3	are	shown.	The	0.3	cut-off	threshold	was	used	as	recommended	by	Laerd	Statistics	(2015).	Note:	the	negative	loading	in	C4	(see	bottom	of	table),	implies	a	negative	relationship	between	the	variable	and	the	component,	indicating	that	participants	who	rated	the	other	variables	in	this	component	were	not	likely	to	rate	“Prioritizing	learning	with	floods”	high.	All	the	other	loadings	are	positively	correlated.	Rotated	Component	Matrixa	Variables	 Component	C1	 C2	 C3	 C4	 C5	(freshwater)	Restoring	and	maintaining	healthy	ecosystems	 .73	 	 	 	 	(freshwater)	Implementing	water	resources	management	at	the	catchment	scale	 .70	 	 	 	 	(freshwater)	Adopting	integrated	land	and	water	use	planning	 .68	 	 	 	 	(general)	Rescaling	governance	from	the	local	scale	to	the	watershed	or	catchment	scale	 .67	 	 	 	 	(freshwater)	Utilizing	natural	or	“green”	infrastructure”	(such	as	wetlands,	streams,	rivers)	 .64	 	 	 	 	(general)	Restoring	and	maintaining	healthy	ecosystems	 .63	 	 .42	 	 	(flood)	Using	“soft”	or	non-structural	approaches,	such	as	“green”	infrastructure,	flexible	options,	etc.	 .61	 .32	 	 	 .33	(freshwater)	Restoring,	protecting	or	enhancing	species	diversity	 .58	 	 	 	 	(flood)	Adopting	an	integrated	approach	to	manage	water	across	different	scales	 .56	 .34	 	 	 	(general)	Strong	integration	of	different	water	sectors	(e.g.,	wastewater,	bulk	water,	sanitation)	 .56	 	 	 	 	(drought)	Water	recycling	 .53	 	 	 .35	 	(freshwater)	Imposing	strict	regulations	on	water	withdrawals	 .50	 	 .36	 	 	(drought)	Prioritizing	demand	management	and	water	conservation	 .49	 	 	 	 	(drought)	Adapting	by	switching	to	less	water	intensive	livelihoods	 .47	 	 	 	 	(general)	Redistributing	functions,	power	and	authority	from	national	to	provincial	and	municipal	levels	of	government	 	 .71	 	 	 	(general)	Polycentric	governance	(i.e.,	management	or	governance	systems	that	have	multiple	centres	of	authority	at	different	scales)	 	 .67	 	 	 	(flood)	Livelihood	diversification	 	 .64	 	 	 	(drought)	Decentralizing	drought	management	approach	with	authority	to	act	at	smaller	scales	 	 .62	 	 .35	 	(flood)	Fully	utilizing	the	water	cycle	at	the	local	scale	(i.e.,	stormwater	capture	and	reuse;	use	of	treated	wastewater,	etc.)	 .49	 .49	 	 	 	(flood)	Diversifying	response	options	 	 .46	 	 	 .45	(general)	Inclusive,	fair	and	equitable	governance	 .38	 .44	 	 	 	(general)	Ability	to	quickly	respond	to	changes,	reorganize	and	adapt	 	 	 .63	 	 	(drought)	Increasing	ability	to	quickly	mobilize	alternative	sources	of	water	 	 	 .62	 .41	 			 73	Rotated	Component	Matrixa	Variables	 Component	C1	 C2	 C3	 C4	 C5	(general)	Acknowledging	and	dealing	with	uncertainty	in	the	variability	of	the	water	cycle	 .34	 	 .55	 	 	(drought)	Diversifying	sources	of	water	supply	 	 	 .55	 .38	 	(general)	Having	diverse	water	resource	options	 	 	 .55	 	 .33	(general)	Openness	to	institutional	change	 .34	 .34	 .49	 	 	(drought)	Using	small-scale	water	storage	systems	 	 .36	 .36	 .30	 	(drought)	Expanding	water	supply	schemes	(dams,	tap	into	groundwater)	 	 	 	 .73	 	(flood)	Prioritizing	flood	mitigation	through	infrastructure	and	planning	 	 	 	 .64	 	(flood)	Increasing	infrastructure	redundancy	 	 	 	 .41	 .68	(general)	Building	redundancy	in	infrastructure	systems	 	 	 	 	 .64	(flood)	Prioritizing	learning	to	live	with	floods,	rather	than	trying	to	prevent	them	 	 	 	 -.34	 .53	Extraction	Method:	Principal	Component	Analysis.		Rotation	Method:	Varimax	with	Kaiser	Normalization.a	a.	Rotation	converged	in	11	iterations.				 74	Figure	3.6	Scree	plot	of	the	outputs	of	the	PCA.	It	shows	that	the	first	component	is	the	most	significant	factor	driving	the	variance	in	the	sample,	while	the	other	components	are	much	less	influential.		To	test	whether	there	was	a	statistically	significant	difference	in	how	respondents	rated	the	strategies	based	on	their	choice	of	resilience	definition,	the	five	PCA	components	were	analyzed	as	dependent	variables	using	Multivariate	Analysis	of	Variance	(MANOVA)	(see	Table	3.2),	with	the	three	main	definitions	of	resilience	(see	above)	as	independent	variables	(p	<.05,	n=382).	Finally,	the	post-hoc	multiple	comparison	test	(Tukey	HSD)	helped	identify	which	components	varied	significantly	by	definition	(see	results	below	for	more	details,	as	well	as	Appendix	B.3).				 75	Table	3.2	MANOVA	results.	I	tested	the	relationship	between	the	PCA	components	and	the	three	resilience	definitions.	The	test	results	below	show	that	the	difference	between	groups	is	significant	for	four	alternative	multivariate	tests,	all	with	p	<	.05.		Multivariate	Testsa	Effect	 Value	 F	 Hypothesis	df	 Error	df	 Sig.	 Partial	Eta	Squared	Intercept	 Pillai's	Trace	 .016	 1.196b	 5.000	 375	 .310	 .016	Wilks'	Lambda	 .984	 1.196b	 5.000	 375	 .310	 .016	Hotelling's	Trace	 .016	 1.196b	 5.000	 375	 .310	 .016	Roy's	Largest	Root	 .016	 1.196b	 5.000	 375	 .310	 .016	Resilience	Definition	 Pillai's	Trace	 .097	 3.813	 10.000	 752	 .000	 .048	Wilks'	Lambda	 .905	 3.857b	 10.000	 750	 .000	 .049	Hotelling's	Trace	 .104	 3.900	 10.000	 748	 .000	 .050	Roy's	Largest	Root	 .091	 6.855c	 5.000	 376	 .000	 .084	a. Design:	Intercept	+	resilience	Definition	b. Exact	statistic	c. The	statistic	is	an	upper	bound	on	F	that	yields	a	lower	bound	on	the	significance	level		Based	on	the	factor	loadings	in	the	Principle	component	analysis	(see	Table	3.1),	I	renamed	the	components	to:	C1	Integrated	ecosystem	water	management;	C2	Decentralized	water	governance;	C3	Adaptive	water	governance;	C4	Water	supply	expansion,	and	C5	Adaptation	to	flooding.	Details	on	the	variables	in	each	component	are	included	in	Table	3.1	above.	Using	MANOVA,	I	then	analyzed	participants’	favoured	strategies	for	enhancing	resilience,	using	the	components	as	proxies,	in	relation	to	participants’	favoured	definitions	of	resilience.	Two	components	showed	statistically	significant	differences	(p<0.05)	in	the	choices	of	definitions	(C2	and	C5).	Components	C1,	3	and	4	do	not	vary	significantly	by	definition.	Specifically,	the	results	below	show	that	people	who	chose	the	community	resilience	definition	were	more	likely	to	favour	C2	Decentralized	water	governance	than	those	who	chose	ecological	resilience	and	much	more	likely	than	those	who	chose	the	engineering	definition.	People	who	chose	community	resilience	were	also	more	likely	to	favour	C5	Adaptation	to	flooding	than	those	who	preferred	the	engineering	definition.	Respondents	who	preferred	engineering	definitions	of	resilience	were	much	less	likely	to	favour	C5.	There	is	no	statistically	significant	difference	for	C1	Integrated	ecosystem	water	management,	C3	Adaptive	water	governance	and	C4	Water	supply	expansion	(see	more	details	in	Appendix	B.3	and	Figure	3.7).			 76		Figure	3.7	The	variation	in	favoured	strategies	based	on	participants’	choice	of	definitions	of	resilience.	C2	Decentralized	water	governance	and	C5	Adaptation	to	floods	are	significantly	different	between	groups	(p	<	.05,	see	Appendix	B.3	for	more	details).	The	other	3	components	(C1,3	and	4)	did	not	vary	significantly	by	definition.	Note:	the	estimated	marginal	mean	refers	to	the	mean	response	for	each	factor	adjusted	for	any	other	variables	in	the	model.					 77	3.6 Discussion Overall,	I	found	strong	support	for	many	of	strategies	across	the	sample,	suggesting	convergence	around	several	approaches	to	building	resilience	in	water	systems	and	water	governance.	This	broad	agreement	is	perhaps	surprising	given	the	variation	in	favoured	definitions	of	resilience	across	the	sample,	including	ecological,	engineering	and	community	ones.	That	is,	while	of	course	there	is	variability	in	favoured	strategies	(as	captured	by	the	PCA	components),	it	is	not	significantly	correlated	with	the	ways	that	participants	define	resilience	(with	two	exceptions).	In	many	respects,	this	is	encouraging:	despite	a	tendency	among	experts	to	focus	on	one	subsystem	or	another	(ecological,	engineered,	or	social),	there	appears	to	be	sufficient	overlap	in	that	diverse	experts	broadly	agree	on	how	to	build	water	resilience	in	complex	socio-eco-technical	systems.	This	finding	suggests	that	“water	resilience”	does	work	as	a	boundary	concept	in	which	epistemological	or	ontological	differences	can	persist	without	inhibiting	a	more	integrative	thinking	around	the	practical	applications	of	resilience.		Experts	across	the	spectrum	scored	most	of	the	strategies	as	very	important,	indicating	a	virtual	consensus	that	many	strategies	and	actions	are	needed	to	enhance	resilience	to	floods,	drought,	and	in	freshwater	systems	(refer	to	Figures	3.3	to	3.5).	According	to	the	survey	participants,	in	the	context	of	water	security	and	drought	management,	building	resilience	is	primarily	about	diversifying	water	supply	sources	through	a	more	holistic	management	of	water,	and	not	building	more	dams	or	expanding	surface	water	supply	schemes.	Overall,	highly	rated	strategies,	such	as	water	recycling,	stormwater	capture	and	reuse,	and	other	forms	of	supply	diversification	that	utilize	various	aspects	of	the	water	cycle,	are	an	indicator	of	a	shift	away	from	reliance	solely	on	surface,	or	blue-water	centered	supply	paradigms	(e.g.,	Falkenmark	and	Rockström,	2010).	Further,	the	strategy	scores	seem	to	imply	experts’	focus	on	adaptation—to	flooding	or	drought—suggesting	an	acknowledgement	and	indeed	an	acceptance	of	changing	hydrological	processes	and	the	need	to	adapt	to	new	and	uncertain	water	futures.					 78	The	MANOVA	analysis	and	the	Tukey	(HSD)	post	hoc	test	indicated	that	while	there	are	axes	of	variation	in	the	strategy	scores	(as	captured	by	the	PCA	components),	only	two	of	the	five	components	are	correlated	with	participants’	choice	of	resilience	definition.		More	specifically,	as	the	PCA	showed,	the	component	I	termed	Integrated	ecosystem	water	management	captures	the	biggest	cluster	of	variables	that	vary	together	(Table	3.1).	This	component	(C1)	encompasses	a	range	of	strategies	centred	on	restoring	ecosystem	health	and	catchment	level	management,	highlighting	the	hydrological	services	provided	by	wetlands,	streams	and	rivers,	and	species	diversity.	Based	on	the	deep-rooted	disciplinary	divides	I	discussed	earlier	in	this	paper	and	throughout	the	dissertation,	we	might	expect	these	differences	to	be	associated	with	different	understandings	of	resilience.	For	example,	we	might	suspect	researchers	who	aligned	with	the	community	definition	of	resilience	to	have	favoured	community-oriented	strategies	more	strongly	and	not	to	favour	ecological	or	other	strategies.	The	MANOVA	results,	however,	suggest	that	differences	in	strategies	are	not	mainly	explained	by	the	different	disciplinary	traditions	in	resilience	thinking.	The	multiple	comparison	showed	that	there	is	no	statistically	significant	difference	in	this	component	(C1)	based	on	respondents’	choice	of	definition.	Although	support	for	Integrated	ecosystem	water	management	varies,	it	is	likely	a	cross-cutting	theme	independent	of	specific	traditions	in	resilience	thinking.			The	second	component	(C2)	is	centered	around	the	idea	of	decentralized	and	polycentric	governance	(these	are	the	two	highest-loading	or	most	important	variables	in	this	component).	The	decentralized	water	governance	theme	reflects	the	tendency	of	participants	to	give	similar	ratings	to	strategies	such	as	decentralization,	polycentric	governance	and	livelihood	diversification,	as	well	as	diversifying	response	options	to	flood	risks	(see	Table	3.1).	In	other	words,	C2	thus	captures	the	experts’	assessment	of	the	importance	of	building	adaptive	capacity	to	flooding	or	drought	at	multiple	scales.	In	contrast	to	C1,	this	component	(C2)	varies	significantly	by	resilience	definition.	Respondents	who	selected	the	community	resilience	definition	were	more	likely	to	favour	this	cluster	of	strategies—much	more	likely	than	those	who	preferred	the	engineering	definition	of	resilience	(Table	3.1).	Interestingly,	equitable	governance	loads	highest	on	this	component,	likely	because	it	is	driven	by	experts’	concerns	with	the	governance			 79	dimensions	of	resilience.		This	component	is	also	heavily	focused	on	governance,	and	appears	to	reflect	debates	around	centralized	versus	decentralized,	or	polycentric	governance	as	key	for	achieving	resilience.			The	third	component	(C3)	is	very	much	associated	with	notions	of	adaptive	water	governance.	Here,	the	key	strategies	are	the	ability	to	quickly	respond	to	change,	to	adapt	to	uncertainty	and	variability	in	the	water	cycle,	and	openness	to	institutional	change.	As	with	the	first	component,	support	for	Adaptive	water	governance	did	not	vary	significantly	with	respondents’	favoured	definition	of	resilience.	Although	there	is	variation	in	support	for	adaptive	water	governance,	it	seems	disconnected	from	ideological	or	epistemological	differences	in	understandings	of	resilience.		The	fourth	set	of	strategies	(C4),	Water	supply	expansion,	is	heavily	centered	on	expanding	water	supply	and	flood	mitigation	through	infrastructure	and	planning.		While	the	fifth	component	(C5),	Adaptation	to	flooding,	is	centered	on	increasing	infrastructure	redundancy	in	the	context	of	flood	risk,	and	the	idea	of	normalizing	floods	and	learning	to	live	with	them.	This	fifth	component	is	narrower	in	focus	than	the	others,	very	flood-centric,	promoting	a	range	of	strategies	such	as	diversification,	building	in	redundancies,	and	relying	on	soft,	or	non-structural	approaches.	C5	Adaptation	to	floods	is	the	only	component	other	than	C2	Decentralized	water	governance	that	shows	a	potential	epistemological	effect:	respondents	who	chose	community	resilience	were	much	more	likely	to	favour	C5,	while	those	who	aligned	with	engineering	notions	of	resilience	were	significantly	less	likely	to	favour	it.		This	evidence	suggests	first,	that	despite	the	diversity	of	water	fields	and	resilience	orientations,	there	is	an	overwhelmingly	strong	support	for	the	majority	of	the	strategies	in	this	survey,	suggesting	cross-cutting	agreement	that	most	of	these	strategies	are	important	and	needed	to	enhance	water	resilience.	This	echoes	the	conclusions	of	the	UN	World	Water	Development	Report	that	most	water	systems	around	the	world	are	not	resilient	to	increasing	risks	(UN	Water,	2015)	Second,	the	PCA	helped	to	identify	the	major	axes	of	variation	in	the	support	for	these	strategies.	While	the	MANOVA	results	suggest	that	while	there	is	some	disagreement	among	the	experts,	as	captured	by	the	PCA	components,	these	disagreements	are	not	driven	primarily	by	the	different	resilience	definitions	that	experts			 80	favoured.		Thus,	while	debates	about	how	to	theorize	or	operationalize	resilience	in	relation	to	different	systems—social	or	biophysical—may	be	unresolved,	the	difficulties	in	defining	water	resilience	may	not	necessarily	inhibit	theory-bridging	or	the	potential	of	water	resilience	to	contribute	to	new	integrative	ways	of	governing	water	resources.		Second,	these	results	indicate	that	managing	for	ecosystem	health	is	likely	the	most	important	strategy	for	increased	water	resilience,	consistent	with	claims	by	Falkenmark,	Rockström	and	others	who	have	argued	for	eco-hydrological	approaches	to	water	resilience	(Rockström	et	al.,	2014b).	This	implies	that	ecosystems	and	the	eco-hydrological	services	they	provide	might	be	the	highest	order	objective	for	resilient	water	systems—not	the	expansion	or	improvement	of	built	infrastructure,	despite	the	engineering	bias	in	water	systems	research	overall	(Chapter	2).	In	the	context	of	flood	resilience,	general	resilience	and	resilience	of	freshwater	systems,	an	overwhelming	majority	of	experts	also	favor	integrated	management	across	scales—likely	indicating	a	need	to	create	cross-sectoral	connections,	breaking	down	silos	or	scalar	barriers,	and	potentially	opening	up	water	governance	to	more	diverse	decision-makers	and	stakeholders	(e.g.,	Krievins	et	al,	2015).	Further,	the	high	scoring	of	many	strategies,	such	as	using	natural	or	green	infrastructure,	water	recycling	and	utilizing	the	full	water	cycle,	aligns	with	the	concepts	of	Water	Sensitive	Urban	Design	and	Sustainable	Urban	Drainage	Systems	(Brown,	2014;	White	2010;	Wong	and	Brown,	2009).	These	are	emerging	approaches	which	have	not	been	widely	implemented	yet	but	are	highly	supported	by	many	experts	in	the	sample.	These	insights	suggest	that	“water	resilience”	as	a	paradigm	in	water	governance	is	more	closely	associated	with	the	bridging	of	the	various	dimensions	of	the	water	sector	towards	a	more	eco-centric,	holistic	and	adaptive	approach	to	managing	water	“along	the	cycle”.		3.7 Conclusion  This	chapter	contributes	to	knowledge	synthesis	in	what	experts	believe	to	be	the	most	important	strategies	to	increase	resilience	in	water	systems.	To	this	end,	experts	rated	various	types	of	resilience-building	strategies.	I	tested	the	relationship	between	these	ratings	and	experts’	preference	for	different	disciplinary	definitions	of	resilience	(namely,			 81	engineering,	ecology	and	social	systems	notions	of	resilience).	The	evidence	suggests	that	while	there	are	differences	in	how	experts	rated	different	resilience-building	strategies,	these	differences	are	not	strongly	linked	to	how	resilience	is	defined.		Overall,	the	strategy	ratings	show	strong	support	among	experts	across	diverse	sectors	and	water-related	fields	for	several	key	strategies.	First,	managing	for	ecosystem	health	is	the	most	important	strategy	for	increased	water	resilience,	as	well	as	integrated	management	across	scales.	Further,	in	the	context	of	water	security	and	drought	management,	building	resilience	likely	means	diversifying	water	supply	sources	through	more	holistic	water	management	by	incorporating	water	recycling,	stormwater	capture	and	reuse,	etc.	The	scoring	results	also	suggest	that	resilience	in	water	systems	is	strongly	associated	with	adaptation	to	flooding	or	drought.	As	such,	‘water	resilience’	implies	acknowledgement	and	indeed	an	acceptance	of	changing	hydrological	processes	and	the	need	to	adapt	to	new	and	uncertain	water	futures.					 			 82	PART II 	Figure	3.8	Map	of	Cape	Town	Metropolitan	Area.	Created	by	Eric	Leinberger,	UBC	Cartography	Lab	(2012)			Responding	to	scholarly	notions	and	debates	on	resilience	in	the	context	of	water	systems,	many	of	which	originate	in	Northern,	Western	contexts	(see	Chapter	2),	the	following	two	chapters	engage	with	the	applied	aspects	of	building	water	resilience	in	urban	spaces	in	the	global	South.	While	many	cities	in	the	global	South	follow	examples	from	Northern	counterparts,	through	policy	mobility	or	donor	funding,	Southern	urbanism	is			 83	characterized	by	deeply	rooted	legacies	of	colonialism	and	uneven	development.	Urban	form	in	cities	like	Cape	Town	is	shaped	by	drastic	spatial	and	social	inequalities,	which	are	powerful	drivers	in	shaping	(or	precluding)	resilience	pathways	(e.g.,	Kooy	and	Bakker,	2008;	Kooy,	2014;	Mehta	et	al.,	2014).	Through	engagement	with	Southern	urbanism,	resilience	debates	can	engage	more	centrally	with	the	complex	relationship	between	inequality,	informal/ungovernable	urbanism	and	resilience	which	are	often	harder	to	observe	in	Northern	contexts.			Cape	Town	is	a	particularly	insightful	context	to	learn	from	because	of	its	oft-cited	progressive	water	management	that	has	resulted	in	achieving	nearly	98%	access	to	piped	water	(City	of	Cape	Town,	2012c),	and	well	as	in	prominent	international	recognition	for	achievements	in	water	demand	management.	Cape	Town’s	internationally	renowned	success	in	water	governance	and	several	key	national	legislations	—notably	the	National	Water	Act	and	the	Free	Basic	Water	Policy—lay	the	foundations	of	a	progressive	and	arguably	resilient	water	governance	(see	more	on	this	in	Chapter	1).	At	the	backdrop	of	these	achievements,	however,	are	the	struggles	and	challenges	of	a	highly	unequal	city,	with	ongoing	social	contestation	around	land	use,	housing,	and	inequality	in	access	and	quality	of	water	services.		These	challenges	are	of	course	not	unknown	and	have	been	well	researched	elsewhere	(e.g.,	Bond	and	Dugard,	2008;	Mahlanza	et	al.,	2016;	McDonald	and	Pape,	2012;	Smith,	2001;	Thompson,	2003;	Tissington,	2009;	Wilson	and	Pereira,	2012).	For	example,	the	nearly	universal	access	to	piped	water	in	Cape	Town	has	obscured	the	highly	uneven	lived	realities	of	access	to	water	and	sanitation	services	of	many	of	Cape	Town’s	impoverished	residents	and	the	numerous	associated	governance	implications	(see	more	on	this	in	Rodina,	2016;	Rodina	and	Harris,	2016).	Indeed,	residents,	activists,	researchers,	city	planners	and	water	managers	in	Cape	Town	are	still	struggling	to	address	the	city’s	persistent	spatial	inequality	on	a	daily	basis,	as	will	be	shown	in	the	two	following	chapters.			Cape	Town	has	a	rather	independent	resilience-orientated	agenda,	particularly	in	light	of	tensions	between	the	municipal	and	national	governments.	At	the	time	of	data	collection	(April	–	September	2016),	Cape	Town	had	just	become	a	member	of	the	Rockefeller’s	100			 84	Resilient	Cities	program,	opening	up	many	interesting	questions	about	the	possibilities	to	build	resilience	amidst	Cape	Town	specific	urban	challenges.	However,	the	municipal	elections	of	2016	and	the	subsequent	local	government	restructuring	led	to	significant	delays	in	progress	on	the	Resilience	Strategy	for	the	City	of	Cape	Town.	In	fact,	a	Chief	Resilience	Officer	was	only	announced	a	year	later,	in	early	2017.	Despite	this,	the	language	of	resilience	was	present	among	municipal	management	circles	and	discourses,	as	experts	and	planners	were	anticipating	new	strategic	goals	and	partnerships	related	to	the	City’s	participation	in	the	100	Resilient	Cities.	More	importantly,	2016	began	showing	the	first	signs	of	decline	in	dam	levels	due	to	below	average	winter	rainfall	levels	(Archer	et	al.,	2017).	While	only	some	experts	at	the	municipal	departments	who	participated	in	this	research	were	concerned	about	the	severity	of	the	drought,	the	talk	of	a	potential	upcoming	water	crisis	was	beginning	to	circulate	the	halls	of	the	City	of	Cape	Town.	Below	is	a	quick	snapshot	of	the	emerging	water	crisis,	based	on	news	articles	and	my	own	ongoing	research,	to	provide	additional	context.	Most	of	the	drought	related	developments,	however,	occurred	after	data	collection,	and	as	a	result,	the	water	crisis,	and	especially	recent	developments,	remain	outside	the	scope	of	this	research.	However,	many	of	the	research	findings	below	relate	to	some	of	the	key	emerging	questions	around	what	“water	resilience”	might	mean	in	Cape	Town.			Timeline	of	key	events	leading	up	to	the	Cape	Town	Water	Crisis:	• May	26,	2016	Cape	Town	included	in	the	100	Resilient	cities	network	after	two	unsuccessful	applications.			• Aug	3,	2016	Municipal	elections	in	South	Africa.	Action	on	the	establishment	of	a	Chief	Resilience	Office	stalled,	government	restructuring	anticipated,	dependent	on	the	outcome	of	the	elections.			• May	21,	2017	Re-elected	Mayor	of	Cape	Town,	Patricia	De	Lille,	announced	the	appointment	of	the	City’s	Chief	Resilience	Officer.					 85	• May	31,	2017	The	City	of	Cape	Town	announces	new	Water	Resilience	Plan	to	deal	with	the	city’s	water	shortages.		• May	31,	2017	Cape	Town	approved	level	4	water	restrictions	for	the	first	time	in	recent	history.			• July	29,	2017	Mayor	Patricia	de	Lille	chosen	to	spearhead	the	global	resilience	movement	with	the	mayors	of	nine	other	cities.				• August	15,	2017	Announcement	of	the	complete	Water	Resilience	Plan,	a	comprehensive	plan	to	avoid	the	City	of	Cape	Town	running	out	of	water.			• August	19,	2017	Mayor	De	Lille	announces	the	details	of	the	Water	Resilience	Plan,	under	the	leadership	of	the	Chief	Resilience	Officer,	and	with	the	support	of	a	Water	Resilience	Task	Team.	The	Plan	involved	a	portfolio	response,	developed	and	supported	by	professional	consultants.	The	aim	of	the	Plan	was	to	curb	collective	water	usage	to	500	million	liters	a	day.	The	Plan	further	involves	ways	to	augment	the	supply	system	using	a	number	of	technologies	and	sources,	including	groundwater	and	desalination.			• October	4,	2017	Op-ed	by	Mayor	de	Lille	strongly	urging	residents	of	Cape	Town	to	reduce	their	water	consumption,	as	the	City	is	unable	to	meet	its	water	use	reduction	targets.				• January	17,	2018	The	City	of	Cape	Town’s	official	media	release	announced	the	likelihood	of	Day	Zero,	or	the	day	the	City	will	close	off	all	water	services	(minus	essential	services	for	hospitals),	calculated	to	occur	on	April	21,	2018.	Since	then,	Day	Zero	has	been	postponed	several	times,	and	more	recently,	pushed	back	to	2019.				 86	As	the	majority	of	this	research	was	conducted	before	the	onset	of	the	acute	water	shortages	in	Cape	Town,	it	provides	a	glimpse	into	the	early	stages	of	an	evolving	crisis	as	well	as	some	key	considerations	related	to	Cape	Town’s	specific	urban	challenges.	The	next	two	chapters	document	how	resilience	is	articulated	in	the	context	of	Cape	Town’s	municipal	management.	Specifically,	I	query	how	the	question	of	resilience	“for	whom,	of	what,	when,	where	and	why?”	are	articulated	within	different	water	resilience	framings,	as	expressed	by	city	planners	and	water	experts.	I	then	look	at	broader	perspectives	and	notions	of	a	resilient	Cape	Town	through	the	lens	of	a	highly	unequal	city.				 			 87	Chapter 4: Planning for “Water Resilience”: competing agendas among Cape Town’s planners and water managers 	4.1 Synopsis Facing	acute	water	shortages	and	other	water	challenges,	the	City	of	Cape	Town	has	to	reconcile	the	goal	of	building	urban	resilience	to	increasingly	pronounced	climate	change	impacts,	such	as	drought,	with	the	need	to	deliver	equitable	services	and	redress	historically	entrenched	spatial	and	socio-economic	inequalities.	Cape	Town	is	actively	leveraging	ideas	of	resilience	in	dealing	with	acute	water	shortages	and	planning	for	new	approaches	for	water	management	in	the	future.	In	light	of	multiple	and	discordant	approaches	to	building	urban	resilience	to	water	risks,	this	chapter	addresses	the	questions:	what	do	different	framings	of	resilience	enable	planners	and	water	managers	to	consider,	what	solutions	are	thus	prioritized,	and	what	are	some	key	implications?	To	do	so,	this	chapter	traces	how	the	water	resilience	agenda	is	unfolding	in	Cape	Town—a	city	with	some	of	the	highest	levels	of	inequality	in	world—and	documents	the	resilience	framings	that	city	experts	draw	on	in	defining	and	operationalizing	resilience.	The	findings	demonstrate	the	predominance	of	expert-driven	and	technocratic	approaches	in	Cape	Town’s	resilience-building	efforts	in	the	water	sector,	which	have	important	implications	for	the	city’s	spatial	and	socio-political	challenges.		4.2 Introduction: Situating water resilience in Cape Town, South Africa Cape	Town	is	facing	acute	water	security	challenges,	as	the	city’s	water	supplies	are	at	a	critically	low	point	(Chambers,	20189).	In	recent	years,	the	experiences	with	acute	drought	in	California,	Australia,	Saõ	Paulo	(Brazil)	and	other	contexts	have	raised	important	questions	about	the	ability	of	urban	water	systems	to	become	more	resilient	in	the	face	of	changing	hydrological	regimes,	industrialization	and	urban	growth.	As	many	cities	look	towards	Cape	Town’s	unfolding	water	crisis,	building	resilience	to	drought—as	well	as																																																									9	http://www.independent.co.uk/news/long_reads/day-zero-cape-town-drought-no-water-run-out-reservoir-supply-12-per-cent-16-april-south-africa-a8195011.html			 88	flooding	and	other	water-related	risks—has	become	a	debate	of	global	importance.	Resilience	is	typically	understood	as	the	ability	of	a	system	or	a	community	to	withstand	shocks,	or	disturbances,	and	deal	with	change	(e.g.,	Folke,	2016).	This	concept	has	been	and	continues	to	be	applied	in	diverse,	often	incommensurable	or	contradictory	ways,	drawing	on	definitions	and	terminology	from	systems	engineering,	ecology	and	social	sciences	(Folke,	2016;	Olsson	et	al.,	2015).	Over	the	last	few	years,	there	has	been	a	push	towards	synthesizing	the	vast	interdisciplinary	knowledge	that	informs	resilience	thinking	within	specific	topical	areas,	such	as	urban	planning	(Davoudi	et	al.,	2012;	Meerow	and	Stults,	2016),	development	(Brown,	2016),	climate	resilience	(Meerow	and	Stults,	2016),	water	governance	and	water	resource	management	(Krievins	et	al.,	2015;	Rockström	et	al.,	2014b)	and	others,	in	order	to	provide	more	specificity	and	guidance	towards	implementation.	However,	many	gaps	remain	due	to	limited	empirical	base	and	multiple	conceptual	challenges	stemming	from	the	epistemological	and	normative	plurality	within	resilience	approaches,	especially	in	the	context	of	urban	water	governance	(Chapter	2).	Addressing	these	gaps	is	key	for	Cape	Town,	but	also	for	many	other	cities	in	light	of	a	growing	awareness	of	increasing	water	security	challenges.			In	response	to	these	conceptual	challenges,	scholars	have	been	increasingly	arguing	for	“situating”	the	rather	abstract	concepts	associated	with	resilience,	such	as	adaptive	capacity,	responsiveness,	flexibility,	and	so	forth,	within	specific	social	and	biophysical	contexts	(Cote	and	Nightingale,	2012;	Rodina	et	al.	,	2017;	Vale,	2014;	Welsh,	2013;).	“Situating”	as	a	concept	has	been	explored	by	geographers	and	feminist	political	ecologists,	among	others,	to	investigate	the	subjective	and	political	aspects	of	knowledge	production	(Nightingale,	2003;	Rose,	1997).	As	resilience	draws	on	various	epistemological,	disciplinary	and	applied	cultures,	it	is	important	to	engage	critically	with	the	contexts,	forms	of	knowledge	and	agendas	through	which	resilience	is	conceptualized	and	operationalized,	in	order	to	fully	understand	its	practical	ramifications	in	various	contexts.	Situating	resilience	thus	requires	moving	away	from	an	inference	approach	whereby	abstract	institutional	criteria	(such	as	flexibility,	diversity,	connectivity)	are	determined	in	advance	and	tested	on	the	ground	(Coaffee	and	Lee,	2016;	Cote	&	Nightingale,	2012).	Rather,	principles	of	resilience	should	be	drawn	out	of	specific	systems,	where			 89	sociocultural	characteristics	and	social	relations	of	power	mediate	environmental	decision-making.	In	this	chapter,	planning	for	water	resilience	is	situated	within	the	realities,	agendas	and	epistemologies	of	key	individuals	working	at	the	City	of	Cape	Town,	tasked	with	the	complex	and	competing	goals	of	delivering	improved	water-related	services	under	a	changing	climate	and	associated	stresses	on	the	hydrologic	cycle.	Resilience	is	thus	understood	within	the	professions,	agendas	and	ongoing	challenges	of	the	various	strategic	planners,	department	heads	and	city	officials	working	in	departments	ranging	from	bulk	water	supply,	environmental	resource	management,	water	demand	management,	and	stormwater	planning.			Mainstream	resilience	discourses,	globally	and	in	Cape	Town,	tend	to	see	resilience	as	universally	beneficial,	meaning	that	everyone	in	general	might	benefit	from	resilience	building	efforts	(e.g.,	CCT,	2012a;	Folke,	2016;).	Trade-offs	or	potential	negative	effects	of	resilience	building	strategies	are	rarely	addressed	in	the	City’s	resilience	narratives,	or	in	the	broader	literature	(Chelleri	et	al.,	2015,	Harris	et	al.,	2017).	In	this	chapter,	together	with	Chelleri	et	al.	(2015),	Fainstein	(2014)	and	others,	I	argue	that	in	practice,	resilience	building	efforts	are	laden	with	complex	trade-offs	and	are	generally	not	well	equipped	to	explicitly	address	the	question	of	spatial	inequality	and	differentiated	vulnerabilities.	Resilience	building	is	also	embedded	in	disciplinary	and	institutional	legacies	that	are	often	not	flexible,	or	open	enough,	to	deal	with	unexpected	hydrologic	events,	as	was	Cape	Town’s	most	recent	water	crisis.	While	water	resilience	building	efforts	in	Cape	Town	are	ongoing	and	the	results	of	these	efforts	are	unfolding	at	the	time	of	writing,	this	work	informs	broader	local	and	global	debates	on	building	urban	resilience.	More	specifically,	it	shows	that	the	entrenched	engineering	paradigm	in	water	governance	may	not	be	sufficiently	equipped	to	ensure	the	resilience	of	urban	water	systems	to	drought.	While	Cape	Town’s	case	draws	attention	to	drought	more	prominently	due	it	its	current	crisis,	this	chapter	will	also	highlight	the	need	to	revisit	long	held	assumptions	and	practices	in	water	governance	more	broadly.			Lastly,	this	research	illustrates	how	different	resilience	frames	are	articulated	within	urban	and	water	planning	departments	and	what	their	implications	are	for	building	water			 90	resilience,	drawing	on	the	example	of	Cape	Town.	Specifically,	I	investigate	what	different	framings	of	resilience	enable	planners	to	consider,	what	solutions	are	thus	prioritized,	and	what	the	implications	for	social	and	environmental	justice	might	be.	To	answer	these	questions,	I	draw	on	research	conducted	in	2016	to	investigate	the	expert	notions,	perceptions,	challenges	and	tensions	within	Cape	Town’s	water	systems	and	what	aspects	contribute	to	or	challenge	its	hydrologic	resilience.	Interviews	with	leading	water	experts,	decisions	makers	and	key	consultants	are	analyzed	to	investigate	the	various	ways	resilience	is	understood,	articulated	and	challenged	and	what	these	tensions	means	for	Cape	Town’s	various	water	and	social	justice	concerns.	Below,	I	offer	a	discussion	on	the	resilience	imperative	in	water	governance	and	an	overview	of	Cape	Town’s	unique	urban	and	water	landscape.		4.3 The resilience imperative in urban water planning  Urban	planning	scholars	have	demonstrated	that	resilience	has	become	the	new	agenda	for	urban	planners	(Davoudi	et	al.,	2012;	Shaw,	2012),	challenging	central	tenets	in	planning	around	linear	processes.	While	the	literature	on	urban	resilience	has	grown	substantially,	scholars	and	policy	makers	continue	to	struggle	to	reconcile	the	ontological,	epistemological	and	normative	debates	within	the	field	(Olsson	et	al.,	2015).	The	resilience	discourse	itself	has	transitioned	from	more	conservative	notions	of	resilience	as	“maintaining”	or	staying	within	a	certain	normal,	or	equilibrium	state,	to	more	evolutionary	notions	of	resilience	(Coaffee	and	Lee,	2016)	that	are	focused	on	transitioning	urban	sites	to	a	“new	normal”	and	the	associated	need	to	be	able	to	deal	with	higher	uncertainty,	variability	and	complexity.	Specifically	in	the	context	of	water	resources	management,	there	has	been	a	growing	acknowledgement	of	the	need	for	a	paradigm	shift	away	from	conventional	ideas,	such	as	“stationarity”—the	notion	that	natural	systems	fluctuate	within	an	unchanging	envelope	of	variability—towards	new	integrative	ways	of	thinking	that	are	able	to	address	the	fact	that	hydrological	systems’	behaviour	is	changing	in	non-linear	and	unpredictable	ways	(e.g.,	Bell	et	al.,	2017;	Dunn	et	al.,	2016;	Milly	et	al.,	2008).	This	is	particularly	important	for	urban	water	planners,	as	it	raises	tremendous			 91	challenges	in	planning	for	and	mitigating	the	effects	of	drought,	flooding	and	other	water-related	risks.		Further,	the	various	aspects	of	the	discourse	and	practice	of	resilience	building	have	been	critiqued	for	being	co-opted	by	neoliberal	agendas	(Chandler,	2014;	Cote	and	Nightingale,	2012).	One	of	the	key	critiques	is	that	the	prevailing	imaginations	of	resilience	are	centered	around	ideas	of	living	in	a	continuous	state	of	risk	(Coaffee	and	Lee,	2016;	Watts,	2016).	In	the	process	of	building	resilience,	urban	planners	embark	on	new	forms	of	precautionary	governance,	meanwhile	attempting	to	create	resilient	citizens,	and	in	so	doing,	draw	on	a	range	of	stakeholders	with	new	roles	and	responsibilities	(Chandler	and	Reid,	2016).	As	a	result,	resilience	building,	some	have	argued,	has	become	post-political—associated	with	the	shift	to	governance	beyond	the	state	through	participatory	governance,	relying	on	experts	or	transnational	networks,	such	as	the	Rockefeller	Foundation’s	100	Resilient	Cities	(Coaffee	and	Lee,	2016).	The	post-political	aspect	of	the	resilience	imperative	is	manifest	in	the	“foreclosure	of	political	choice,	the	delegation	of	decision	making	to	technocratic	experts,	growing	public	disengagement	from	politics	and	ultimately	the	closing	down	of	political	debate	and	agency”	(Coaffee	and	Lee	2016,	p.	33).	As	discussed	below,	Cape	Town	is	one	important	example	of	how	resilience	debates	are	folded	into	the	domain	of	crisis	or	risk	management,	which	can	preclude	alternative—	arguably	more	progressive—visions	of	resilience.	As	resilience-building	processes	remain	primarily	in	the	hands	of	local	governments	(as	with	100	Resilient	Cities	and	other	examples),	it	is	important	to	unpack	these	spaces	of	decision-making	and	power.		Lastly,	scholars	have	problematized	the	rather	abstract	and	system-oriented	framings	in	resilience	and	have	pointed	out	the	importance	of	asking	more	critical,	context-specific	questions.	For	instance,	Meerow	and	Newell	(2016a)	argued	for	more	detailed	investigation	of	what	resilience	is	for,	by	asking	for	whom,	what,	when,	where	and	how—questions	that	help	delve	into	some	of	the	complex	trade-offs	associated	with	resilience	(Cutter,	2016;	Vale	2014).	These	questions	help	see	the	process	of	building	resilience	as	situated	within	specific	socio-political	contexts	(Cote	and	Nightingale,	2012),	driven	by	specific	people	and	governance	agendas.	While	some	have	argued	that	resilience	has	the			 92	potential	to	radically	change	how	cities	are	planned	and	governed	(e.g.,	Shaw’s	piece	in	Davoudi	et	al.,	2012),	it	is	critical	to	examine	and	unpack	the	processes	of	daily	urban	governance	that	go	into	planning	for	resilience,	and	the	specific	agendas,	objectives	and	expertise	that	are	being	deployed	or	drawn	on	to	plan	“resilient”	cities.			Drawing	on	these	themes,	this	chapter	compares	and	critically	evaluates	the	various	understandings	and	narratives	of	building	resilience,	informed	by	broader	discourses	as	well	by	the	specific	agendas	and	contextual	challenges	facing	Cape	Town’s	water	managers,	operators	and	experts.	The	analysis	helps	to	inform	the	questions	of	what	resilience	is,	who	benefits	from	it	and	what	actions	and	practices	are	thus	promoted.	With	a	focus	on	the	water	sector,	I	evaluate	how	discourses	of	resilience	resonate	with	and	are	articulated	by	experts	and	officials	in	various	departments,	what	notions	of	resilience	are	taken	up	and	what	their	implications	and	associated	trade-offs	are.	As	such,	this	chapter	investigates	the	internal	dynamics	and	resilience	discourses	in	the	City’s	water	management	institutions	leading	up	to	the	City’s	worst	drought	in	history.		4.4 Cape Town, South Africa: context and water security challenges From	a	water	resource	management	perspective,	Cape	Town	is	viewed	as	a	progressive	municipality	that	has	been	awarded	several	excellence	awards	nationally	and	internationally,	particularly	regarding	their	Water	Demand	Management	Strategy	and	achievement	of	nearly	universal	access	to	water	(CCT;	2015f;	DWAF	2007).	Since	2016,	Cape	Town	has	been	experiencing	one	of	its	most	severe	water	crises	in	over	a	century.	Facing	acute	water	shortages,	Cape	Town	has	also	reached	all	of	its	regional	potential	for	additional	surface	water	schemes	(Luker	and	Rodina,	2017).	The	alternative	future	water	supply	schemes	under	consideration	involve	groundwater	use,	water	re-use,	and	potentially	desalination	and	other	capital-intensive	options	(Luker,	2017;	Luker	and	Rodina,	2017).	Over	20%	of	all	households	in	Cape	Town	live	in	informal	settlements	(CCT,	2012d),	with	more	than	80%	of	them	located	in	high-risk	locations—e.g.,	low-lying,	flood-prone	areas,	such	as	wetlands,	or	steep	slopes	(Mels	et	al.	2009).	Informal	settlements	in	Cape	Town,	and	many	other	cities	in	the	global	South,	face	inadequate	access	to	basic			 93	services,	disaster	relief	and	livelihood	resources	and	are	thus	subject	to	highly	differentiated	vulnerabilities	to	water-related	climate	change	impacts	(Ziervogel	et	al.,	2010).	As	Cape	Town	is	expected	to	face	increasing	risks	from	both	droughts	and	floods,	many	of	these	settlements	will	likely	be	exposed	to	higher	risk	(Davis-Reddy	and	Vincent,	2017;	Ziervogel	et	al.,	2014a;	2014b)		Cape	Town,	together	with	many	other	cities,	is	leveraging	the	language	and	discourse	of	resilience	in	its	strategic	planning.	For	example,	resilience	is	now	increasingly	used	in	strategic	and	planning	documents,	such	as	the	Integrated	Development	Plan	for	2017	–	2022,	where	resilience	was	listed	as	one	of	the	key	principles	(CCT,	2017g).	Cape	Town’s	Integrated	Development	Plan	(IDP)	outlines	the	City’s	plan	to	grow	on	a	“more	sustainable	and	equitable	path”	that	includes	building	resilience—in	the	sense	of	flexible	spatial	organization	in	order	to	respond	and	adapt	to	climate	change	(CCT,	2015g).	The	City’s	planning	strategy	further	embraces	a	strong	water	conservation	and	demand	management,	as	well	as	diversification	of	water	uses	through	water	reclamation,	recycling,	rain	water	harvesting,	boreholes	in	suitable	areas,	etc.	(ibid.).	While	the	IDP	stresses	the	importance	of	considering	the	most	vulnerable	in	the	city—specifically	informal	settlements—as	well	as	creating	inclusive	and	participatory	pathways	to	flexible	and	adaptive	development,	there	are	no	clear	recommended	pathways,	and	this	goal	generally	remains	disconnected	from	how	experts	talk	about	building	resilience.	Further,	in	practice,	Cape	Town	has	been	heavily	critiqued	over	the	past	several	decades	for	failing	to	fully	address	issues	of	spatial	and	socio-economic	inequality	(Dugard;	2013;	McDonald,	2008),	including	issues	with	respect	to	water	and	sanitation	services	(Mahlanza	et	al.,	2016;	Wilson	and	Pereira,	2012).				In	May	2017	the	Mayor	of	Cape	Town,	announced	the	creation	of	a	Water	Resilience	Plan	in	reaction	to	the	drought	that	“had	reached	its	most	critical	level	to	date”	(statement	by	Mayor	De	Lille	June	1,	201710).	In	her	announcement,	the	Mayor	emphasized	the	need	to	embrace	water	scarcity	as	the	“new	normal”	and	urged	for	a	more	integrated	approach	to																																																									10	https://www.westerncape.gov.za/eadp/news/statement-mayor-de-lille-water-resilience-heightened-approach-avoiding-water-shortages-and				 94	water	management	in	the	longer	term	by	adopting	an	“along	the	cycle”	water	planning	mentality—i.e.,	involving	stormwater,	groundwater,	rivers,	and	treated	effluent	as	sources	of	water.	The	Water	Resilience	Plan	initially	focused	on	a	combination	of	short	and	longer-term	objectives	to	deal	with	the	immediate	consequences	of	the	drought	crisis	and	transform	how	water	is	used	in	the	longer	terms.	The	short-term	aspect	of	the	Plan	focused	on	water	conservation	and	rationing,	urging	residents	to	drastically	cut	water	use,	albeit	without	real	enforcement	mechanisms.	Further,	emergency	supply	augmentation	schemes	were	proposed,	including	small-scale	desalination	plans,	as	well	as	proposals	for	groundwater	development	and	stormwater	recycling	in	the	medium	to	long	term11.	Since	the	time	of	writing,	the	implementation	of	this	Plan	has	changed,	and	further	developments	remained	outside	the	scope	of	the	research.	As	the	drought	crisis	in	Cape	Town	is	ongoing	at	the	time	of	writing,	it	is	still	early	to	assess	the	successes	and	implications	of	the	current	resilience	enhancing	measures.	Instead,	this	chapter	investigates	internal	dynamics	and	resilience	discourses	in	the	city’s	water	management	institutions	leading	up	to	what	has	now	become	a	globally	debated	water	crisis.		4.5 Methodology This	chapter	draws	on	fieldwork	conducted	in	Cape	Town	from	April	to	September	2016,	and	is	informed	by	earlier	fieldwork	in	2012/13	(for	Master’s	thesis,	see	Rodina,	2013).	Several	interviews	and	site	visits	were	conducted	in	collaboration	with	Emma	Luker,	a	researcher	at	the	Master’s	level	at	the	time,	who	also	provided	feedback	and	assistance	during	fieldwork	in	Cape	Town.	Collaborators	at	the	University	of	Cape	Town	assisted	with	identifying	and	contacting	interview	participants,	conducting	site	visits,	and	provided	feedback	throughout	the	research	process.	This	chapter	is	based	on	analysis	of	33	audio-recorded	in-depth	semi-structured	expert	interviews	in	English,	averaging	50	minutes	in	length,	with	mid-	and	high-level	City	officials,	planners,	consultants	and	NGO	representatives	who	are,	or	have	previously	been,	significantly	involved	in	strategic																																																									11	https://www.capetown.gov.za/Media-and-news/Advancing%20water%20resilience%20getting%20to%20an%20additional%20500%20million%20litres%20of%20new%20water%20a%20day			 95	planning	or	policy	making	for	bulk	water	supply,	groundwater,	water	demand	management,	stormwater,	climate	change	adaptation,	spatial	planning,	riparian	ecosystem	restoration,	and	environmental	education.				Table	4.1	Interview	participants.	Type	of	stakeholder	 Department/Organization	 Number	of	participants	City	of	Cape	Town	 Water	and	Sanitation	(incl.	Bulk	Water	Supply	and	Water	Demand	Management)	 6		 Environmental	Resources	Management	 3		 Spatial	Planning	and	Urban	Design	Management	 3		 Transportation	Department	(Stormwater	and	Sustainability	Branch)	 3	Western	Cape	Province	 Department	of	Environmental	Affairs	 1	NGOs	 Cape	Town	Environmental	Education	Trust	and	ICLEI-Africa	 2	Other	experts	 University-affiliated	and	independent	researchers	 10	Private	consultants	 UMVOTO	&	other	independent	consultants	 5		 Total	expert	interviews	 33		The	expert	interviews	aimed	to	better	understand	how	City	officials	dealing	with	water	supply,	demand	management	and	stormwater	planning	understand	and	assess	resilience	and	the	different	aspects	that	contribute	to	enhanced	resilience	in	the	context	of	their	work).	For	the	analysis,	the	qualitative	data	(including	transcribed	interviews	and	related	documents)	was	analyzed	using	coding	software	(NVivo).	Several	rounds	of	coding	were	conducted—first,	structural	coding	of	all	the	themes	that	were	covered	in	the	interviews	followed	by	thematic	coding	for	the	use	of	the	term	“resilience”.	Specifically,	in	each	interview,	codes	were	applied	to	indicate	whether	the	respondent’s	discussion	of	resilience	was	in	relation	to	ecosystems	(e.g.,	rivers)	or	hydrologic	services	(e.g.,	flood	mitigation),	or			 96	related	to	aspects	of	the	built	water	infrastructure	(e.g.,	water	supply	networks),	or	related	to	governance	issues	associated	with	resilience	building	(e.g.,	coordination,	or	responsibility	for	resilience	building).	The	interviews	were	also	coded	for	familiarity	with	resilience,	as	well	as	for	different	aspects	of	resilience	(such	as	flexibility,	redundancy,	etc.).	Two	distinct	trends	emerged	out	of	the	coding	process—namely,	several	interviews	tended	to	converge	around	a	focus	on	ecological	systems	while	others	converged	around	a	focus	on	engineered	water	systems.	These	two	trends	were	then	compared	to	identify	key	differences.				4.6 Competing notions of resilience among Cape Town’s water managers  Despite	the	relative	novelty	of	the	term	resilience	in	urban	planning	(Coaffee	and	Lee	2016),	the	majority	of	city	officials,	city	planners	and	other	experts	at	the	City	of	Cape	Town	who	participated	in	this	research	were	familiar	with	the	term.	While	this	does	not	reflect	the	extent	of	knowledge	of	specific	definitions	and	resilience	frameworks,	it	suggests	that	most	experts	are	familiar	with	resilience	at	least	in	a	general	sense.	The	expert	interviews	further	revealed	several	important	dimensions	of	resilience	building	efforts	in	Cape	Town.	First,	water	experts’	expressed	notions	and	understandings	of	water-related	resilience	tend	to	revolve	around	two	main	approaches—	termed	here	eco-hydrological	and	engineering	resilience	(defined	below)—	characterized	by	internal	tensions	and	several	important	implications.	Further,	Cape	Town’s	official	resilience	discourse	draws	on	externally	defined	notions	of	resilience—notably	from	the	Rockefeller	Foundation’s	100	Resilient	Cities	program	or	other	foreign	experts—which	has	shown	to	be	problematic	for	Cape	Town’s	context.			4.6.1 Comparing engineering and eco-hydrological notions of resilience  In	this	section,	I	focus	on	unpacking	the	specific	articulations	of	water	resilience	of	experts,	including	city	officials,	water	managers,	operators,	and	consultants	with	the	City	of	Cape	Town,	revolving	around	two	conceptualizations	of	resilience	that	were	found	to	be	most	commonly	referred	to	in	the	interviews.	For	purposes	of	analysis,	I	named	these	two	perspectives	of	resilience	“engineering	centered”	and	“eco-hydrology	centred”,	and	then			 97	compared	them	according	to	the	criteria	below	(see	Table	4.2	for	more	details).	The	engineering	perspectives	focused	on	the	built	infrastructure	(water	supply	systems),	while	the	eco-hydrology	perspective	is	focused	on	the	resilience	of	natural	systems,	such	as	wetlands,	or	rivers,	and	tends	to	align	with	a	similar	trend	in	the	academic/scholarly	literature	(Chapter	2).	Further,	as	will	be	shown	below,	engineering	perspectives,	or	notions,	of	water	resilience	tend	to	refer	to	assessments	of	the	ability	of	Cape	Town’s	built	water	infrastructures	to	withstand	shocks	or	perturbations,	such	as	disasters,	or	infrastructure	failures	(e.g.,	Suribabu,	2017).	This	perspective	tends	to	focus	on	enhancing	resilience	principles,	such	as	redundancy	in	the	built	infrastructure,	which	allows	for	back	up	supply	after	a	failure	within	the	system,	flexibility,	which	allows	different	supply	points	to	be	redirected	quickly,	or	integration,	which	allows	for	the	entire	water	supply	system	as	a	whole	to	function	as	a	coherent	unit.	In	contrast,	eco-hydrology12	based	notions	tend	to	focus	on	maintaining	or	enhancing	the	resilience	of	water	bodies	such	as	rivers,	wetlands,	etc.,	to	withstand	various	shocks	and	provide	valuable	ecosystem	and	hydrologic	services,	such	as	healthy	environment,	cleaner	water,	flood	mitigation	and	aquifer	recharge	(e.g.,	Rockström	et	al.,	2014b).		While	these	two	perspectives	were	not	exhaustive	of	the	ways	different	participants	spoke	about	resilience,	this	simplification	helped	compare	the	two	perspectives	across	several	different	criteria	and	provide	important	insights	about	the	potential	implications	of	applying	each	perspective.	The	comparison	was	based	on	how	each	theme	would	address	the	following	questions:	Resilience	for	whom,	of	what,	to	what,	when,	where,	why	and	how?	(following	Cutter,	2016;	Meerow	and	Newel,	2016a).	In	other	words,	the	analysis	investigated	which	social	groups	might	benefit	from	building	resilience;	which	systems	are	the	focus	of	resilience	building	efforts;	what	stressors	or	risks	resilience	is	built	to	address;	what	spatial	and	temporal	dimensions	are	being	prioritized;	the	motivations	behind	building	resilience;	and	the	actions	through	which	resilience	can	be	achieved	or	enhanced.		Due	to	variable	degrees	of	familiarity	with	resilience	as	a	concept,	the	answers	to	these																																																									12	Eco-hydrology	here	refers	to	the	field	of	studying	the	interactions	between	water	and	ecosystems	and	focuses	on	water	bodies	such	as	rivers,	lakes,	groundwater,	etc.	In	contrast	to	engineered	water	systems,	which	focus	on	the	built	environment,	eco-hydrology	is	interested	in	the	ecological	or	natural	water	systems.				 98	questions	were	not	explicit	in	all	of	the	interviews,	and	in	some	instances,	they	were	inferred	from	the	context	of	the	conversation.	Figure	4.1	provides	a	characterization	of	which	departments	and	areas	of	expertise	were	represented	by	respondents	using	each	of	the	two	framings.	Table	4.2	provides	a	summary	of	all	points	raised	within	the	engineering	or	the	eco-hydrology	perspectives.	This	summary	table	thus	illustrates	measures	considered	appropriate	within	each	framing.	In	reality,	of	course,	some	experts	would	sometimes	draw	on	both,	or	parts	of	both,	depending	on	their	personal	or	professional	knowledge	of	the	resilience	literatures,	therefore,	there	is	a	certain	degree	of	crossover,	as	well	as	tension	among	them.		Figure	4.1	Summary	of	codes	used	in	qualitative	analysis	of	the	interview	data.	Break	down	of	expert	interviews	coded	under	“engineering”,	or	ENG,	(15	experts)	or	“eco-hydrological”,	or	ECO-HYDRO,	(12	experts)	framings	of	water-related	resilience.	Engineering	notions	of	resilience	come	across	predominantly	in	interviews	with	experts	working	in	water	demand	management,	water	quality	reticulation,	and	bulk	water	supply—all	within	the	Cape	Town	Water	and	Sanitation	Department.	Eco-hydrology	framings	came	up	most	commonly	in	interviews	with	experts	in	Stormwater	and	Sustainability	and	Environmental	Resource	Management.	The	analysis	also	shows	crossover	(central	panel)	between	the	different	categories,	with	overlap	in	Environmental	Resource	Management,	Stormwater	and	Sustainability	and	Bulk	Water	Supply,	which	shows	that	these	two	framings	co-exist	and	are	potentially	in	tension.	See	discussion	below	for	more	details.	Note:	(2)	indicates	two	different	representatives	of	the	respective	department	or	organization.		Urban and Environmental Planners consultingplanningICLEI- Africa (NGO)sustainability sciencesEnvironmental Resources Management (2)conservation biology;environmental sciencesBulk Water SupplyengineeringDepartment of Environmental Affairs and Development Planningecology and botanyStormwater & SustainabilityengineeringECO-HYDRO (n=12)ENG(n=15)Bulk Water Supply engineeringUMVOTO Consulting (2)hydrogeologyWater quality reticulation engineeringWater Conservation & Water Demand Management (2)engineering;water resource managementStormwater & Sustainability engineeringSpatial Planning (Metro)planningCTEET (ENGO)ecology and biologyStormwater & Sustainabilitycivil engineeringSpatial Planning (Cape Flats)civil engineeringStormwater catchment management (Cape Flats)engineeringEnvironmental Resources Management environmental sciences		 99		Table	4.2	Engineering	and	eco-hydrological	perspectives	on	resilience,	compared.	To	compile	the	table,	interview	data	(quotes	or	segments)	were	coded	under	“eco-hydrology”	or	“engineering”	notions	of	water-related	resilience	(see	discussion	for	definitions).	The	table	below	summarizes	all	aspects	mentioned	in	each	category,	in	order	of	importance	(i.e.,	how	frequently	mentioned	or	how	strongly	they	were	justified	as	important	by	the	respondents).	Where	a	specific	quote	was	not	available,	the	answer	was	inferred	based	on	the	context	of	conversation	(e.g.,	if	the	interview	participant	said	that	resilience	in	the	water	system	means	continuous	water	supply	according	to	the	local	and	national	mandates,	then	the	answer	of	“for	whom”	was	inferred	to	be	“the	city	residents	as	a	whole”).	RESILIENCE…	Engineering	framing	(expressed	typically	by	experts	in	Water	Conservation	and	Demand	Management,	Bulk	Water	Supply,	Water	quality	reticulation)	Eco-hydrology	framing	(expressed	typically	by	experts	in	Environmental	Resource	Planning,	Stormwater	and	Sustainability)	FOR	WHOM?	(who	is	most	likely	to	benefit	from	enhanced	resilience)	All	city	residents		 Vulnerable	communities		(either	poor,	marginalized	or	those	located	in	high	risk	areas,	such	as	flood	zones);		All	city	residents	OF	WHAT?	(what	systems	are	the	focus	of	resilience	building	efforts)	The	physical	infrastructure	that	constitutes	the	urban	water	system	(dam,	pipes,	treatment	plants,	etc.)	 Urban	natural	assets:	eco-hydrological	systems	and/or	the	ecological	and	hydrological	services	they	provide	TO	WHAT?	(to	what	risks	or	stressors	is	resilience	to	be	built	against)	Disasters,	drought,	infrastructure	failure	(not	necessarily	attributed	to	climate	change)	 Climate	impacts		(typically,	drought	and	flooding)		WHEN?	(what	temporal	scales	are	most	likely	to	be	prioritized)	Prioritizing	the	current	state	of	the	system,	relying	on	historical	records	(the	systems	is	believed	to	be	resilient	to	the	current	hydrologic	regime)	Eco-hydrological	systems	(e.g.,	rivers)	are	considered	as	having	low	resilience.	Prioritizing	the	need	to	enhance	or	build	resilience	in	the	near	future.	WHERE?	(what	spatial	scales	are	more	likely	to	be	prioritized)	The	Cape	Town	water	supply	system,	including	the	dams	that	supply	the	city	 Cape	Town	key	local	catchments	(e.g.,	such	as	the	Liesbeek	river,	Sand	River,	etc.)			 100	RESILIENCE…	Engineering	framing	(expressed	typically	by	experts	in	Water	Conservation	and	Demand	Management,	Bulk	Water	Supply,	Water	quality	reticulation)	Eco-hydrology	framing	(expressed	typically	by	experts	in	Environmental	Resource	Planning,	Stormwater	and	Sustainability)	WHY?	(what	are	the	motivations	for	building	resilience)	To	ensure	continued	supply	through	periods	of	drought	or	other	disturbances	 The	current	state	of	resilience	of	eco-hydrological	systems	is	low			To	buffer	climate	risks	(flood	protection	and	drought	mitigation)		Improve	water	quality	in	urban	watersheds		Provide	other	co-benefits	(social	amenities	and	biodiversity)		Improve	quality	of	life	for	people	relying	on	ecosystem	services	HOW?	(through	what	actions	is	resilience	to	be	achieved/enhanced)	Diversify	supply	by	adding	non-surface	water	schemes,	such	as	groundwater	and	stormwater.		Draw	on	aquifers	with	higher	lag	times	as	they	are	more	resilient	to	drought	(drought	buffer)		Integrated	and	flexible	system	supply	system	to	allow	to	redirect	flows	quickly	between	dams	or	other	sources	when	needed		Decentralized	fit	for	purpose	water	(e.g.,	rainwater	harvesting)		Effective	centralized	demand	and	pressure	management			Use	of	gravity-fed	treatment	plants/distribution,	not	only	relying	on	power	to	move	water		Infrastructure	redundancy	to	help	maintain	supply	during	failures	Stormwater	capture	and	use	as	a	resource		Revitalization	of	urban	water	systems	through	retention	and	rehabilitation	of	eco-hydrological	services		Create	connectivity	along	river	corridors	to	improve	social	mobility	and	ecological	integrity				Heavier	reliance	on	ecological	infrastructure	as	opposed	to	built	infrastructure			As	seen	above,	an	engineering	perspective	of	water	resilience	includes	a	focus	on	the	city’s	built	water	infrastructure	as	the	primary	object	to	be	made	resilient.	Resilience	within	this	perspective	was	typically	understood	as	the	ability	of	the	urban	water	system	to	“be	able	to	supply	through	periods	of	drought”	(city	official	at	the	Bulk	Water	Supply	department,	June	2016)	or	to	“ensure	security	of	supply	when	there	is	a	disaster”	(city	official	at	the	Water			 101	Quality	Reticulation	branch,	July	2016).	Interestingly,	this	perspective	is	also	fairly	confident	in	the	current	state	of	resilience	of	Cape	Town’s	water	supply	system.	While	these	interviews	were	conducted	in	earlier	stages	of	the	current	drought	crisis,	they	signal	a	weak	institutional	ability	to	cope	with	surprise—namely	the	fact	in	late	2017,	Cape	Town	was	about	to	become	the	first	major	city	in	the	world	to	run	out	of	water.	Back	in	2016,	several	of	the	experts	saw	Cape	Town’s	water	system	as	already	resilient	enough	to	withstand	the	risk	of	drought.	For	example,	consider	this	quote	from	an	interview	with	an	official	from	the	Bulk	Water	Supply	department:		I	think	Cape	Town’s	system	is	fairly	resilient	in	that	under	different	conditions,	and	especially	challenging	conditions,	we	are	still	able	to	maintain	a	fairly	uninterrupted	supply.	And	even	during	this	drought,	even	though	there	has	been	a	heightened	awareness	and	I	guess	people	being	scared	that	we	are	going	to	have	supply	problems,	we	have	pretty	much	been	able	to	keep	an	uninterrupted	water	supply	going	to	Cape	Town	(city	official,	Bulk	Water	Supply,	June	201613)		The	factors	that	are	seen	as	contributing	to	resilience	in	Cape	Town’s	water	system	are	integration,	flexibility	and	redundancy	in	the	City’s	supply	and	distribution	network	that	allow	urban	water	managers	to	centrally	redistribute	water	and	effectively	manage	demand.	This	sense	of	confidence	in	the	system’s	resilience	is	supported	by	successful	past	experiences	with	drought	conditions.	For	example:		Redundancy	for	us	is	extremely	important	and	our	conveyance	system	in	Cape	Town	actually	helped	in	dealing	with	the	drought	up	the	West	Coast,	because	we	were	able	to	pull	our	demand	out	of	Voelvlei	Dam	from	a	level	of	200	megalitres	per	day	right	down	to	20-30,	which	people	did	not	think	was	possible,	but	we	rejigged	things	and	we	achieved	it	(city	official,	Bulk	Water	Supply,	July	2016).		Resilience	building	actions	from	this	perspective	typically	highlight	supply	diversification	and	augmentation,	such	as	groundwater	extraction	and	water	re-use,	as	well	as	heightened	demand	management,	through	water	restrictions,	pressure	reduction	and	decentralization																																																									13	The	quotes	in	this	dissertation	have	been	stylistically	edited	for	clarity	by	the	author.			 102	of	water	sources	(e.g.,	use	of	boreholes,	rain	water	tanks,	etc.).	All	of	these	interventions	have	been	incorporated	into	the	City’s	Water	Resilience	Plan,	which	highlights	the	prominence	of	this	perspective	(City	of	Cape	Town,	2017h).				On	the	other	hand,	the	interviews	that	expressed	an	eco-hydrology	perspective	on	resilience	(e.g.,	participants	from	departments	such	as	Environmental	Resource	Planning,	and	the	Stormwater	and	Sustainability	Branch)	focused	on	ecosystem	services	provided	by	rivers	and	wetlands	as	the	focal	point	for	building	resilience	to	increasing	climate	change	impacts	(most	commonly	droughts	and	floods).	Unlike	the	engineering	perspective	among	the	Cape	Town’s	water	experts,	which	tends	to	be	fairly	optimistic	about	the	current	state	of	resilience	of	Cape	Town’s	water	system,	this	contrasting	view	of	water	resilience	tends	to	see	the	city’s	water	systems	in	danger	(lacking	resilience	due	to	high	levels	of	pollution	and	other	factors)	and	calls	for	a	dramatic	change	or	transformation	towards	more	ecologically	sensitive	water	practices,	with	a	specific	focus	on	rethinking	how	stormwater	is	managed:			I	think	the	main	thing	for	me,	from	a	water	perspective,	is	a	shift	in	thinking	around	the	scarcity	and	value	of	water	is	essential.	So,	in	the	beginning	I	was	speaking	about	our	stormwater	system.	And	so,	what	the	city	built	was	a	storm	water	system	that	discharges	all	of	the	storm	water	into	the	ocean.	And	it	is	a	massive	amount	of	storm	water,	because	we	get	winter	rainfalls	and	we	get	a	lot	of	run-off.	And	with	more	hard	surfaces	as	the	city's	developed,	we've	got	more	run-off	here.	So,	for	me,	with	water,	the	two	things	I	think	would	be	essential	around	thinking	of	resilience	is,	one	is,	and	I	think	that's	starting	to	happen	and	I'm	seeing	it	more	and	more	in	meetings	that	I'm	attending,	is	to	begin	to	see	stormwater	not	as	a	waste	product	that	we	are	to	get	rid	of,	but	rather	that	our	storm	water	system	become	part	of	our	water	cycle	and	as	a	resource	that	we	can	tap	into	(city	official,	Environmental	Resources	Management,	June	2016).		Further	in	this	interview,	this	city	official	talked	at	length	about	the	“diabolical”	state	of	Cape	Town’s	rivers	and	how	that	in	turn	reduces	the	overall	resilience	of	the	city	to	drought	and	flooding.	Resilience	building	solutions	informed	by	this	perspective	will	most	likely	focus	on	co-benefits	of	functioning	ecosystems	as	“being	a	fundamental	buffer	to	a	whole	range	of	risks	and	shocks	that	the	city	might	experience,	whether	it	be	drought			 103	scenarios,	loss	of	water	resources,	through	to	climate	change	and	extreme	weather	events”	(city	official,	Environmental	Resources	Management,	June	2016).	For	example,	healthy	urban	wetlands	help	improve	water	quality	and	serve	as	a	buffer	against	other	impacts:		If	you	have	a	wetland	there	it	helps	water	quality	and	other	things.	All	of	those	different	ecosystem	services	that	these	green	natural	assets	basically	provide	are	what	pull	resilience	in	the	city	and	protect	it	from	anthropogenic	impacts	as	well	as	climate	change	impacts	(staff	member,	ICLEI-Africa,	July	2016).		More	importantly,	among	the	co-benefits	of	building	eco-hydrological	resilience,	according	to	City	officials,	is	addressing	both	the	vulnerability	and	the	wellbeing	of	impoverished	urban	communities,	such	as	informal	settlements,	who	directly	rely	on	ecosystem	services.	As	informal	settlements	are	often	located	on	or	near	wetlands	and	river	flood	plains,	they	are	often	vulnerable	to	the	risks	of	flooding	in	the	winter,	as	well	as	other	natural	hazards	(several	interviews	with	officials	at	the	Environmental	Resources	Management	and	Stormwater	and	Sustainability	departments).	As	such,	the	resilience	of	eco-hydrological	systems	is	in	fact	directly	linked	to	differentiated	social	vulnerability	and	social	justice.	As	expressed	by	one	planner:		Because	low-income	households	are	so	reliant	on	free	ecological	services	they	receive	and	that…	Like	smog,	rich	people	can	put	on	filters	on	their	house	whereas	poor	people	are	reliant	on	trees	or	wind	moving	the	smog.	Also,	the	poor	are	incredibly	susceptible	to	being	shaken	or	actually	dislodged	socio-economically	with	rising	utility	costs	[…]	So	I	think	resilience	is	a	huge	social	justice	issue.	The	fact	is	that	in	Cape	Town	there	are	certain	people	that	just	more	susceptible	to	certain	issues.	Like	whether	it	is	sea	level	rise	and	fire	and	flood	and	this	and	that.	So,	if	you	look	at	Imizamo	Yethu	(an	informal	settlement)	in	Hout	Bay.	So	Hout	Bay	is	actually	ecologically	very	sensitive	and	yet	they	have	destroyed…	Now	it’s	not	bad	but	when	the	wind	picks	up,	you	can’t	see	the	road	because	they’ve	built	on	the	dunes.	So,	if	you	look	at	places	like	Imizamo	Yethu	(informal	settlement	in	Hout	Bay,	close	to	Cape	Town),	if	you	made	them	more	resilient—it	would	fundamentally	alter	their	social	situation	(urban	and	environmental	planner,	August	2016).		While	these	two	perspectives,	or	mindsets,	align	with	predominant	traditions	in	water	resilience	(see	Chapter	2),	in	reality	they	constitute	a	spectrum,	with	overlap,	or	crossover,			 104	particularly	around	rethinking	and	transforming	how	stormwater	is	dealt	with	(meaning	shift	towards	capturing	and	integrating	stormwater	in	the	city’s	urban	water	system)	and	changing	behaviours	around	water	use	(e.g.,	fit	for	purpose).	Especially	within	the	work	of	Cape	Town’s	Stormwater	and	Sustainability	department,	it	is	obvious	how	these	perspectives	interact—in	that	both	engineered	and	natural	systems	are	needed	to	reshape	urban	stormwater.		There	is	also	evidence	that	these	two	perspectives	are	difficult	to	reconcile	and	are	in	tension,	particularly	as	engineering	approaches	to	water	are	considered	to	be	dominating	the	City’s	water	planning	space.	For	example,	several	interview	participants	highlight	that	for	them	it	is	important	“to	shift	our	understanding	of	water	from	a	very	technical	process	to	a	greater	socio-ecological	process”	(interview	with	urban	and	environmental	planner,	August	2016).	Another	example:		For	me	building	resilience	is	closely	wrapped	up	with	the	ecological	infrastructure	approach,	with	this	idea	of	using	natural	systems	and	working	with	the	natural	systems,	rather	than	trying	to	recreate	them	through	engineering	(city	official,	Environmental	Resource	Management,	July	2016).		Another	example	of	resistance	to	the	highly	technocratic	approaches	of	water	resource	management	in	Cape	Town	is	evident	in	the	strong	sense	that	the	city’s	water	is	predominantly	in	the	hands	of	engineers.	One	stated	downside	of	this	is	the	lack	of	not	only	in-house	expertise	but	of	interest	in	championing	groundwater	protection	in	Cape	Town:		My	thinking	is	that,	one	of	the	biggest	problems	is	that	the	City	Water	Works	is	just	run	by	engineers.	Not	that	I	belittle	engineers,	don’t	get	me	wrong.	But	you	need	the	hydro	geologist	to	have	a	passion	for	groundwater	(groundwater	consultant,	August	2016)			Similarly,	another	expert	expressed	a	concern	that	the	city’s	engineers	are	not	sufficiently	concerned	with	stormwater	and	other	aspects	of	water	sensitive	urban	design,	as	they	are	trained	to	“build	pipes	and	tunnels”	and	do	not	sufficiently	understand	the	role	smaller	scale	sustainable	drainage	systems	can	play	for	Cape	Town	(interviews	with	experts	in	the	Stormwater	and	Sustainability	department,	June	and	July	2016).	In	a	way,	much	of	what	is	needed	to	transform	Cape	Town’s	waterways	is	likely	outside	the	scope	of	what	engineers			 105	can	do.	In	sum,	experts,	managers	and	planners	responsible	for	the	city’s	watercourses	differ	in	their	perspectives	on	what	constitutes	water	resilience	in	the	context	of	Cape	Town	and	what	actions	and	what	systems	should	be	prioritized	in	these	efforts.	The	discussion	above	illustrates	a	spectrum	from	engineering	to	hydro-ecological	perspectives	on	resilience,	with	different	implications	in	terms	of	what	actions	might	be	prioritized	and	what	the	potential	outcomes,	costs	and	trade-offs	might	be.	Consider	this	discussion	of	the	complex	challenges	associated	with	the	need	for	housing,	informal	urbanization	and	the	need	to	improve	the	ecological	health	of	Cape	Town’s	rivers:		Part	of	the	challenge	is	that	because	of	the	informal	nature	of	people's	in-migration	here,	a	lot	of	the	remaining	spaces	are	close	to	rivers	and	in	floodplains.	It	is	very	hard	to	make	the	case	of	the	importance	of	a	river	system	in	this	city	where	people	are	living	in	shacks	and	do	not	have	jobs	and	do	not	have	electricity	or	toilets.	That's	just	a	river,	you	know.	It's	not	a	priority.	And	that's	the	way	it	is,	you	know.	But	I	am	not	saying	it	is	a	priority	because	it	is	a	river	and	it	should	have	fish	in	it.	I'm	saying	it's	a	priority	because	it'll	actually	reduce	your	risk	in	that	informal	settlement	(city	official,	Environmental	Resources	Management,	June	2016).		Specifically,	for	Cape	Town,	while	the	city’s	water	infrastructure	is	indeed	important,	prioritizing	eco-hydrological	approaches	of	resilience	can	help	highlight	other	co-benefits	that	can	address	some	of	the	vulnerabilities	of	Cape	Town’s	many	impoverished	and	urban	dwellers.	Ecosystem	restoration,	for	instance,	will	necessarily	need	to	engage	with	Cape	Town’s	complex	informal	urbanization,	as	many	informal	settlements	are	located	on	the	riverbanks	of	some	of	the	region’s	major	rivers.	From	an	engineering	perspective,	demand	management,	highly	praised	by	Cape	Town’s	managers	(and	indeed	by	the	global	water	community),	has	also	shown	to	be	highly	problematic	for	low-income	communities	(see	more	on	this	in	Chapter	1).	This	brings	to	life	the	fact	that	resilience	“solutions”	proposed	by	experts	do	not	exist	in	an	abstract	space,	but	map	onto	a	complex	socio-spatial	reality	with	associated	trade-offs	and	as	such	pose	tremendous	implementation	challenges	(read	more	about	this	in	Chapter	5).	In	the	next	section,	I	provide	more	context	to	the	resilience	debates	within	the	City	of	Cape	Town.				 106	4.6.2 External resilience discourses and Cape Town’s unique urbanization As	mentioned	earlier,	resilience	is	familiar	to	most	of	the	interview	participants	and	is	thus	informing	discourses	and	practices	of	water-related	planning	in	Cape	Town,	even	before	the	announcement	of	the	Water	Resilience	Plan	in	May	2017	(after	this	research	was	conducted).	The	proliferation	of	the	language	of	resilience	is	likely	due	its	intuitive	meaning	and	to	internal	communication	related	to	the	100	Resilient	Cities	applications	and	exposure	to	documents	that	mention	resilience,	in	addition	to	the	broader	uptake	in	the	literature	and	in	planning	circles.	The	novelty	and	multiplicity	of	approaches	around	resilience	results	in	a	perceived	need	to	reach	out	to	expertise	outside	of	the	City	to	help	fill	knowledge	gaps:			Then	we	might	not	have	one	definition	of	resilience.	Well,	we	might	have	one	for	the	city,	but	then	understand	that	there	are	different	components	of	that	and	how	do	we	define	each	of	those	components,	and	then	draw	a	line	and	say,	right,	that’s	good	enough	[…].	But	I	think	we	would	need	resilience	experts,	if	they	exist,	to	help	run	that	(city	official,	Environmental	Resource	Management,	Sept	2016).		In	this	case	experts	to	be	consulted	include	private	consultants	(such	as	Arup	Consulting	Group)	or	experts	from	transnational	organizations	(such	as	the	Rockefeller	Foundation).	As	part	of	its	participation	in	the	100	Resilient	Cities	program,	Cape	Town	is	likely	to	draw	on	expertise	from	the	Rockefeller	Foundation	itself.	However,	drawing	on	expertise	external	to	Cape	Town’s	is	contested	by	some	city	officials.	Several	interview	participants	reported	that	external	definitions	and	framing	of	resilience	are	not	applicable	to	Cape	Town:		And	that's	for	me	where	these	kind	of	programmes	never	really	work	out	the	way	that	one	would	hope	they	work	out,	because	you	tend	to	have	predetermined	set	ideas	from	somewhere	like	an	Arup	coming	in	here	and	saying,	well,	this	is	what	you	must	do	[…]	It's	externalized	(i.e.,	not	done	within	the	City	of	Cape	Town).	It	comes	from	of	kind	of	cut	and	paste	repetition.	They	push	a	particular	methodology	that	they	think	works	and	I	don't	think	those	things	ever	really	do	work.	I'm	not	a	great	fan	of	that.	I	much	prefer	internalising	the	work	and	shifting	in	that	regard	(city	official,	Environmental	Resources	Management,	June	2016).			 107		The	fact	that	resilience	principles	are	pre-determined	in	other	contexts	(typically	Western/Northern)	is	a	key	problem	for	applying	resilience	the	Cape	Town,	in	part	because	Cape	Town	faces	unique	challenges,	both	in	terms	of	risks	and	in	terms	of	its	specific	history	and	fractured	urbanization.	Cape	Town’s	experience	with	risk	and	vulnerability	is	not	only	shaped	by	external	stressors,	such	as	climate	change,	but	also	largely	by	its	legacy	of	spatial	and	social	development.	The	nature	of	urbanization	and	the	living	legacies	of	apartheid	are	not	notable	characteristics	of	other	cities,	such	as	New	York,	which	often	are	used	as	examples	of	best	practices	in	resilience	building.	For	example,	the	infrastructure	and	service	delivery	backlogs	in	Cape	Town	are	a	key	barrier	to	moving	forward	with	the	kinds	of	interventions	that	are	suggested	by	the	100	Resilient	Cities	framework.			[From	the	perspective	of	100	Resilient	cities]	we	need	to	try	and	replicate	the	Singapores	and	New	Yorks	of	this	world,	where	you	have	high-rise,	dense	buildings,	because	that's	how	you	can	get	more	people	living	on	the	same	area	of	space	[..].	But	that's	the	challenge	that	we're	in.	And	we're	in	such	a	backlog	in	that	scenario	that	to	actually	see	that	ever	shifting	in	a	measurable	way	is	quite	challenging	to	imagine.	And	we	kind	of	perpetuate	the	risk	cycle	(city	official,	Environmental	Resources	Management,	June	2016).		In	sum,	in	addition	to	internal	tensions	around	what	water	resilience	would	mean	for	Cape	Town,	the	City	managers	contest	externally	imposed	resilience	frameworks—designed	by	foreign	agencies	or	experts	and	consultants	external	to	the	municipality—as	they	are	in	tension	with	Cape	Town’s	unique	urbanization	challenges.	Chapter	5	will	engage	with	more	details	with	key	equity	dimensions	of	water	resilience	in	Cape	Town.	However,	it	is	worth	noting	here	that	while	the	engineering	and	eco-hydrological	narratives	of	water	resilience	are	the	two	most	prominent	in	the	expert	interviews,	several	other	points	were	raised	that	serve	as	important	insights	around	the	governance	challenges	in	Cape	Town.	Indeed,	building	urban	resilience	in	Cape	Town	is	primarily	a	question	of	governance	and	it	is	therefore	important	to	unpack	who	is	involved	in	the	processes	of	defining,	making	sense	and	implementing	resilience-building	strategies.	For	example:					 108	The	biggest	thing	to	me	is	who	would	be	the	right	people	around	the	room	to	make	those	actions,	like	what	are,	how	do	you	prioritize	the	different	actions.	[…]	If	you	going	to	build	houses	that	are	prone	to	flooding,	that’s	called	resilience	in	the	city.	Whereas	if	you	target	improving	water	quality,	that’s	going	to	help	drinking	water	in	the	future,	that’s	also	building	resilience.	There	are	so	many	different	approaches,	so	the	actual	approach	and	what	gets	prioritized	in	terms	of	a	work	plan	to	build	resilient	cities	is	actually	more	important	than	the	discussion	about	what	resilience	is	(staff	member,	ICLEI-Africa,	July	2016).		In	sum,	there	is	little	guidance	in	terms	of	how	different	actions	are	to	be	prioritized	and	what	the	associated	costs	and	trade-offs	might	be.	It	is	thus	important	to	unpack	the	assumptions,	agendas,	and	trade-offs	associated	with	different	notions,	or	constructions,	of	water	resilience	in	order	to	begin	to	evaluate	their	impact.	This	also	implies	that	building	resilience	cannot	be	solely	in	the	hands	of	one	department	but	is	ultimately	a	transversal/cross	sectional	approach,	which	needs	to	draw	on	different	areas	of	expertise—from	those	working	on	the	built	or	grey	infrastructure,	to	those	working	on	social	or	ecological	dimensions	or	resilience.	Lastly,	in	shaping	water	resilience	pathways	it	is	of	utmost	importance	to	consider	who	is	around	the	table	and	what	perspectives	and	indeed	power	dynamics	they	bring	plays	a	big	role	in	building	(or	precluding)	water	resilience.		4.7 Discussion In	sum,	expert	notions	of	what	resilience	means	among	Cape	Town’s	water	managers	tend	to	revolve	around	two	main	conceptualizations	that	reflect	the	framings	that	dominate	the	academic	literature	(Chapter	2):	eco-hydrological	and	engineering	notions	of	resilience,	with	some	crossover	that	can	potentially	offer	opportunities	for	cross-disciplinary	integration.	From	the	expert	interviews	discussed	above,	five	referred	to	resilience	in	an	eco-hydrological	sense,	eight	in	an	engineering	sense,	and	seven	having	references	to	both	(see	Figure	4.1).	This	shows	the	ongoing	centrality	of	the	engineering	perspective	and	is	likely	the	product	of	the	fact	that	a	majority	of	the	water	experts	interviewed	are	also	trained	engineers,	particularly	those	working	in	the	Water	and	Sanitation	Department.	As	such,	there	is	ongoing	focus	on	technocratic	approaches	to	water	governance,	a	trend	that			 109	has	already	been	strongly	critiqued	globally	(Bell	et	al.,	2017)	and	in	South	Africa	(Bourblanc,	2017;	Swatuk,	2008).			The	two	perspectives	differ	significantly	in	terms	of	the	following:	a) which	systems	are	prioritized—natural,	ecological	system	or	the	built	infrastructure,		b) the	scale	at	which	resilience	building	efforts	are	applied—the	catchment	scale,	or	the	scale	of	water	distribution	system	which	in	this	case	is	significantly	larger,	and			 c) most	importantly,	the	actions	that	are	advocated	for	building	resilience—whether	investing	in	supply	diversification,	or	increased	demand	management,	or	prioritizing	ecosystem	rehabilitation.			An	eco-hydrology	approach	to	water	resilience,	in	this	case	study,	is	more	closely	aligned	with	ideas	about	Water	Sensitive	Urban	Design	(e.g.,	Wong	and	Brown,	2009)	and	is	much	less	likely	to	promote	capital-intensive	large-scale	infrastructure	projects.	Instead,	it	prioritizes	working	within	the	existing	natural	and	built	infrastructures—such	as	rivers,	stormwater	channels,	retention	ponds,	groundwater	aquifers,	and	integrating	previously	unused	parts	of	the	water	cycle	(e.g.,	Armitage	et	al.,	2014).	The	eco-hydrological	perspective	also	tends	to	be	more	critical	of	the	status	quo,	in	relative	terms,	and	advocates	for	action	to	improve	the	quality	of	urban	watersheds,	connectivity	and	overall	health	of	urban	ecosystems	and	the	hydrological	services	they	provide	to	various	communities.	The	interviews	suggest	that	the	eco-hydrology	perspective,	as	expressed	by	Cape	Town’s	water	experts,	is	more	open	to	considering	uneven	access	to	ecosystems	services	or	exposure	to	environmental	risks—for	instance,	several	experts	recognized	that	many	impoverished	populations	live	in	high-risk	environments.	In	the	examples	above	we	saw	discussions	of	social	co-benefits	of	improving	ecosystem	resilience,	such	as	health	benefits	to	communities	in	proximity	to	these	ecosystems,	at	least	in	theory.	As	such	this	perspective	is	much	more	aligned	with	and	attentive	to	Cape	Town’s	socially	differentiated	landscape	and			 110	is	thus	more	likely	to	engage	more	substantively	with	questions	of	social	and	environmental	justice	in	Cape	Town.		In	contrast,	the	engineering	notions	of	resilience	are	more	technocratic	in	nature	and	rarely	focus	on	the	social	or	spatial	differentiation	in	terms	of	impacts	or	effects.	Engineering	perspectives	in	water	resilience,	as	seen	above,	tend	to	rely	on	past	hydrologic	data	in	predicting	future	trends,	and	are	thus	often	ill-equipped	to	deal	with	uncertainty.	This	likely	contributes	to	institutional	inability	to	deal	effectively	with	change	in	hydrologic	regimes,	which	has	been	recognized	as	key	for	resilient	water	governance	(e.g.,	Bell	et	al.,	2017;	Dunn	et	al.,	2016).	This	perspective	also	tends	to	examine	the	water	system	as	largely	detached	from	the	social	fabric	of	the	city,	which	can	be	highly	problematic	in	contexts	such	as	Cape	Town,	where	questions	of	inequality,	politics	and	justice	in	urban	water	governance	and	risk	management	debates	are	of	utmost	importance	(e.g.,	Dugard,	2013;	Mahlanza,	et	al.,	2016;	Mehta	et	al.,	2010;	Wilson	and	Pereira,	2012;	Ziervogel	et	al.,	2017).	As	such,	we	see	evidence	that	narrow	technical	articulations	of	“water	resilience”	can	potentially	sideline	key	social,	cultural	and	in	some	cases	ecological	dimensions	of	water,	impeding	more	integrative,	holistic,	and	socially	just	ways	of	governing	water.	In	reality,	of	course,	a	combination	of	all	of	these	approaches	is	likely	to	be	more	successful	in	actually	increasing	overall	water-related	resilience.	However,	there	is	still	little	understanding	of	resilience	building	practices	in	water	governance,	due	to	the	fact	that	water	is	still	predominantly	managed	in	siloed	ways	in	many	municipalities,	including	in	Cape	Town,	with	little	integration	across	the	various	departments	that	manage	different	parts	of	the	water	cycle	(Bell	et	al.,	2017;	Luker,	2017).		As	such,	the	centrality	of	conventional	technocratic	approaches	permeating	the	water	resilience	discourses	in	Cape	Town	may	result	in	mis-guided	actions	by	ineffectively	addressing	water	risks	or	by	ignoring	or	sidelining	issues	of	social	differentiation	and	exposure	to	risk.	As	discussed	in	earlier	chapters	in	this	dissertation,	the	emerging	domain	of	water	resilience,	with	its	focus	on	hybrid	socio-eco-technical	systems	and	collaborative	and	integrative	thinking,	is	effectively	advocating	for	opening	up	the	domain	to	urban	water	management	to	include	more	diverse	approaches	to	water.	Indeed,	the	conventional			 111	engineering	water	paradigm	on	its	own	is	proving	insufficient	to	manage	emerging	water	risks.	For	example,	Cape	Town’s	ongoing	water	crisis	is	a	clear	sign	of	institutional	unpreparedness	to	tackle	unusual	and	(arguably)	unexpected	changes	in	the	water	cycle,	suggesting	that	Cape	Town’s	water	system	is	not	resilient	enough	to	drought,	despite	the	confidence	expressed	by	some	of	the	City’s	water	managers.			Within	Cape	Town’s	own	water	management	circles,	there	is	a	noticeable	tension	around	the	prevalence	of	engineering	and	technocratic	approaches	to	water,	perceived	by	experts	in	environmental	resource	management	and	stormwater	management	as	potentially	ill-equipped	to	handle	Cape	Town’s	complex	water	challenges.	Several	officials	also	expressed	frustration	with	the	fact	that	water	supply	and	sanitation	departments	consistently	have	much	larger	budgets,	while	stormwater	maintenance	and	planning	are	often	underfunded	and	considered	less	of	a	priority	in	Cape	Town	(personal	communication,	June	–	July	2016).	I	learned	from	several	experts	in	environmental	resource	management	and	stormwater	management	that	there	is	a	growing	sense	of	the	need	for	an	approach	that	looks	at	the	water	system	in	more	integrative	ways—through	green	infrastructure	for	stormwater	capture	and	reuse,	to	investing	in	water	quality	improvements,	rather	than	focusing	solely	on	large-scale	water	supply	infrastructure.	But	these	departments	historically	have	been	less	influential	in	shaping	the	trajectories	in	the	water	sector,	globally	and	in	Cape	Town	specifically.			Historically	as	well,	Cape	Town’s	water	management	has	been	dominated	by	engineering	technocratic	approaches,	particularly	during	times	of	crises,	such	as	drought	(Bourblanc,	2017).	The	government	in	Cape	Town,	currently	run	by	the	Democratic	Alliance	party,	has	for	decades	pursued	a	capital-intensive	economic	growth	program	and	market-based	technocratic	approaches	in	the	water	sector	(and	more	broadly)	that	are	not	addressing	Cape	Town’s	glaring	spatial	and	economic	inequality	issues	(Dugard,	2013;	Mahlanza,	et	al.,	2016;	McDonald,	2008;	Smith,	2004).	Cape	Town	is	not	unique:	South	Africa	in	general	has	been	widely	critiqued	for	relying	heavily	on	mega	infrastructures	to	solve	the	pressures	on	the	water	sector	(Bourblanc,	2017;	Swatuk,	2008).	Specifically,	before	apartheid,	the	predominant	expertise	in	the	national	Water	and	Sanitation	department	was	in	the	hands			 112	of	educated	white	engineers,	who	continue	to	maintain	significant	influence	over	the	national	water	sector,	typically	through	private	consulting,	even	after	the	restructuring	of	the	Water	and	Sanitation	Department,	as	the	post-apartheid	government	tends	to	outsource	many	of	its	technical	tasks	(Bourblanc	2017,	p.313).			While	Cape	Town	is	in	many	ways	a	highly	developed	municipality	with	good	water	quality	and	formal	piped	network	that	at	least	in	a	basic	sense	is	providing	water	to	98%	of	the	population	(City	of	Cape	Town,	2012d),	the	city’s	waterscape	is	shaped	by	processes	similar	to	many	other	cities	in	the	Global	South.	The	historical	configuration	of	water	infrastructure	in	Cape	Town,	as	well	as	many	other	cities	in	the	global	South,	follows	colonial	patters	of	development,	which	have	historically	marginalized	large	proportions	of	society	(e.g.,	Kooy	and	Bakker;	2008;	Smith,	2001).	Historical	legacies	of	large-scale	infrastructure	and	associated	engineering	paradigms	continue	to	shape	contemporary	patterns	of	access	to	water	and	vulnerability	to	water-related	risks.	Therefore,	it	is	critical	to	engage	with	and	indeed	challenge	expert	knowledge	in	the	water	sector.	More	importantly,	while	the	City	of	Cape	Town	is	mandated	by	national,	provincial	and	local	policies	to	promote	equitable	development,	the	existing	water	resilience	discourses	at	the	city	level	(at	the	time	of	research)	only	marginally	incorporate	considerations	of	inequality,	specifically	unequally	distributed	adaptive	capacity	to	cope	with	water-related	risks.	These	concerns	are	not	entirely	missing,	of	course.	An	eco-hydrology	lens	does	promote	thinking	about	localized	environments	and	sheds	light	on	the	complex	interrelationship	between	informal	urbanization	in	marginal	lands	and	the	goal	of	building	healthy	living	natural	environments.		As	we	saw	above,	in	discussing	the	resilience	of	urban	watersheds,	city	officials	reflected	on	some	of	the	deeply	entrenched	spatial	inequalities.	Even	so,	these	conversations	should	become	front	and	center	in	Cape	Town’s	resilience	debates,	considering	the	city’s	high	levels	of	inequality.			This	finding	speaks	to	broader	debates	in	urban	planning	around	what	it	means	to	build	resilience	in	urban	systems—hybrid	socio-eco-technical	environments—and	specifically	to	embrace	principles	such	as	uncertainty,	unpredictability	and	surprise.	Alberti	(2016),	Coaffee	and	Lee	(2016)	and	others	have	theorized	that	resilience	thinking	has	challenged			 113	many	long-held	principles	in	planning,	constituting	a	paradigm	shift	in	theory,	but	still	lacking	in	practical	guidance.	Indeed,	neither	trained	engineers	nor	ecologists	have	complete	knowledge	of	the	complex	interactions	between	hydrological,	ecological,	climate	or	social	processes	across	multiple	scales.	As	shown	earlier,	applying	specific	narrow	perspectives	on	water	resilience	implies	focusing	on	certain	scales,	objectives,	and	actions	over	others.	In	an	applied	sense,	bridging	or	hybridizing	these	approaches	is	likely	much	better	equipped	to	address	the	complexity	and	unpredictability	of	urban	metabolic	processes.	However,	as	seen	in	Cape	Town,	but	also	likely	in	other	contexts,	to	create	spaces	for	more	inclusive	and	integrative	decision-making,	the	existing	power	dynamics	must	change	to	accommodate	a	more	even	playing	field.		As	such,	this	case	study	speaks	to	the	need	to	create	more	opportunities	for	knowledge	integration	and	opening	up	the	decision-making	spaces	in	the	water	sector	to	a	broader	range	of	expertise	and	perspectives.		4.8 Conclusion While	scholarly	debates	on	what	resilience	means	and	how	it	is	to	be	achieved	in	the	context	of	water	governance	are	ongoing,	urban	planners	and	water	managers	in	many	cities	across	the	world	face	enormous	challenges,	due	to	a	changing	climate,	growing	urbanization,	and	other	stressors.	Defining	and	implementing	resilience	is	also	a	clear	challenge,	often	with	little	in	terms	of	parameterization	or	specificity	about	what	resilience	can	and	should	mean.	Cape	Town’s	recent	experience	is	a	strong	signal	for	the	need	to	engage	critically	with	the	question:	how	to	make	cities	more	resilient	to	water	risks—drought	or	other	risks?	Indeed,	no	single	approach	to	building	resilience	in	water	governance	will	be	sufficient	to	achieve	the	combined	goals	of	social,	ecological	and	infrastructural	resilience	in	the	face	of	climate	change,	because	environmental	challenges	and	the	governance	approaches	to	their	solutions	are	highly	context-specific	and	grounded	in	local	environmental	conditions	and	socio-political	histories	(Cosens	&	Stow,	2014).	More	importantly,	to	understand	how	global	ideas	of	resilience	articulate	with	local	realities,	this	chapter	draws	attention	to	the	specific	sites	and	people	that	are	involved	in	strategic	urban	planning,	for	water	resources	and	services	and	more	broadly.	By	unpacking	these			 114	questions,	we	can	draw	lessons	on	how	technocratic	and	expert-driven	knowledges	on	resilience	articulate	with	specific	departmental	agendas	and	political	dynamics	within	urban	planning	and	governance	(Vale,	2014).	Unpacking	the	various	discourses	around	resilience	building	in	Cape	Town’s	water	sector	demonstrates	that	different	frames	of	resilience	would	prioritize	fundamentally	different	actions	as	they	focus	on	different	“objects”	to	be	made	resilient.	Lastly,	this	work	shows	for	the	need	for	new,	more	collaborative	decision	spaces	around	water	to	enable	the	inclusion	of	more	diverse	perspectives	and	experiences.			 			 115	Chapter 5: Resilience Counter-Currents: risk, inequality and informality in Cape Town, South Africa 	5.1 Synopsis In	early	2017,	as	Cape	Town	faced	historically	unprecedented	water	shortages,	the	city’s	leadership	embarked	on	a	pathway	towards	building	water	resilience	in	anticipation	of	the	imminent	possibility	of	running	out	of	water.	The	water	crisis	pointed	to	key	water	security	challenges	and	the	need	to	transition	towards	more	resilient	water	management	in	the	longer	term.	This	chapter	informs	these	debates	by	engaging	perspectives	from	urban	political	ecology	to	suggest	that	Cape	Town’s	profoundly	unequal	urban	form	and	historical	legacies	are	key	barriers	to	fostering	socio-hydrological	resilience.	I	highlight	that	Cape	Town’s	marginalized	urban	spaces,	while	physically	located	at	the	periphery,	are	indeed	central	to	the	city’s	urban	social-ecological	systems,	and	are	therefore	central	for	Cape	Town’s	resilience.	I	will	further	illustrate	key	points	of	conflict	and	disconnections	that	inhibit	efforts	to	build	socio-hydrological	resilience—namely,	disconnected	state-civil	society	knowledge	flows	and	disconnected	socio-ecological	systems.	Addressing	these	disconnections	and	centering	on	the	city’s	most	marginalized	spaces	is	paramount	in	Cape	Town’s	resilience	building	efforts—to	water	risks,	and	climatic	and	environmental	change	more	broadly.			5.2 Introduction True	resilience	to	climate	change	is	inextricably	linked	to	reducing		inequality,	reducing	poverty	and	advancing	participatory	democracy		whereby	all	citizens	have	agency	to	improve	their	lives	Wilson	and	Pereira,	2017	14		Cape	Town,	South	Africa,	is	often	praised	for	its	highly	progressive	water	agenda,	serving	as	a	regional	leader	in	climate	change	adaptation,	water	conservation	and,	more	recently,	in																																																									14	Available	online	at	https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2017-09-14-op-ed-cape-towns-inadequate-drought-tariffs			 116	adopting	Water	Sensitive	Design	principles	(e.g.,	Armitage,	2014).	Cape	Town’s	achievements	in	water	management	have	been	able	to	curb	overall	water	demand,	and	as	a	result	postpone	the	need	to	add	new	water	sources	(DWAF,	2007a;	Luker	and	Rodina,	2017).	Despite	this	however,	in	2017	the	city	faced	acute	water	shortages,	which	led	to	the	possibility	of	“running	out	of	water”	(Welch,	2018).	This	recent	water	security	crisis	is	a	strong	indication	that	Cape	Town’s	water	supply	system	is	not	resilient	to	uncertainty	in	the	hydrological	cycle—in	this	case,	to	lower	than	average	winter	rainfall	over	the	last	three	years.	While	this	crisis	is	ongoing,	and	many	new	tensions	and	issues	are	still	emerging,	this	chapter	presents	research	conducted	prior	to	2017,	at	the	early	stages	of	what	is	now	officially	deemed	a	“water	crisis”.	With	this	chapter,	I	focus	on	ongoing	urban	processes	and	conditions	that	shape	a	very	unequal	landscape	that	in	turn	has	important	implications	for	Cape	Town’s	socio-hydrological	resilience.	As	such,	I	engage	with	broader	debates	of	the	implications	of	high	levels	of	urban	inequality	for	socio-hydrological	resilience.			The	resilience	scholarship	has	offered	several	insights	about	the	practices	and	strategies	that	can	help	improve	hydrological	resilience,	including	improving	ecological	connectivity	and	overall	watershed	health,	integration	across	scales	in	water	management	(e.g.,	linking	wastewater	and	freshwater	management),	and	opening	up	spaces	for	inclusion	of	diverse	stakeholders	and	objectives	(Arnold	et	al.,	2014;	Krievins,	et	al.,	2015;	Pahl-Wostl,	et	al.,	2013;	Rockström	et	al.,	2014b	and	Chapter	2	of	this	dissertation).	However,	many	of	these	resilience	principles	remain	abstract,	and	open	to	interpretation	or	co-optation	into	existing	technocratic	management	agendas.	To	fully	understand	the	possibilities	that	these	resilience	principles	enable,	or	foreclose,	in	contexts	such	as	Cape	Town,	requires	“situating”	resilience	within	the	complex	messy	realities	of	Southern	urbanism	(Cote	and	Nightingale,	2012;	Pieterse,	2011;	Pierce	and	Lawhon,	2017).	As	I	will	demonstrate	below,	this	means	thinking	critically	about	inequality,	various	forms	of	urbanism,	and	power	within	socio-hydrological	systems.	Specifically,	what	power	dynamics	permeate	socio-ecological	systems	and	produce	inequality?	Whose	knowledge	and	experience	are	being	considered	in	visioning	and	planning	for	urban	resilience?	(Cutter,	2016;	Meerow	and	Newel,	2016a).	Amplifying	calls	to	focus	centrally	on	power	and	justice	within	resilience			 117	agendas	(e.g.,	Ernstson,	2013;	Rodina	et	al.,	2017,	Welsh,	2014;	Ziervogel	et	al.,	2017),	I	situate	resilience	in	the	uneven	urban	processes	and	socio-hydrological	realities	of	Cape	Town.			Similar	to	many	other	cities,	both	in	the	global	North	and	the	global	South,	Cape	Town	has	embraced	the	language	of	resilience	in	its	urban	planning	discourses.	This	is	evident	in	the	City’s	Spatial	Development	Framework	(2016/2017),	Water	Sensitive	Urban	Design	efforts,	particularly	around	sustainable	urban	drainage	(Armitage	et	al.,	2014),	climate	change	response	strategy,	the	Water	Resilience	Plan	(2017),	and	ongoing	efforts	to	develop	a	Resilience	Strategy	as	part	of	Rockefeller’s	100	Resilient	Cities	program	(not	completed	at	the	time	of	writing).	In	so	doing,	Cape	Town	has	drawn	on	externally	driven	resilience	frameworks,	primarily	from	Western/Northern	contexts,	such	as	the	100	Resilient	Cities	program	(a	tendency	that	has	been	met	with	opposition	within	the	City	of	Cape	Town’s	management	circles	back	in	2016;	see	more	on	this	in	Chapter	4),	as	well	driving	its	own	urban	resilience	agenda,	now	largely	fueled	by	the	need	to	build	resilience	to	the	ongoing	drought.	Adopting	“best	practices”	from	Western	and	Northern	cities	is	not	a	new	approach	for	Cape	Town—in	the	last	few	decades	Cape	Town	has	been	at	the	forefront	of	a	progressive	development	agenda	to	become	a	“world	class	city”	by	attracting	foreign	capital	and	stimulating	economic	growth	(Dugard,	2013;	McDonald,	2007).	These	efforts,	however,	while	successful	in	raising	Cape	Town’s	international	profile,	have	been	loudly	critiqued	for	deepening	the	city’s	inequality	and	associated	development	and	infrastructure	challenges	(McDonald,	2008;	McDonald	and	Smith,	2002).			The	language	of	resilience	has	also	become	front	and	center	in	the	unfolding	drought	crisis	debates.	In	May	2017,	Cape	Town’s	mayor	Patricia	de	Lille	announced	the	development	of	a	Water	Resilience	Plan	under	the	leadership	of	the	Chief	Resilience	Officer	to	face	the	acute	water	shortages	through	a	combination	of	demand	and	supply	side	solutions.	In	the	short	term,	the	Water	Resilience	Plan	focused	on	disaster	relief	and	heightened	water	demand	management	to	handle	the	immediate	dangers	of	reaching	“Day	Zero”.	However,	Cape	Town	already	has	a	long	and	contentious	history	with	Water	Conservation	and	Demand	Management—a	municipal	strategy	that	has	been	successful	in	curbing	overall	demand			 118	over	the	past	two	decades	(Luker	and	Rodina,	2017),	while	also	loudly	critiqued	for	disproportionately	targeting	the	city’s	poor	residents.			Specifically,	since	2007	the	City’s	demand	management	efforts	have	included	selective	rolling	out	of	water	devices	to	limit	daily	water	use	in	impoverished	urban	areas	and	much	less	so	in	wealthier,	higher	water	consumption	areas	(Mahlanza	et	al.,	2016;	Wilson	and	Pereira	2012;	2017)—although	in	light	of	the	2017	drought	crisis,	wealthier	neighborhoods	are	now	also	becoming	subject	to	these	devices.	Further,	flattening	of	the	stepped	water	tariff	curve	since	2010	has	been	achieved	by	placing	disproportionate	burden	on	poor	households,	as	opposed	to	penalizing	excessive	water	users	[i.e.,	higher	price	increases	at	lower	rather	than	higher	consumption	levels,	Wilson	and	Pereira	(2012;	2017)].	In	the	midst	of	a	heightened	awareness	of	water	shortages,	and	ongoing	municipal	campaigns	pleading	that	residents	reduce	their	water	use,	social	justice	activists	are	putting	forward	alternative	visions	of	resilience	that	center	on	systemic	transformation	towards	a	more	equitable	and	just	society	(e.g.,	Wilson	and	Pereira,	2017).	Globally	as	well,	a	growing	number	of	scholars	have	begun	to	push	for	a	more	transformative	notion	of	resilience	in	the	context	of	Southern	Africa	and	beyond	that	centers	on	equity	and	justice	as	key	objectives	of	resilience	building	(Rodina	et	al.,	2017;	Ziervogel	et	al.,	2017).		In	this	chapter,	I	delve	into	the	nature	of	Cape	Town’s	complex	urban	dynamics	to	situate	and	challenge	the	uncritical	imposition	of	decontextualized	notions	of	urban	(water)	resilience.	Cape	Town’s	urbanization	challenges	and	highly	unequal	urban	geography	are	a	crucial	vantage	point	to	reimagine	and	refocus	notions	of	urban	socio-hydrological	resilience	in	this	and	other	similar	contexts.	Theoretically,	this	article	draws	on	urban	political	ecology	and	work	in	African	urbanism	to	bring	out	the	resurgent,	silenced	and	marginalized	voices	and	notions	of	resilience,	embedded	in	the	lived	realities	of	Cape	Town’s	many	impoverished	people.	Borrowing	Edgar	Pieterse’s	term	(2010),	this	chapter	draws	attention	to	several	resilience	“counter-currents”—i.e.,	trends	or	notions	that	run	counter	to	achieving	equitable	socio-hydrological	resilience	and	challenge	the	technocratic	development	discourses	that	dominate	Cape	Town’s	management,	as	well	as	broader	transnational	expert-driven	and	decontextualized	notions	of	resilience.	As	such,	the	goal	of			 119	the	chapter	is	to	situate—or	politicize	and	contextualize—resilience	within	the	contested,	messy	and	complex	realities	of	Cape	Town,	lending	insights	to	other	Southern	cities	as	well.	To	this	end,	this	chapter	investigates	three	stories	that	form	aspects	of	Cape	Town’s	contested	waterscape	and	collectively	inform	ideas	about	socio-hydrological	resilience.	Drawing	on	interviews	with	civil	society	members,	activists	and	city	officials,	I	demonstrate	that	Cape	Town’s	marginalized	urban	spaces,	while	physically	located	at	the	periphery,	are	in	fact	central	to	the	city’s	urban	social-hydrological	systems.	As	formal/informal	urban	social-ecological	systems	are	deeply	interconnected,	I	find	key	conflicts	and	disconnections	that	inhibit	the	socio-hydrological	resilience	of	Cape	Town—namely,	disconnected	state-civil	society	knowledge	flows	and	disconnected	social	and	ecological	systems.		5.3 Revisiting resilience through the lens of urban political ecology Resilience,	a	key	concept	in	many	contemporary	debates	on	global	environmental	change,	climate	change	adaptation,	and	urban	planning,	is	commonly	understood	as	the	ability	of	systems	(social	or	biophysical)	to	withstand	or	cope	with	risks,	shocks	or	stressors,	while	continuing	to	maintain	key	functions	or	structures,	or	to	adapt	in	the	face	of	change	(Folke,	2016).	Due	to	epistemological	pluralism	in	resilience	discourses	(Olsson	et	al.,	2015;	Wilson,	2017),	the	meaning	of	resilience,	its	utility	and	pathways	to	achieving	are	subject	to	ongoing	debates.	Some	of	the	key	critiques	of	resilience	are	concerned	with	the	Northern/Western	roots	of	resilience	theory,	the	rather	small	amount	of	work	that	looks	at	how	power	operates	through	social-ecological	systems	(e.g.,	Ernstson,	2013,	Galaz,	2009;	Robards	et	al.,	2011),	and	the	lack	of	practical	understanding	of	how	to	apply	often	abstract	resilience	concepts	in	various	non-Western	contexts.	As	a	result	of	the	ideological,	epistemological	and	normative	issues	with	resilience,	a	number	of	authors	have	highlighted	the	need	for	a	more	situated,	context-relevant	and	politicized	understandings	of	resilience	(both	theoretically	and	in	applied	senses)	(Cote	and	Nightingale,	2012;	Cutter	2016;	Lawhon,	2013;	Welsh,	2014).	Many	have	also	highlighted	the	need	to	include	the	voices,	knowledges,	and	experiences	of	marginalized	actors	within	Southern	contexts	to	recalibrate	urban	resilience	agendas	(Cutter,	2016;	Harris	et	al.,	2017;	Rodina	et	al.,	2017;	Ziervogel	et	al.,	2017).				 120		Of	note	is	the	work	of	Ernstson	(2013)	who	situates	questions	of	justice	in	complex	ecological	systems	by	looking	at	how	urban	networks	distribute	and	reproduce	unequal	access	to	ecosystem	services.	While	mostly	theoretical,	this	work	opens	up	interesting	possibilities	to	connect	justice	questions	to	ecosystem	function,	and	ultimately	to	social-ecological	resilience.	With	this	chapter,	I	respond	to	Ernstson’s	argument	that	“system	resilience	can	be	sustained	by	maintaining	unjust,	even	oppressive	social	structures,	i.e.,	in	which	the	distribution	of	(and	access	to)	ecosystem	services	falls	unevenly	among	the	present	and	future	population	“(p	14)	by	suggesting	that,	to	the	contrary,	resilience	might	actually	be	dependent,	or	contingent,	on	more	just	or	equal	systems.	In	this	chapter,	I	align	with	Lawhon	et	al.	(2013;	2017),	who	situate	urban	political	ecology	in	the	specific	realities	of	Southern	urbanism	to	bring	in	a	broader	range	of	urban	experiences	to	inform	how	urban	environments	are	shaped,	politicized,	and	contested	(p.	498).	In	addition,	work	on	Southern	urbanism	is	particularly	insightful	as	it	problematized	the	imposition	of	ideas	from	Northern	theory	to	Southern	contexts.	Lawhon	et	al.	(2013)	argue	that	Northern	theory	tends	to	draw	on	specific	forms	of	knowledge	creation	(expert-driven,	scientific,	found	in	peer-reviewed	literature)	that	often	miss	out	the	lived	experiences	of	marginality	or	empowerment	in	African	cities.		In	a	more	recent	piece,	these	authors	further	argue	that	understanding	Southern	urbanism	should	start	with	“unlearning”,	or	abandoning	pre-determined	notions	of	urban	dynamics,	to	first	listen	and	understand	the	diversity	of	urban	narratives	(Lawhon	et	al.,	2016).		Situating	socio-hydrological	resilience	in	the	context	of	Cape	Town	would	mean	paying	attention	to	informal	urbanism,	as	one	of	many	dimensions	of	urban	inequality	and	marginality.	I	chose	to	focus	on	informality	to	contrast	Southern	cities	with	Northern	contexts,	where	urban	form	is	often	centrally	planned.	The	complex	interactions	of	formal	and	informal	urbanism	in	cities	like	Cape	Town	give	rise	to	organic,	emerging	and	at	times	ungovernable	urban	processes	that	make	Southern	cities	differ	in	many	ways	from	Northern	contexts,	where	much	of	the	global	urban	resilience	discourses	originate.	Among	the	drivers	of	urban	informality	are	the	combined	legacies	of	colonialism,	apartheid,	and	ongoing	development	(Ernstston	et	al.,	2014;	Ranganathan,	2016).	Informal	urbanization			 121	encompasses	unregulated	settlement	or	illegal	land	occupation,	as	well	as	informal	economy	and	other	unregulated	resource	networks	(Huchzermeyer,	2003,	2004;	Jurgens	et	al.,	2013).	Informality,	or	informal	urban	settlements,	refers	to	not	only	urban	residents	residing	in	makeshift	illegal	or	unapproved	urban	areas,	but	also	to	informal	(or	unregulated)	modes	of	production,	trade,	social	networks	and	other	safety	nets	that	enable	millions	of	impoverished	residents	to	maintain	a	living	in	overcrowded	urban	areas.	“Informality”	broadly	includes	practices	that	fall	outside	the	formal	planning	processes,	although	in	reality,	they	are	not	disconnected	from	formal	planning	as	the	state	is	almost	always	deeply	involved	in	informal	processes—either	through	basic	needs	or	emergency	service	provision,	evictions	or	other	forms	of	land	disputes	(Ranganathan,	2016).	While	informality	in	Cape	Town	is	only	one	dimension	of	urban	inequality	and	marginality,	conceptually	it	allows	us	to	recalibrate	urban	socio-hydrological	resilience	in	a	Southern	context	by	bringing	out	unique	urban	processes	and	challenges	that	have	important	implications	for	resilience.		5.4 Case study context  South	Africa’s	informal	urban	growth	is	largely	shaped	by	the	complex	political,	spatial,	social	and	infrastructural	legacies	of	the	racially	segregated	apartheid	planning,	with	millions	of	black	and	coloured	people	still	facing	chronic	impoverishment	(Huchzermeyer,	2003,	2004;	Orthofer,	2016;	Pieterse,	2011).	South	Africa,	and	Cape	Town	in	particular,	face	some	of	the	highest	levels	of	inequality	in	the	world	(McDonald,	2007;	2008;	Orthofer	2016),	with	considerable	ongoing	issues	of	inequality	in	basic	services	in	marginalized	urban	areas	(Jurgens	et	al.,	2013,	Dugard	2013).	According	to	2011	census	data,	more	than	20%	of	the	population	in	Cape	Town	resides	in	informal	settlements	(CCT,	2012),	with	estimates	ranging	from	400,000	to	1,000,000	residents,	depending	on	the	source.	There	is	also	a	high	degree	of	uncertainty	around	the	levels	of	in-migration	in	informal	settlements,	despite	repeated	enumeration	attempts	(The	Housing	Development	Agency,	2013).	According	to	official	census	data,	in	2011	the	Western	Cape	Province	had	the	second	highest	in-migration	rate	in	the	country,	with	nearly	50%	of	migrants	from	rural	areas	in	the	Eastern	Cape,	one	of	the	poorest	provinces	in	South	Africa.	While	the	exact	rate	is	not			 122	available	(and	likely	not	known	due	to	enumeration	and	census	limitations),	much	of	this	in-migration	is	likely	happening	in	informal	settlements	(The	Housing	Development	Agency,	2013;	Statistics	South	Africa,	2012).	These	areas	remain	poorly	understood,	by	planners,	scholars	and	by	the	public	in	general,	due	to	a	complex	history	and	what	Brunn	and	Wilson	call	“geographies	of	silence”	that	have	rendered	informal	areas	as	peripheral	to	the	urban	core	(Brunn	and	Wilson,	2013;	Pieterse,	2011).	Indeed,	informal	urban	growth	is	often	not	geographically	separate	from	formally	planned	urbanization—in	Cape	Town,	as	well	as	other	cities,	many	informal	settlements	emerge	in	proximity	to	key	services	and	roads,	often	at	the	margins	of	formally	planned	urban	areas	(Jurgens	et	al.,	2013;	Rodina,	2016).			For	example,	in	Cape	Town,	Khayelitsha	and	other	areas	where	informal	settlements	are	located,	were	planned	and	formally	organized	during	the	apartheid	era	to	separate	white,	coloured	and	black	populations.		As	such,	many	of	Cape	Town’s	informal	settlements	are	a	result	of	“formal”	urban	planning.	Therefore,	I	treat	“formal”	and	“informal”	urbanism	as	mutually	constitutive	(Ranganathan,	2016).	Today,	informal	settlements	in	South	Africa	are	subject	to	various	forms	of	formalization,	including	housing	upgrades,	extension	of	municipal	services,	and	integration	into	formally	planned	urban	areas,	which,	however,	have	had	only	limited	success	due	to	fiscal,	economic	and	political	challenges	(Huchzermeyer,	2004;	Tissington,	2012).	Further,	informal	settlements	are	sites	of	various	social	and	environmental	risks,	such	as	high	levels	of	impoverishment,	crime,	flooding,	pollution,	and	exposure	to	extreme	weather.	However,	these	places	are	also	sites	of	entrepreneurship,	formal	and	informal	employment	opportunities,	community,	social	networks,	as	well	as	political	activism.	As	such,	residents	of	informal	areas	are	active	citizens,	participating	in	shaping	Cape	Town’s	urban	form	and	dynamics	(Patel	et	al.,	2012;	Thompson	et	al.,	2010;	2012).			Indeed,	the	term	“informality”	is	laden	with	controversies—theoretically,	in	terms	of	conceptualizing	what	causes	informal	urbanism	or	whether	it	is	a	fruitful	distinction,	and	practically,	in	terms	of	addressing	the	various	challenges	and	risks	associated	with	informal	urban	growth	(Lawhon	et	al.,	2013;	Parnell	and	Pieterse,	2015).	A	key	ongoing			 123	debate	is	the	persistence	of	a	binary	that	renders	formal	and	informal	urbanism	as	the	two	ends	of	a	spectrum—one	presumably	desirable,	and	the	other	is	not.	This	is	particularly	prominent	in	the	water	sector,	for	example,	where	formal	water	provision	is	typically	perceived	to	mean	safe	and	reliable	water	supply,	while	informal	water	supply	(vendors	or	illegal	connections)	is	typically	seen	as	precarious,	unsafe,	and	unreliable.	In	reality,	informal	urbanization	is	more	complex	than	that—for	example,	in	South	Africa	the	experiences	of	many	impoverished	residents	with	formal	water	supply	services,	demand	management	devices,	meters,	water	bills	and	other	forms	of	obligations	or	restrictions	stemming	from	access	to	municipal	infrastructure,	have	made	some	informal	water	networks	more	preferable	as	they	are	less	costly	and	more	easily	accessible	(Rodina	and	Harris,	2016;	Mahlanza	et	al.,	2016).			In	sum,	this	chapter	responds	to	calls	to	broaden	notions	of	urban	resilience	through	the	lens	of	Southern	urbanism	(Parnell	and	Pieterse,	2015;	Rodina	et	al.,	2017;	Ziervogel	et	al.,	2017).	The	goal	is	not	to	perpetuate	the	formal-informal	dichotomy	(Lawhon	et	al.,	2013),	but	to	inform	the	rather	apolitical	and	decontextualized	debates	on	urban	resilience	by	drawing	on	a	broader	range	of	urban	experiences,	particularly	of	impoverished	urban	dwellers,	growing	in	numbers	in	many	cities	across	Africa,	living	at	the	margins	of	formal	citizenship	or	urban	planning	processes.	Together	with	Allen	et	al.	(2017),	Fraser	et	al.	(2013)	and	others,	I	push	for	a	more	inclusive	urban	resilience	agenda	to	include	a	focus	on	environmental	justice	not	only	in	terms	of	distributional	or	procedural	justice,	but	also	in	terms	of	the	broader	political	empowerment.		5.5 Methodology This	chapter	draws	on	fieldwork	conducted	in	Cape	Town	from	April	through	September	2016	and	is	informed	by	field	visits	in	Cape	Town	in	2012	and	2013.	Further	desktop	research	on	the	Water	Resilience	Plan	and	related	developments	has	been	conducted	through	January	2018.	To	capture	the	diverse	aspects	of	the	urban	water	cycle	and	associated	risks	and	challenges,	I	did	not	focus	only	on	water	supply	in	the	traditional	sense,	but	also	investigated	issues	around	water	services,	aspects	of	water	sensitive	urban			 124	design,	such	as	restoring	healthy	urban	watersheds.	As	a	result,	the	three	case	studies	selected	for	this	chapter	demonstrate	diverse	aspects	of	Cape	Town’s	waterscape	that	collectively	inform	a	more	holistic	thinking	around	socio-hydrological	resilience.	The	analysis	presented	here	is	based	on	interviews	with	44	participants,	including	a	focus	group	with	6	participants,	and	key	informants	representing	civil	society	organizations,	environmental	and	social	justice	NGOs,	and	experts	in	the	City	of	Cape	Town	(see	Table	5.1).			Table	5.1	Summary	of	interview	participants	Type	of	interview		 Type	of	stakeholder	 Number	of	participants	Individual	interview		 NGO	(Environmental	Monitoring	Group,	Cape	Town	Environmental	Education	Trust,	Sulabh	International,	ICLEI-Africa,	Ndifuna	Ukwazi	and	Social	Justice	Coalition)	13	City	officials	at	the	CCT	(Water	and	Sanitation,	Environmental	Resources	Management,	Spatial	Planning,	Stormwater	and	Sustainability	Branch)	15	Focus	group	on	resilience	ideas	and	how	they	apply	to	Cape	Town’s	impoverished	people	 Staff	members	at	the	Environmental	Monitoring	Group	 6	Informal	interviews	 Academic	experts	 10		 Total	 44		The	NGOs	were	selected	because	they	have	been	involved	in	key	campaigns	related	to	environmental	governance	and	social	justice	issues	in	Cape	Town	and	have	been	identified	through	consultation	with	experts	at	the	University	of	Cape	Town.	The	interview	protocols	were	broad	and	varied	by	case,	mainly	focusing	on	gathering	additional	information	about	each	project,	including	challenges,	opposition,	and	other	key	considerations	the	interview	participants	found	important.	In	addition,	field	visits	(e.g.,	in	informal	settlements,	namely	Philippi,	Phola	Park	and	Green	park	informal	settlements)	and	associated	field	notes	serve	to	inform	aspects	of	this	research.	Several	interviews	and	site	visits	were	conducted	in			 125	collaboration	with	Emma	Luker,	a	Master’s	student	at	the	University	of	British	Columbia	at	the	time,	who	also	provided	feedback	and	assistance.	The	interviews	were	transcribed	and	analyzed	in	NVivo	for	key	themes	emerging	from	discussions	of	the	three	case	studies	described	below.		5.6 Counter-currents: aspects of socio-hydrological resilience in Cape Town The	following	three	stories	capture	diverse	aspects	of	Cape	Town’s	waterscape—from	flood	risk	and	pollution	in	informal	settlements,	to	unequal	access	to	water	and	sanitation	services,	and	social	barriers	to	achieving	improved	hydrological	services	and	connectivity	along	Cape	Town’s	rivers.	These	examples	demonstrate	how	power	and	persistent	legacies	of	informality	and	inequality	permeate	socio-hydrological	systems,	and	in	turn	influence	who	benefits	(or	not)	from	resilience	building	efforts.	There	stories	together	run	counter	to	Northern	notions	of	urban	resilience	that	focus	on	the	ability	of	cities	of	to	formally	plan	and	govern	urban	space.		Table	5.2	Summary	of	case	study	examples.	Case	study	examples	 Summary	 Key	Themes	Negotiating	uneven	urban	geographies:	Informality	and	risk	 Cape	Town’s	urban	landscape	is	shaped	by	complex	interactions	between	formal	and	informal	urbanism	through	social-ecological	systems.	Formal	and	informal	urbanism	in	Cape	Town	are	deeply	interconnected	through	social	and	ecological	processes.		As	such,	the	risks	that	informal	settlements	face	are	not	peripheral	to	the	city	but	are	a	central	factor	in	urban	social-ecological	resilience.	Accessing	the	city:	Social	Justice	Coalition’s	social	audits	 Social	justice	campaigns	to	improve	the	provision	of	water	and	sanitation	services	in	informal	settlements	are	enmeshed	in	contentious	politics	of	knowledge	legitimacy.	Existing	barriers	to	incorporating	multiple	forms	of	knowledge—particularly	the	lived	experiences	of	the	urban	poor—can	preclude	a	more	meaningful	engagement	with	marginalized	urban	dwellers	and	result	in	a	narrowly	framed	approach	to	resilience	building.	Connecting	ecosystems	and	people:	Source	to	Sea	river	restoration	Project	Ecological	restoration	of	the	river	corridor	of	the	San	River	(Zandvlei)	to	provide	improved	hydrological	services	and	social	connectivity	face	entrenched	social	barriers.	Social	barriers	(i.e.,	social	opposition	and	fear	of	crime)	to	social	and	ecological	integration	in	river	corridor	restoration	projects	inhibit	effort	to	improve	socio-hydrological	resilience.				 126	5.6.1 Negotiating uneven urban geographies: informality and risk  Figure	5.1	Informal	settlements	along	the	N2	highway	in	Cape	Town.	These	areas	are	home	to	between	400,000	and	1,000,000	people.	Photo	taken	by	Lucy	Rodina.			Legacies	of	apartheid	planning	and	contemporary	informal	urbanism	play	a	key	role	in	how	risk	is	unevenly	experienced	in	Cape	Town.	This	poses	unique	challenges	for	urban	planning	and	risk	mitigation	in	Cape	Town.	Consider	how	this	city	official	describes	Cape	Town’s	apartheid	legacy	and	urbanizations	challenges	in	relation	to	Cape	Town’s	participation	in	the	100	Resilient	Cities	program:		You	can't	compare	New	York	City	to	a	city	like	ours.	We're	just	completely	different.	We've	got	more	than	a	million	people	living	in	informal	settlements,	whereas	New	York	City	is	a	developed	city	and	has,	I	suppose,	the	luxury	of	focusing	on	things	other	than	just	basic	day-to-day	crisis	management.	[…]	There	are	a	lot	of	different	drivers	of	(informal	urbanism).	So	particularly	here	in	South	Africa,	you've	got	an	apartheid	history,	which	is	still	reflected	in	the	spatial	patterns	of	human	settlements	within	the	cities.	So	poor	people	live	in—and	which	are	predominantly	still	black	people	and	that's	from	a	legacy	of	apartheid—live	in	areas	that	were	never	going	to	be	desirable	for	human	settlement,	because	of	those	environmental	risks.	[…]	And	in	apartheid	planning,	the	areas	that	were	determined	desirable	for	human	settlements	were	allocated	to	a	particular	sector	of	the	population	(i.e.,	white	groups)			 127	And	that's	why	the	informal	settlements	are	on	the	flood	plains	because	that	was	land	that	was	not	considered	viable	for	normal	suburbs	to	live.	So,	you're	stuck	with	a	history	and	that	legacy	[…]	But	it's	difficult	to	manage	because	a	lot	of	that	urban	sprawl	is	informal.	It's	not	regulated	(city	official,	Environmental	Resources	Management,	June	2016).		The	environmental	risks	mentioned	in	this	interview	are	related	to	the	fact	that	informal	growth	happens	on	marginal	land,	such	as	river	flood	plains,	or	seasonal	wetlands	or	sand	dunes	(e.g.,	as	is	the	case	of	Khayelitsha	and	nearby	Philippi).	In	the	absence	of	adequate	planning	and	infrastructure,	these	areas	are	subject	to	flooding,	fires,	pollution	and	various	other	risks.	The	summer	season,	when	many	of	the	wetlands	and	ponds	in	the	Cape	Flats	area	dry	out,	provides	opportunity	for	settlers	to	construct	dwellings	and	form	settlements.	In	the	winter	season,	these	newly	constructed	sites	“are	the	first	to	get	flooded”	(interview	with	two	city	officials	working	on	stormwater	catchment	management,	August	2016).	The	Cape	Flats,	location	of	the	majority	of	Cape	Town’s	informal	settlements,	are	particularly	vulnerable	to	flood	risk,	due	to	a	high	water	table	and	the	environmental	character	of	the	area—sand	dunes,	with	several	wetlands	and	ecologically	sensitive	areas.	The	Cape	Flats	is	also	the	location	of	one	of	Cape	Town’s	major	aquifers—the	Cape	Flats	aquifer,	considered	a	key	additional	supply	resource	for	the	city	during	the	current	water	crisis	(DWAF,	2007a;	Luker	2017;	Luker	and	Rodina,	2017)	and	thus	forming	a	key	component	of	Cape	Town’s	efforts	to	build	resilience	to	water	risks.		So,	the	only	way	that	you	can	spread	(informal	settlements)	often	is	across	the	Cape	Flats.	And	again,	it's	spreading	into	areas	that	are	least	desirable	for	human	settlements,	not	just	from	a	water	perspective,	but	also	because	areas	of	the	Cape	Flats	used	to	be	mobile	sand	dunes	that	moved	across	the	peninsula.	We	have	very	strong	southeast	winds.	Now	people	live	there	and	it's	miserable.	Windblown	sand	all	the	time,	sand	dunes.	You	know,	homes	should	not	be	built	there,	not	because	to	save	the	plants	or	the	lizards	or	something.	It's	not	great	land	for	human	settlement	and	it's	never	going	to	be	great	(city	official,	Environmental	Resources	Management,	June	2016).		This	common	theme—houses	should	not	have	been	built	there—is	at	the	core	of	the	Cape	Town’s	urban	formalization	problem:	formal	planning	processes	and	tools	are	poorly	equipped	to	handle	unregulated	urbanization	in	areas	that	are	considered	unsuitable	for			 128	settlement	by	city	planners	in	the	first	place.	See,	for	example,	in	this	quote	the	sense	of	being	permanently	locked	into	an	impossible	situation:		It	is	desperate	circumstances,	and	the	problem	is	that	that	stormwater	that’s	flooding	people	out	is	also	laced	with	sewerage	and	all	sorts	of	other	things.	It	is	not	a	good	situation,	but	it	can’t	be	solved	easily	without	lifting	floors,	reshaping.	It’s	just	not	possible…I’m	not	sure	what	the	current	view	is	but	I	mean	I	spent	years	dealing	with	this	issue	and	unfortunately,	it’s	a	very	politically	difficult	area.	There’s	a	lot	of	in-migration	into	Cape	Town	and	people	end	up	in	land	which	is	not	really	suitable	for	living.	And	there’s	other	complications	to	the	way	the	structures	are	built,	like	many	floors	are	below	ground	level.	They	(informal	dwellers)	sink	them	into	ground.	It’s	to	keep	the	structure	stable,	you	know,	with	the	wind	and	stuff.	So,	it’s	not	always	as	simple	as	it	seems	(city	official,	Bulk	Water	Supply,	July	2016).		Another	challenge	is	the	significant	backlog	in	housing	and	service	provision,	which	in	turn	perpetuates	this	cycle	of	risk.	The	fact	that	the	housing	and	services	formalization	process	is	unable	to	keep	up	with	the	actual	pace	of	informal	urbanization	(several	interviews	with	city	officials,	June	and	July	2016),	contributes	to	increasing	urban	risk	that	is	disproportionately	born	by	the	city’s	impoverished	residents:		That	is	the	challenge	that	we're	in.	And	we're	in	such	a	backlog	in	that	scenario	that	to	actually	see	that	ever	shifting	in	a	measurable	way	is	quite	challenging	to	imagine.	And	so,	we	kind	of	perpetuate	the	risk	cycle.	And	then	also,	people	moving	in	from,	and	in	informal	settlements,	which	is	in-migration,	they	have	no	money.	They	just	establish	a	settlement,	and	the	land	that	is	free	and	vacant	is	always	the	least	desirable	land,	because	there's	no	competition	for	that	land.	And	that	land	is	always	the	stuff	that	is	on	the	edge	of	a	river.	It's	going	to	be	flooded.	It's	not	viable.	It's	not	agricultural.	It's	not	near	the	coastline	and	beautiful.	It's	kind	of,	not	throwaway	land,	but	it's	the	least	desirable	land.	And	that	land	is	not	desirable	for	the	very	reasons	that	it's	vulnerable	land.	Either	it	gets	flooded	in	winter	or	it's…	If	it	hadn't	been	desirable,	it	wouldn't	be	available,	if	that	makes	sense.	So,	we're	kind	of	in	that	vicious	cycle	(city	official,	Environmental	Resources	Management,	June	2016).		Further,	informal	urbanization,	while	occurring	predominantly	in	peri-urban	areas,	is	not	peripheral	to	the	city.	Instead,	it	is	deeply	interlinked	with	the	city’s	broader	socio-ecological	processes	through	complex	cross-scalar	interactions—or	feedback	loops—		 129	whereby	chronic	poverty	and	marginalization,	and	lack	of	effective	mechanisms	to	handle	in-migration	contribute	to	the	creation	of	informal	settlements	and	associated	risks,	such	as	flooding	or	water	pollution.	In	turn,	informal	urbanization	itself	alters	the	ecology	and	indeed	topography	of	the	Cape	Flats,	altering	water	flows,	increasing	run-off,	and	affecting	the	quality	of	water	flows.	This	further	increases	the	risks	of	flooding	or	groundwater	pollution.	More	specifically,	unplanned	or	unregulated	urbanization	contributes	to	increased	run	off,	and	water	that	would	otherwise	have	replenished	groundwater	now	becomes	flood	risk	(two	city	officials	at	District	planning	and	Stormwater	catchment	management,	August	2016).		Further,	the	lack	of	or	poor	quality	of	sanitation	and	waste	removal	services	further	contribute	to	high	pollution	of	rivers:		Almost	all	of	our	inland	waterways	are	polluted	beyond	any	kind	of	use.	So,	our	river	systems	are	in	a	diabolical	state,	so	very	high	E.	coli,	human	waste	pollution.	Essentially,	not	quite,	but	almost	sort	of	open	sewers	at	the	moment	(city	official,	Environmental	Resources	Management,	June	2016).			This	illustrates	the	cyclical	and	interdependent	nature	of	poverty,	informality,	risk	and	the	health	of	ecosystems	that	all	interact,	and	thus	have	important	implications	for	socio-hydrological	resilience.	At	the	time	of	research,	all	efforts	to	contact	the	Disaster	Risk	Management	department	were	unsuccessful,	but	I	learned	from	conversations	with	other	experts	that	issues	related	to	informal	settlements	in	general	are	dealt	with	by	the	Housing	Department	(in	terms	of	upgrading	to	state-regulated	housing),	while	the	Disaster	Risk	Management	Department	is	tasked	with	handling	risks,	such	as	flooding	or	fire,	by	providing	emergency	disaster	relief	when	needed.	One	of	the	key	ongoing	tensions	between	the	City	of	Cape	Town	and	informal	settlements	is	precisely	around	the	question	of	provision	of	services	and	infrastructure,15	which	are	enmeshed	in	important	social	and	political	dynamics.	Access	to	services	infrastructure	for	informal	settlements	is	one	way	for	impoverished	communities	to	engage	the	state	to	claim	their	right	to	live	in	the	city.	Specifically,	water,	sanitation,	electricity	or	flood	mitigation	infrastructures	for	many																																																									15	To	learn	more	about	service	provision	debates	and	the	critical	role	of	infrastructure	in	shaping	urban	realties	in	South	Africa	see	Dugard	(2013),	Loftus	(2006);	Rodina	and	Harris	(2016),	and	von	Schnitzler	(2008).			 130	informal	urban	residents	are	sites	of	engagement	with	an	often	distant	or	uncooperative	state	(Dugard,	2013;	Rodina	and	Harris,	2016),	and	spaces	where	people’s	belonging	to	the	city	is	being	negotiated,	contested	or	protested.	Consider	this	conversation	with	a	member	from	the	Environmental	Monitoring	Group:		There	are	a	whole	lot	of	informal	settlements.	The	question	of	whether	you	provide	some	infrastructure	I	would	say	probably	yes.	But	it’s	fought	by	the	City	side	and	by	the	residents	because	people	say,	we	want	houses	(not	just	basic	infrastructure).	Because	as	soon	as	you	put	some	services	into	informal	settlements,	that	is	an	acknowledgement	that	they	are	there	to	stay.	Everyone	knows	they	are	there	to	stay.	But	there’s	still	this	belief	that	it’s	transient	and	that	people	will	[eventually]	get	[proper]	houses.	I	think	there	is	quite	a	lot	of	psychological	or	history	or	whatever	issues	around	it	as	well	(program	manager,	Environmental	Monitoring	Group,	May	2016).		This,	and	many	other	examples,	speak	to	the	highly	contested	nature	of	service	provision	and	risk	mitigation	for	informal	settlements,	which	are	entangled	in	larger	questions	of	urban	citizenship	and	belonging.	Unfortunately,	the	prevailing	notion	that	informal	settlements	are	temporary,	or	in	transition	to	a	more	permanent	solution	down	the	road,	feeds	into	a	narrow	approach	based	on	ad	hoc	short-term	risk	mitigation.	Lastly,	in	thinking	how	to	build	resilience	for	these	marginalized	communities,	consider	this	conversation	with	a	resident	of	Khayelitsha	about	what	resilience	means	in	the	context	of	Cape	Town:		That’s	still	part	of	my	grapple—what	you	called	undesirable	states.	And	the	thing	is,	I	mean	people	leave	rural	areas	or	they	leave	their	home	countries	and	they	choose	to	come	into	shack	settlements,	often	knowing	that	they’re	in	a	shack,	you	know.	And	that’s	actually…	Very	often	a	choice,	to	move	into	a	shack,	because	it	is	better	than	what	they	had	(focus	group,	Environmental	Monitoring	Group,	June	2016).		Indeed,	many	of	these	challenges	stem	from	the	fact	that	informality	is	deeply	tied	with	impoverishment,	and	other	forms	of	marginalization.	For	example,	due	to	a	lack	of	employment	opportunities,	healthcare,	and	poor	education	in	the	Eastern	Cape,	one	of	the	relatively	impoverished	provinces	of	South	Africa,	many	people	move	to	Khayelitsha	because	of	a	dearth	of	better	opportunities	elsewhere.	From	the	perspective	of	many			 131	participants	in	this	focus	group	on	resilience,	this	constitutes	a	forced	choice—a	choice	that	is	further	constrained	by	a	growing	sense	of	income	inequality	within	the	city:		All	the	developments	that	have	been	going	up	are	by	big	developers	and	these	are	very	high	cost,	luxury	complexes	in	areas	that	are	traditionally	middle	class	or	upper	middle	class	anyway,	and	completely	unaffordable.	So,	it’s	still	marginalizing	and	keeping	out	the	people	who	are	in	Khayelitsha	or	the	people	we	need	to	get	into	the	city	to	do	their	work.	Because	it’s	right	outside	of	their	affordability,	whether	it’s	rent	or	whatever.	I’ve	seen	the	city	become	more	elite	and	it’s	actually	shocking,	seeing	these	luxury	complexes	springing	up	all	over	the	area.	I	mean	if	it’s	outside	my	salary	scale	and	it’s	outside	most	of	my	colleagues	here,	then	who	is	that	aimed	at	(focus	group,	Environmental	Monitoring	Group,	June	2016).		This	sense	of	lack	of	choice	is	brought	up	over	and	over	again	in	conversations	with	residents	of	Khayelitsha	(personal	communication,	informal	interviews),	mapping	against	common	narratives	of	informal	settlements,	or	impoverished	urban	areas	more	broadly,	as	illegal,	hazardous	and	crime-ridden.	For	many	of	the	urban	poor,	areas	such	as	Khayelitsha,	where	formal	and	informal	urbanism	co-exist	in	complex	ways,	are	places	at	the	limit	of	opportunities	for	work,	community,	social	networks	and	so	forth.		These	realities,	in	turn,	shape	how	resilience	and	adaptability	are	understood:		For	me,	I	don’t	feel	that	we,	in	Khayelitsha,	are	resilient	or	we	are	adapting,	because	we	are	forced	to	be	there.	We	did	not	have	a	choice	to	live	here.	So,	for	me,	not	having	those	choices,	you	know,	does	not	build	resilience.	It	doesn’t	build	that	adaptiveness,	because	we	are	just	there	because,	at	the	same	time,	we	need	to	live.	So,	you	are	forced	to	be	there,	and	you	need	to	make	it	for	ourselves	(focus	group,	Environmental	Monitoring	Group,	June	2016).		In	sum,	the	complexities	of	Cape	Town’s	urban	dynamics	and	associated	risks	are	still	lacking	in	long	term	solutions	to	make	such	areas	not	only	less	vulnerable	to	risks,	but	also	more	liveable.	As	these	areas	are	embedded	in	complex	social	and	ecological	system	interactions,	marginalized	urban	spaces	are	not	peripheral,	but	instead	paramount	for	urban	resilience.					 132	5.6.2 Accessing the city: Social Justice Coalition’s social audits Figure	5.2	Communal	toilets	in	Khayelitsha.	Photo	taken	by	Lucy	Rodina.			Cape	Town	has	a	long	and	contested	history	with	water	and	sanitation	services	provision	with	important	consequences	for	building	resilience,	particularly	in	light	of	the	worsening	drought	crisis.	Cape	Town	is	one	of	the	most	progressive	municipalities	in	South	Africa	in	terms	of	extending	access	to	basic	services	(Rodina,	2016),	including	providing	a	minimum	allowance	of	water	free	of	charge	as	per	the	national	Free	Basic	Water	policy.	However,	in	recent	years,	Cape	Town	has	faced	heated	critiques	and	social	protests	related	to	the	inadequate	provision	of	water	and	sanitation	services	(Alexander	2010;	Dugard,	2013;	Jaglin,	2002;	Mahlanza	et	al.,	2016).	The	Social	Justice	Coalition	(SJC)	and	Ndifuna	Ukwazi,	two	locally	based	NGOs,	have	been	at	the	forefront	in	trying	to	engage	with	the	municipality	to	improve	sanitation	services	in	informal	settlements.	However,	their	efforts	have	faced	significant	challenges	with	knowledge	exchange	and	communication	with	municipal	representatives,	due	to	the	City’s	contested	public	engagement	strategies	and			 133	politics	of	knowledge	production	that	tend	to	prioritize	expert-driven	over	other	forms	of	knowledge.		In	2011,	the	SJC	began	petitioning	the	City	for	improved	sanitation	conditions	in	informal	settlements.	Among	other	campaigns,	SJC	hosted	several	multi-stakeholder	forums	with	municipal	representatives	and	other	organizations.	Specifically,	SJC’s	sanitation	campaign	has	been	pushing	for	the	introduction	of	a	janitorial	service	to	maintain	all	communal	flush	toilets	in	Cape	Town’s	informal	settlements—known	to	be	poorly	maintained,	and	often	out	of	order.	Communal	flush	toilets,	according	to	SJC	research,	serve	at	least	200	000	residents	in	Khayelitsha.	In	2012,	Cape	Town’s	mayor	Patricia	De	Lille	responded	to	the	SJC	demands	by	rolling	out	an	official	janitorial	service,	involving	hiring	500	full-time	janitors	to	provide	basic	janitorial	and	plumbing	services.	SJC	employed	social	audits	methodology,	a	citizen-science	campaign	to	collect	evidence	of	the	shortcomings	in	the	quality	of	service	provision	to	then	present	to	and	pressure	the	authorities	to	fix	reported	issues16.			In	2014,	another	series	of	social	audits	of	sanitation	services	were	conducted	and	found	many	problems	with	the	quality	of	service	and	a	lack	of	training	for	janitorial	staff.	At	the	time	of	this	research	in	2016,	the	SJC	was	involved	in	a	court	case	against	the	City	related	to	this	campaign,	which	meant	that	official	interviews	and	some	details	about	the	case	were	confidential.	However,	of	note	here	is	what	members	of	the	NGOs	involved	in	the	social	audits	reported	about	how	the	city	officials	perceived	their	claims	and	how	difficult	it	was	to	engage	with	the	municipality	in	requests	for	information.	One	recurrently	cited	issue	was	the	lack	of	response	to	the	SJC	inquiries	by	the	city	officials:		It	is	a	huge	challenge.	There	were	times	when	the	city	officials	simply	just	don’t	respond.	They	just	do	not	respond	to	e-mails,	to	phone	calls,	you	will	be	told	the	person	is	unavailable	and	then	that	is	it.	Like	there’s	no	way	of	breaking	through	to	the	city.	When	you	go	through	the	process	of	requesting	access	to	information,	sometimes	you	get	the	information,	which	is	really	after	the	minimum	of	30	days.	They	then	decline,	and	you	have	to	re-apply	again																																																									16	More	information	and	reports	at:	http://www.sjc.org.za/social_audits			 134	and	then	it	takes…	The	next	waiting	period	is	60	days,	two	months	[…]	So	the	[formal	process]	is	very	challenging	(member	of	Ndifuna	Ukwazi,	Sept	2016).		From	this	and	other	interviews,	I	learnt	that	the	formal	process	of	requesting	government	information	and	engaging	the	City	around	issues	with	water	services	are	highly	challenging	and	often	exceed	the	capacities	of	NGOs	to	pursue	these	campaigns.	More	importantly,	both	NGOs	commented	that	the	City	did	not	accept	the	results	of	the	social	audits	as	legitimate	evidence,	because	the	citizen	science	studies	conducted	were	not	“rigorous	enough”,	or	the	sample	size	was	unsatisfactory,	among	other	reasons:		I’d	say	that	they	don’t	really	accept	it	as	evidence.	And	it	would	be	because	of	the	fact	that	it’s	community	members	who	are	conducting	this	methodology.	So,	there’s	always	a	question	of	is	it	rigorous	enough	(members	of	Social	Justice	Coalition,	Sept	2016).		Then	instead	their	responses	will	be	like:	your	sample	size	was	too	small;	you	only	looked	at	600	toilets	out	of	12,000;	so,	your	statistics	are	flawed.	But	then	why	not	look	at	that	sample	of	600	and	deal	with	it,	at	least	that	sample	of	600	(member	of	Ndifuna	Ukwazi,	Sept	2016).		Similar	concerns	have	been	raised	in	relation	to	other	aspects	of	water	services	in	informal	settlements,	particularly	the	deployment	of	water	demand	management	devices,	aiming	to	effectively	limit	domestic	water	use	for	households	with	a	history	of	water	bill	debt	[see	more	on	this	in	Mahlanza	(2016),	Wilson	and	Pereira	(2010,	2012)].	The	city’s	official	rationale	for	deploying	devices	that	cut	off	water	above	the	basic	free	allocation	is	embedded	in	the	technicalities	of	cost	recovery	and	water	demand	management,	while	the	experiences	of	informal	or	impoverished	residents	are	often	ignored	(Wilson	and	Pereira,	2012;	2017).	Access	to	adequate	water	and	sanitation	services	is	an	important	factor	in	how	communities	experience	water	shortages—and	as	such	are	important	dimensions	of	resilience.	While	these	issues	are	complex	and	multidimensional,	I	would	like	to	point	to	a	key	barrier	to	the	City	even	beginning	to	understand	the	lived,	or	experiential	dimensions	of	water	risk	for	many	of	Cape	Town’s	marginalized	residents.	The	conflicts	over	what	constitutes	evidence	or	legitimate	information	are	at	the	heart	of	determining	whose	knowledge	and	whose	experiences	are	considered	in	planning	processes—whether	for			 135	sanitation	provision	or	resilience	building.		By	not	recognizing	the	results	of	these	social	audits	as	legitimate,	one	of	the	outcomes	is	sidelining	the	lived	realities	of	poverty,	marginalization	and	related	risks.	For	example,	consider	this	quote	from	NGO	members,	involved	in	training	community	members	to	conduct	social	audits	of	sanitation	services:		And	the	other	thing	is	we	are	dealing	with	people,	so	we	take	their	testimonies	and	what	they	go	through	and	their	lives	and	their	reality	as	evidence,	that’s	more	important	to	us	than	the	number	of	people	in	Khayelitsha	that	uses	toilets,	what’s	important	is	what	they	go	through.		And	it’s	just	a	fact,	it’s	what	they	go	through,	it’s	what	they	are	experiencing	on	a	day-to-day	basis	(members	of	Social	Justice	Coalition,	Sept	2016).		This	example	shows	that	there	are	key	barriers	to	incorporating	non-expert	driven	forms	of	knowledge—particularly	the	lived	experiences	of	the	many	urban	poor—which	precludes	a	more	meaningful	engagement	with	marginalized	urban	dwellers.	The	examples	above	show	entirely	different	narratives	of	what	urban	life	and	experience	with	water	services	are	like	in	Cape	Town’s	marginalized	areas—narratives	that	contrast	Cape	Town’s	portrayed	image	of	a	city	with	excellent	water	services	and	world-class	status.	For	building	water	resilience,	and,	more	specifically,	for	negotiating	how	resilience	is	to	be	framed	and	achieved	in	Cape	Town,	it	is	important	to	address	the	existing	disconnects	between	governance	spaces	and	processes	and	the	diverse	knowledge	and	experiences	held	by	the	city’s	various	residents,	many	of	whom	are	often	not	recognized.	As	such,	efforts	to	make	Cape	Town	more	equitable	and	resilient	to	water	necessitate	democratizing	knowledge	sharing	and	decision-making	spaces.		5.6.3 Connecting ecosystems and people: Source to Sea river restoration project Source	to	Sea	(http://sourcetosea.org.za)	is	a	pilot	project	of	the	City	of	Cape	Town,	the	South	African	National	Parks,	and	several	NGOs,	centered	around	the	development	of	an	integrated	implementation	strategy	for	river	corridor	restoration	along	one	of	Cape	Town’s	most	important	rivers—the	Sand	River	and	its	multiple	sub-catchments.	It	began	with	the	UNA-Africa	Natural	Urban	Assets	Project,	run	by	ICLEI-Africa,	a	local	NGO	with	a	key	role	in	facilitating	sustainability	projects	with	the	City	of	Cape	Town.	The	project	involves	a	series			 136	of	multi-stakeholder	discussions,	involving	the	City	of	Cape	Town	(namely	the	Stormwater	and	Sustainability	Branch),	park	authorities,	catchment	groups,	biodiversity	organizations	and	others,	to	plan	the	phases	of	rehabilitation	of	the	river	corridor	of	the	Sand	River	from	its	source	at	the	top	of	Table	Mountain,	to	the	Atlantic	Ocean.	Among	the	objectives	of	the	project	are	improving	ecosystem	services	(i.e.,	water	quality	improvement	or	flood	mitigation),	biodiversity	and	conservation	of	the	Cape	Flats	ecosystems,	and	adding	social	value	by	creating	opportunities	for	recreation,	such	as	multi-use	trails	along	the	entire	river	corridor.		In	June	2016,	ICLEI-Africa	hosted	an	official	launch	of	the	Source	to	Sea	website.	At	the	event,	City	officials,	councillors	and	members	of	the	special	Mayoral	committee	praised	Source	to	Sea	as	an	extraordinary	success	in	forming	cross-sectoral	partnerships	between	departments	that	do	not	typically	work	together	(i.e.,	San	Parks	and	Cape	Town’s	municipality).	Among	the	main	themes	in	the	opening	speeches	were	the	need	to	create	green	belts	in	the	Cape	Town’s	many	overcrowded	and	over-exploited	catchments,	as	well	the	importance	of	promoting	a	deeper	understanding	of	the	social	benefits	of	green	spaces,	in	order	to	link	conservation	agendas	with	the	Cape	Town’s	social	needs.	Further,	Source	to	Sea	was	framed	as	a	key	project	contributing	to	increased	resilience	to	climate	change	for	its	eco-hydrological	benefits.	Creating	connectivity	was	highlighted	as	a	key	aspect	of	ecological	resilience,	with	many	climate	change	adaptation	benefits	as	well,	and	was	therefore	a	key	motivation	behind	Source	to	Sea:		And	that’s	why	the	rivers	form	such	an	important	part	of	the	Source	to	Sea	project—it	is	about	connectivity.	And	that	is	in	light	of	climate	change.	You	need	resilience	within	the	systems	and	that	comes	through	connectivity,	whether	it’s	genetic	flow	or	whether	it’s	movement	of	animals,	whatever	it	may	be	(Cape	Town	Environmental	Education	Trust,	July	2016).		Another	key	aspect	of	the	stated	resilience	benefits	were	improved	ecosystem	services	for	both	lower	and	higher	income	communities.	The	project	had	an	explicit	focus	on	providing	social	amenities	(such	as	green	spaces)	for	the	benefit	of	the	urban	poor,	namely	informal	and	impoverished	urban	communities,	signaling	attention	to	social	and	environmental			 137	justice	as	part	of	this	resilience-building	project.	For	example,	a	project	manager	from	ICLEI-Africa	sees	this	project	as	an	opportunity	to	undo,	or	break	down,	some	of	the	spatial	segregation	created	by	the	apartheid	regime:		The	multi-use	trail	that	gets	people	from	the	lower	income	area	to	high	income	quickly.	It’s	going	to	help	with	movement	and	tries	to	break	down	the	different	areas	of	segregation.	I	mean,	you	know	our	past	of	apartheid—[this	project]	breaks	down	those	barriers.	So,	it’s,	in	the	theory	it’s	good	but	yes,	it’s	not	common	(ICLEI-Africa,	July	2016).			Indeed,	Cape	Town	has	had	many	challenges	with	urban	reintegration	post-apartheid	(Pieterse,	2004).	There	have	been	very	few,	if	any,	successful	examples	of	spatial	integration—it	remains	uncommon	in	part	due	to	the	perceived	safety	concerns	related	to	green	spaces.	From	this	interview	with	a	member	of	the	Cape	Town	Environmental	Education	Trust	(CTEET),	it	became	obvious	that	there	was	a	significant	opposition	to	the	project	from	wealthier	communities	living	near	the	river	corridor	due	to	concerns	that	green	areas	in	the	city	are	not	safe.		There	is	that	fear	that	a	vegetated	area	in	terms	of	bushes	and	trees,	whilst	it’s	ecologically	friendlier,	does	support	criminal	activity.	So,	I	think	the	resistance	generally	is	generally	coming	from	high-income	communities	(Cape	Town	Environmental	Education	Trust,	July	2016).		The	Sand	River	catchment	goes	through	both	wealthier	areas	and	informal	settlements,	known	for	high	levels	of	crime,	where	“no	one	really	wants	to	walk	in”	(interview	with	member	of	ICLEI-Africa,	July	2016).	Ironically,	for	Cape	Town’s	wealthier	residents,	a	connected	Cape	Town	mean	a	less	safe	Cape	Town.	This	ENGO	member	further	elaborates	on	the	issue:		Whether	you’re	arguing	for	it	from	a	resilience	point	of	view,	the	argument	is	that	the	social	impact	is	equally	important	[to	the	ecological	benefits]	and	as	large	in	my	eyes,	particularly	in	very	high-density	low-income	communities	as	well	where	crime	plays	such	an	[big	role].	And	that	is	a	concern.	I	mean	that’s	a	concern	with	our	Source	to	Sea	project—you’re	opening	up	access,	and	you’re	connecting	communities,	so	whilst	it	has	a	positive	side	it	also	has	a	negative	side	from	the	crime	[people	are]	exposed.	And	also,	that	you’re	now			 138	creating	almost	an	easy	access	point	between	low	and	high-income	communities	and,	yes,	it	gives	opportunities	for	criminals	to	use	those	corridors.	Also,	in	many	instances,	a	lot	of	the	crime	happens	in	a...	There’s	that	association	that	crime	happens	where	there’s	bushes	and	trees	and	because	a	lot	of	crimes	against	women,	rape,	etc.	(Cape	Town	Environmental	Education	Trust,	July	2016).		In	talking	about	the	potential	solutions	to	these	challenges,	the	most	likely	scenario	will	be	to	employ	“everything	from	foot	patrols	to	CCTV”	because	“in	any	planning,	safety	and	security	would	have	to	be	up	as	one	of	the	primary	considerations”	(member	of	the	Cape	Town	Environmental	Education	Trust,	July	2016).	We	see	that	the	intended	resilience	dimensions	of	improved	connectivity	along	the	river	corridor	and	creating	multiple	ecosystem	services	are	entangled	in	complex	issues	of	poverty,	inequality,	and	persistent	levels	of	crime,	fueling	a	strong	opposition	to	the	project.	In	a	way,	mitigating	social	inequalities	can	be	undermined	by	the	presence	of	those	very	inequalities	in	the	first	place.	In	2016,	at	the	time	of	this	research,	there	was	growing	uncertainty	around	the	future	of	the	project,	and	whether	it	would	be	sufficiently	taken	up	by	the	municipality	to	eventually	reach	completion.	My	requests	to	visit	the	sites	of	trail	restoration	did	not	receive	an	answer,	and	to	the	best	of	my	knowledge,	the	project	has	not	had	more	updates	since.	As	such,	this	case	illustrates	a	key	social	barrier	to	a	more	meaningful	integration	of	the	city’s	highly	fragmented	urban	form	and	ecological	systems—a	strategy	that	is	recognized	as	important	to	increasing	the	city’s	resilience.	This	highlights	a	key	tension	between	the	notion	of	“connectivity”	in	social	versus	ecological	systems,	particularly	in	highly	unequal	contexts.	Breaking	down	both	social	and	ecological	barriers	is	fundamental	to	improving	Cape	Town’s	resilience	to	water-related	risk,	as	well	as	broader	challenges,	and	therefore	is	a	key	consideration	for	resilience	building	efforts.		5.7 Discussion: towards an equitable and resilient Cape Town The	above	examples	together	demonstrate	that	informality,	inequality,	marginalization	and	power	are	central	factors	in	(re)producing	uneven	urban	social-ecological	dynamics	in	Cape	Town.	As	shown	above,	informal	settlements	are	both	recipients	and	drivers	of	social	and	environmental	risks,	such	as	flooding,	water	pollution,	crime,	and	others,	that	have			 139	effects	across	multiple	scales.	Informal	urbanization,	and	indeed	inequality	in	general,	is	not	a	localized,	or	temporary	issue,	nor	is	it	peripheral	to	the	city’s	socio-hydrologic	resilience.	Instead,	marginalization,	and	associated	risks	and	vulnerabilities	are	products	of	Cape	Town’s	historical	and	contemporary	development	trajectories,	and	in	turn	also	interact	with	and	affect	the	city’s	hydrological	processes,	from	water	quality,	groundwater	infiltration,	to	altering	water	flows	through	various	processes	of	urbanization.	As	such,	marginalized	urban	spaces	play	an	integral	part	in	the	city’s	socio-hydrological	processes.	Sidelining	these	spaces	does	not	only	disproportionally	affect	Cape	Town’s	many	impoverished	communities,	but	also	effectively	undermines	the	socio-hydrological	resilience	of	Cape	Town	as	a	whole.	To	the	extent	that	planning	related	to	these	settlements	is	also	reactive,	crisis-orientated,	and	short-term,	this	curbs	the	ability	for	Cape	Town	to	frame,	and	operationalize	resilience	in	a	more	socially	just	and	transformative	way.	In	sum,	the	city’s	overall	resilience	is	contingent	on	the	conditions	of	marginalized	urban	spaces,	and	therefore	it	is	important	to	engage	centrally	with	social	equity	as	necessary	for	achieving	a	more	(water)	resilient	city.		Of	course,	the	political	and	power-laden	nature	of	urban	environments	is	not	a	new	concern.	Work	on	political	ecologies	of	Southern	cities	or	peri-urban	spaces	has	contributed	to	rethinking	the	nature	in	cities	as	highly	politicized	environments.	Many	authors	have	helped	develop	a	deeper	understanding	of	the	complex	socio-natural	and	socio-technical	relationships	that	are	produced	by	and	run	through	urban	water	(e.g.,	Swyngedouw	2004;	Kooy	2014,	etc.).	However,	these	important	insights	lie	largely	outside	work	on	urban	resilience	which	tends	to	promote	ecological,	or	nature-based	approaches	to	addressing	environmental	risks,	such	as	flooding,	water	shortages,	etc.,	without	attending	to	questions	of	social	and	environmental	justice.	The	scholarship	on	urban	resilience	to	water	risks	can	greatly	benefit	from	engaging	the	inherently	power-laden	nature	of	urban	environments	that	not	only	create	inequality,	but	also	inhibit	possibilities	to	build	resilience.			Taking	these	insights	into	consideration	for	planning	in	Cape	Town	would	mean	first,	moving	away	from	a	technocratic	and	ad-hoc	disaster	management	paradigm,	to			 140	addressing	these	issues	through	the	lens	of	interconnected	social-ecological	systems.	Applying	a	social-ecological	lens	can	help	make	visible	the	complex	processes	that	reproduce	risk,	and	begin	to	transform	these	“at	risk”	spaces	towards	more	viable	and	liveable	environments.	Second,	it	would	involve	rethinking	informal	urban	spaces	as	important	and	integral	parts	of	urban	form,	and,	as	some	have	argued,	work	with	informality,	rather	than	against	it	(see	McFarlane,	2012;	Ranganathan,	2016).	This	chapter	further	suggests	that	it	is	imperative	to	prioritize	informal	settlements,	and	marginalized	urban	spaces	more	broadly,	as	key	for	resilience	planning,	not	only	because	these	sites	are	particularly	vulnerable,	but	because	they	form	a	central	part	of	urban	dynamics	and	affect	social-hydrological	resilience	across	scales.	Further,	involving	marginalized	urban	residents	will	require	more	than	stakeholder	consultations,	but	indeed	accepting	diverse	knowledges	and	experiences	as	legitimate	forms	of	“evidence”	to	inform	planning,	to	break	down	social	barriers,	and	to	begin	to	build	trust.	Last,	building	resilience	in	Cape	Town	would	require	addressing	persistent	disconnections—namely,	disconnected	state-civil	society	interactions	and	“knowledge”	flows,	and	disconnected	social	and	ecological	systems.	These	key	challenges	preclude	building	resilience	which	is	contingent	on	creating	connections	across	scales	and	across	social	and	ecological	systems.		Going	forward,	particularly	in	the	context	of	planning	for	resilience,	it	is	of	crucial	importance	to	pay	attention	to	whose	knowledge	and	what	kinds	of	experiences	are	being	included	and	prioritized.		5.8 Conclusion  As	many	cities	are	striving	to	enhance	urban	resilience	to	the	increasing	risks	of	drought,	flooding,	or	other	water	and	climate	related	risks,	it	is	of	great	importance	for	scholars	and	practitioners	to	engage	with	the	associated	social	and	environmental	justice	implications	of	resilience	building	efforts.	For	many	Southern	cities,	such	as	Cape	Town,	this	would	mean	situating	resilience	within	the	unique	challenges	(and	opportunities)	that	Southern	urbanism	poses.	This	chapter	engaged	with	three	dimensions	of	Cape	Town’s	contested	waterscape	that	run	counter	to	Northern	notions	of	urban	resilience	that	focus	on	the	ability	of	cities	to	formally	plan	and	govern	urban	space.	Ignoring	or	marginalizing	these			 141	spaces	does	not	only	disproportionally	affect	Cape	Town’s	impoverished	communities,	but	also	effectively	undermines	the	socio-hydrological	resilience	of	Cape	Town	as	a	whole.	Drawing	on	fieldwork	research	in	Cape	Town,	I	illustrated	key	conflicts	and	disconnections	that	inhibit	efforts	to	build	socio-hydrological	resilience—namely,	disconnected	state-civil	society	knowledge	flows	and	disconnected	socio-ecological	systems.	Addressing	these	disconnections	and	centering	on	the	city’s	most	marginalized	spaces	is	paramount	in	Cape	Town’s	resilience	building	efforts—to	water	risks,	and	climatic	and	environmental	change	more	broadly.			 			 142	Chapter 6: Conclusion—Situating “water resilience” 	Jamie	Linton	reflected	that	water	is	“the	least	cooperative	of	things	when	it	comes	to	being	contained	in	words	and	in	deeds”	(2010,	p.	4;	see	also	Bakker,	2003).	In	his	book,	Linton	provides	a	critical	take	on	the	history	of	water	as	captured	by	discourses of	hydrological	engineering,	infrastructural	management,	and	economics.	For	Linton,	water	in	the	modern	age	is	characterized	by	the	presumption	that	water	can	and	should	be	considered	apart	from	its	multiple	social	and	ecological	relations,	and	thus	reduced	to	an	abstract	quantity,	or	a	resource.	Modern	water,	Linton	further	writes,	is	also	characterized	by	a	process	of	deterritorialization,	or	the	“conquest	of	water	by	means	of	its	conceptual	abstraction	and	technical	control	[that]	has	broken	relations	that	otherwise	bind	specific	groups	of	people	to	the	waters	of	particular	territories”	(Linton	2010	pp.	18–19).	One	of	the	important	implications	of	this	is	the	fact	that	we,	humans,	have	often	taken	water	for	granted,	never	(or	rarely)	asking	how	water	gets	to	our	taps	or	where	it	comes	from	(Linton,	2010).		Linton’s	argument	that	we	can	no	longer	ignore	the	ecological,	cultural	and	political	dimensions	of	water	resonates	with	how	ideas	of	resilience	are	articulating	with	contemporary	governance	of	water.	The	idea	of	resilience	is	interacting	in	complex	ways	with	the	already	highly	fragmented	and	technical	domain	of	water	resource	management,	where	water	is	conventionally	seen	merely	as	a	resource	that	runs	through	the	built	or	engineered	infrastructure.	As	demonstrated	in	the	preceding	chapters,	highly	technical	articulations	of	“water	resilience”	can	potentially	remove	social,	cultural	and	in	some	cases	ecological	dimensions	of	water,	impeding	more	integrative,	holistic,	and	socially	just	ways	of	governing	water.	In	this	lies	the	biggest	challenge—and	potential	source	of	failure—of	resilience	thinking	in	relation	to	water:	narrow	technical	notions	of	resilience	may	move	water	into	the	domain	of	risk	management.	Doing	so	may	remove	water	from	its	social	life	(cf.	Wagner,	2012)	and	its	role	in	enabling	diverse	livelihoods	and	connecting	environments	across	scales.	Therefore,	approaches	to	water	(such	as	water	resilience),	should	also	take	into	account	the	diverse	dimensions	of	water	as	it	flows	through	physically	and	socially	fragmented	spaces.					 143	Further,	as	many	impoverished,	disenfranchised	and	marginalized	people	of	Cape	Town	are	facing	key	barriers	and	distrust	against	those	in	power,	they	are	right	to	ask—who	is	water	resilience	really	for?	Therefore,	whether	or	not	we	agree	that	“water	resilience”	is	a	useful	or	necessary	approach,	it	is	important	and	indeed	fruitful	to	investigate	and	continuously	question	what	different	resilience	philosophies	(engineering,	ecological,	social,	and	potentially	others)	have	enabled	or	obscured	when	applied	in	the	water	domain.	Overall,	with	its	complexities,	limitations	and	conundrums,	resilience	thinking	also	shows	promise	to	reframe	how	we	think	about	and	manage	water,	through	a	stronger	focus	on	ecosystem	health,	co-benefits,	and	accepting	uncertainty,	surprise,	and	change	as	inevitable.	Planning	for	resilience	can	also	open	up	new	decision	spaces,	through	collaboration	or	even	through	political	contestation.	Indeed,	we	are	already	beginning	to	see	early	signs	of	a	changing	waterscape	in	Cape	Town	as	the	city	is	changing	its	relationship	to	water	due	the	ongoing	water	crisis.	Among	some	of	these	trends	are	new	policy	interventions,	behavioural	change,	and	new	technological	solutions	to	managing	water	as	a	limited	resource,	such	as	stormwater	reuse,	groundwater	management,	universal	metering,	and	others.		As	such,	“water	resilience”	holds	the	potential	to	transform	otherwise	inflexible	and	unresponsive	water	infrastructures	and	institutions	by	creating	new	decisions	spaces	and	broadening	the	perspectives	that	inform	decision	making	around	water.		6.1 A note on the Cape Town water crisis  At	the	time	of	writing,	the	fear,	dread	and	controversies	around	Cape	Town’s	water	crisis	are	still	ongoing.	Day	Zero	(i.e.,	the	day	Cape	Town	will	shut	down	its	taps)	looms,	with	some	denying	its	existence,	while	others	are	contesting	the	City’s	drought	management	tactics.	However,	Cape	Town’s	water	crisis	might	be	a	wake-up	call	for	many	water	managers	worldwide.	As	discussed	in	Chapter	4,	in	2016	Cape	Town’s	water	engineers	were	confident	in	the	City’s	water	system	to	withstand	droughts.	Many	high-level	managers	and	officials	saw	Cape	Town’s	water	system	as	uniquely	positioned	to	handle	potential	droughts	because	of	the	integrated	nature	of	the	water	supply	system	and	the	highly	successful	Water	Demand	Management	efforts,	which,	as	we	have	seen	during	this	crisis,			 144	resulted	in	nearly	50%	reduction	in	overall	water	demand.	As	a	result,	water	experts	in	Cape	Town	had	confidence	in	the	City’s	water	system	and	thus	underestimated	the	probability	of	its	failure.	As	the	crisis	intensified	over	the	next	year	and	a	half,	it	became	clear	that	at	its	core	Cape	Town’s	current	water	management	paradigm	is	not	sufficiently	equipped	to	deal	with	uncertainty	in	the	hydrologic	cycle—a	crucial	challenge	that	many	other	cities	are	likely	to	face.		Second,	since	the	City	of	Cape	Town	officially	declared	the	drought	a	“crisis”	situation,	many	water	supply	augmentation	projects	including	groundwater	extraction	and	artificial	recharge,	water	reuse	and	other	options,	are	at	risk	of	being	expedited	without	necessary	social	and	environmental	impact	assessments	(City	of	Cape	Town,	2017h;	Luker,	2017).	For	example,	one	of	the	most	productive	aquifers	considered	as	part	of	the	emergency	supply	augmentation	schemes	is	the	Cape	Flats	aquifer.	This	aquifer	is	geographically	close	to	the	majority	of	the	city’s	informal	settlements	and	is	already	serving	an	important	role	for	local	food	security,	which	can	potentially	be	undermined	without	careful	planning	and	consultation	processes	in	place	(Luker,	2017).	This	and	many	other	emerging	points	of	tension	lead	to	the	concern	that	building	“water	resilience”	might	be	captured	under	discourses	of	risk	and	disaster	and	thus	further	sideline	more	inclusive	politics.	As	such,	a	narrow	crisis-oriented	approach	to	“water	resilience”	can	potentially	undermine	the	transition	to	a	water	resilient	Cape	Town—a	city	with	a	renewed	relationship	with	water,	ecosystems	and	society.	Below	I	provide	a	detailed	overview	of	key	lessons	from	this	doctoral	work	that	can	help	inform	these	debates.		6.2 Summary of key findings Building	water	resilience	has	unquestionably	become	an	important	imperative	in	global	water	governance	discourses	(see	Chapter	1).	At	the	same	time,	understandings	of	“water	resilience”,	how	it	is	to	be	achieved,	and	the	implications	of	resilience-informed	management	of	water,	are	still	nascent,	loosely	defined	and	discordant.	The	academic	literature	on	water	resilience	remains	patchy	and	fragmented	by	disciplinary	divides	(Chapter	2).	Admittedly,	as	resilience	has	become	a	pluralistic	discourse,	in	part	due	to	its			 145	interdisciplinary	origins,	it	is	unlikely	for	academics,	practitioners	or	decision-makers	to	arrive	at	a	single	universal	way	of	defining	or	operationalizing	“water	resilience”.	In	light	of	this,	the	goal	of	this	dissertation	was	not	to	establish	a	unifying	way	of	thinking	about	how	to	achieve	resilience	in	water	systems	and	governance.	Instead,	the	goal	was	to	think	through	the	different	ways	water	resilience	can	be	studied,	and	the	different	meanings	and	implications	it	might	have	for	different	communities	of	knowledge	and	practice.	Ultimately,	this	dissertation	is	concerned	with	what	we	know	(or	do	not	know)	about	water	resilience	across	different	scales,	in	different	contexts,	and	according	to	different	actors.			The	evidence	presented	in	Chapter	2	found	that	the	resilience-informed	water	governance	literature	is	fragmented	across	different	water	domains	and	is	predominantly	centered	on	conventional	approaches	and	framings	of	water	planning	and	management.	I	further	demonstrated	that	engineering	notions	of	water	resilience,	typically	referring	the	specific	measurable	attributes	of	engineered	infrastructure	systems,	form	the	biggest	proportion	of	the	literature	that	applies	resilience	in	the	context	of	water.	This	engineering	orientation	is	in	part	explained	by	the	fact	that	engineering	notions	of	resilience	have	deep	disciplinary	roots	in	research	on	water	resource	management.	This	is	reflective	of	the	engineering	paradigm	that	permeates	much	of	the	water	governance	domain—a	paradigm	that	is	also	driving	water	planning	in	practice	(as	demonstrated	in	Chapter	4).	In	other	words,	despite	arguments	that	resilience	is	a	cross-sectoral	governance	challenge,	overall	the	water	resilience	literature	remains	dominated	by	a	narrowly	focused	technical	management	of	engineered	water	systems.	Further,	the	fact	that	the	vast	majority	of	the	papers	in	the	scoping	review	do	not	specify	explicitly	who	resilience	is	for	(i.e.,	whether	building	resilience	is	for	specific	communities,	or	types	of	consumer	groups)	signals	to	a	significant	gap	in	academic	understanding	of	social	and	governance	dimensions	of	water	resilience.	However,	we	are	also	seeing	a	shift	in	the	water	resilience	domain.	Specifically,	in	recent	years	there	has	been	a	noticeable	and	growing	engagement	with	non-engineering	articulations	of	resilience,	particularly	from	the	literatures	on	social-ecological	systems,	ecological	resilience,	urban	resilience,	as	well	as	institutional	and	community	resilience.	This	trend	signals	a	creative	moment	in	the	water	resilience	scholarship	with	a	potentially			 146	more	innovative	and	transformative	orientation	towards	a	stronger	focus	on	ecosystems	and	communities.		In	Chapter	2	I	also	provided	a	synthesis	of	key	design	characteristics	of	resilient	water	systems	derived	from	the	academic	literature.	Adaptive,	interconnected	and	flexible	are	the	most	common	characteristics	of	resilient	water	systems,	with	adaptive	used	in	relation	to	various	systems	and	practices,	including	governance.	Overall,	researchers	across	various	fields	see	resilience	in	water	systems	as	the	ability	to	adapt,	transform	or	respond	to	changes	of	various	natures,	signalling	a	wide	acknowledgement	and	indeed	a	shift	towards	accepting	that	hydrological	change	is	inevitable.	A	common	theme	in	this	and	other	chapters	as	well	is	the	idea	of	interconnectivity.	Interconnectivity	means	connections	across	scales	or	sectors	or	having	high	levels	of	integration	across	different	levels	of	governance.	While	adaptability	and	flexibility	are	highlighted	as	key	throughout,	surprisingly	the	analysis	in	Chapter	2	shows	that	in	relation	to	built/engineered	environments,	the	academic	literature	is	overwhelmingly	highlighting	robustness,	having	redundancy	and	ability	to	recover	quickly	as	most	important.	All	of	these	principles	refer	to	the	abilities	of	systems	to	withstand	and	persist	rather	than	to	adapt	and	transform,	which	can	lead	to	a	potential	contradiction	as	the	literature	is	still	lacking	in	specificity	and	guidance	around	how	to	achieve	these	principles	or	address	associated	trade-offs.	Further,	while	the	literature	argues	for	creating	connectivity	across	scales,	in	reality	this	can	be	difficult	and	even	impossible	to	achieve	due	to	legacies	of	social,	spatial,	socio-ecological	and	other	forms	of	fragmentation	in	cities	in	the	global	South	(see	more	about	this	in	Chapter	4	and	further	below).	In	sum,	the	scholarship	on	water	resilience	is	arguing	for	both	preserving	and	transforming	water	systems;	however,	it	still	lacks	practical	guidance	on	the	what	aspects	should	be	strengthened	or	changed.	This	domain	is	also	yet	to	engage	with	the	myriad	trade-offs	that	resilience	enhancing	actions	entail.			In	Chapter	2	I	further	engaged	with	a	smaller	but	growing	and	potentially	promising	part	of	the	water	resilience	literature	that	is	concerned	with	social	and	governance	systems	where	collaborative	is	the	most	prominent	characteristic.	Collaboration	points	to	connections	across	sectors	that	have	been	previously	disconnected,	or	between	science,	policy	and	the			 147	public;	however,	there	is	a	lack	of	critical	engagement	with	precisely	who	the	actors	should	be.	For	example,	among	the	processes	that	can	help	enhance	resilience	in	water	governance,	the	most	prominent	ones	in	the	literature	are	collaborative	processes,	stakeholder	engagement,	and	government-led	processes,	signalling	to	an	acknowledgement	of	the	need	to	broaden	governance	spaces	to	include	a	wider	range	of	stakeholders.	At	the	same	time,	the	academic	literature	continues	to	frame	resilience	building	in	the	water	sector	as	the	responsibility	of	water	managers,	typically	including	operators,	people	who	run	water	facilities,	and	people	who	are	responsible	for	strategic	planning	for	water	resources	(Chapter	2).	This	leaves	open	the	question	of	whom	these	actors	should	engage	and	collaborate	with	to	achieve	broader	and	more	inclusive	decision-making	in	water	governance.	Without	critically	unpacking	who	these	stakeholders	should	be,	there	is	a	risk	of	reproducing	or	reinforcing	less	inclusive	water	management	practices.	Defining	what	broader	engagement	actually	means	is	critical	for	achieving	the	transformative	potential	of	water	resilience.	For	example,	inclusivity	and	stakeholder	engagement	processes	are	highly	problematic	in	many	contexts,	especially	in	the	global	South.	As	shown	in	Chapter	5,	in	reality	many	marginalized	urban	residents	are	not	effectively	engaged	as	stakeholders	due	to	persistent	social	barriers,	distrust	and	lack	of	effective	modes	of	state-civil	society	engagement.	Cape	Town’s	social	and	urbanization	realities	once	again	highlight	that	operationalizing	resilience-building	principles	is	primarily	a	governance	challenge,	one	that	is	directly	affected	by	the	stakeholders	involved,	or	the	power	dynamics	they	bring.			While	in	Chapter	2	I	outline	the	challenges	with	defining	and	conceptualizing	resilience	thinking	in	relation	to	water	systems	and	water	governance,	in	Chapter	3	I	focused	on	contemporary	thinking	around	the	practices	and	strategies	that	are	important	for	water	resilience.		I	found	that	while	debates	about	how	to	theorize	or	operationalize	resilience	in	relation	to	different	systems—social	or	biophysical—will	likely	remain	unresolved,	defining	resilience	is	not	a	key	factor	in	experts’	ideas	about	what	needs	to	be	done	to	achieve	water	resilience.	Indeed,	while	there	is	some	disagreement	among	experts	about	which	strategies	are	most	important	for	resilience	building,	these	disagreements	are	not	driven	primarily	by	the	differences	in	defining	resilience.	This	finding	suggests	that	“water	resilience”	does	work	as	a	boundary	concept,	where	epistemological	or	ontological			 148	difference	might	persist	without	inhibiting	a	more	integrative	thinking	around	the	practical	applications	of	resilience.				Further,	the	evidence	in	Chapter	3	suggests	an	overwhelmingly	positive	support	for	ecosystem	health	as	a	first	order	objective	in	water	resilience	across	experts	from	various	domains.	Many	experts	also	highlight	integrated	management	across	scales	as	a	high	order	priority,	while	in	the	context	of	water	security	and	drought	management,	building	resilience	tends	to	mean	diversifying	water	supply	sources	through	a	more	holistic	management	of	water,	by	incorporating	water	recycling,	stormwater	capture	and	reuse,	etc.	These	practices	constitute	a	shift	in	water	governance	towards	embracing	the	complex	and	multi-dimensional	nature	of	water	systems	and	prioritizing	working	with	the	natural	environment	as	a	key	component	of	water	systems.	As	such,	the	two	studies	together	(Chapters	2	and	3)	suggest	a	new	emerging	“water	resilience”	paradigm	that	is	associated	with	an	ecological	shift	in	water	governance,	one	which	implies	re-allocating	higher	priority	on	restoring	and	maintaining	water	ecosystems	as	key	buffers	against	multiple	linked	water	security	risks.			In	this	dissertation,	I	focused	on	two	predominant	articulations	of	“water	resilience,	or	frames	in	thinking	about	water	resilience—engineering	and	eco-hydrological—as	they	are	influential	in	the	academic	literature	as	well	as	in	actual	decision-making	and	planning	around	water	resilience	on	the	ground	(e.g.,	Chapter	4).	My	conversations	with	water	planners	and	managers	in	Cape	Town	demonstrated	that	these	perspectives	co-exist	in	tension,	with	the	“engineering	paradigm”	remaining	predominant	in	the	water	supply	sector.	Comparing	these	framings	is	important	because	they	have	different	implications	for	water	planning.	For	example,	they	differ	significantly	in	terms	of	which	systems	are	prioritized	(natural/ecological	systems	or	the	built	infrastructure),	the	scale	at	which	resilience-building	efforts	are	applied	(the	catchment	scale,	or	the	scale	of	water	distribution	systems)	and	most	importantly,	the	actions	that	are	advocated	for	building	resilience	(whether	investing	in	supply	diversification,	or	increased	demand	management,	or	prioritizing	ecosystem	rehabilitation).	Applying	a	singular	“water	resilience”	lens—whether	one	that	focuses	on	the	built	infrastructure	or	on	socio-ecological	dynamics—will			 149	enable	some	actions	but	obscure,	or	sideline	others.	For	example,	the	eco-hydrological	perspective	of	water	resilience,	as	articulated	by	water	managers,	experts	and	planners	at	the	City	of	Cape	Town,	tends	to	be	more	critical	of	the	status	quo	and	advocates	for	action	to	improve	the	quality	of	the	urban	watersheds.	It	further	advocates	for	enhancing	connectivity	and	overall	health	of	the	urban	water	ecosystems	and	the	hydrological	services	they	provide	to	various	communities.	This	perspective	is	also	more	open	to	acknowledging	uneven	access	to	ecosystems	services	or	exposure	to	environmental	risks	(see	Chapter	4).	In	contrast,	the	engineering	perspectives	in	water	resilience	tend	to	look	at	the	water	system	as	largely	detached	from	the	social	fabric	of	Cape	Town,	which	can	be	highly	problematic	in	this	context,	where	questions	of	inequality,	politics	and	justice	are	of	utmost	importance—issues	that	are	being	actively	pursued	by	water	justice	activists	in	the	region	and	across	South	Africa	(e.g.,	Dugard,	2013;	Mahlanza,	et	al.,	2016;	Mehta	et	al.,	2010;	Wilson	and	Pereira,	2012;	Ziervogel	et	al.,	2017).	Further,	in	relation	to	water	security	challenges,	this	perspective	further	tends	to	rely	on	past	hydrologic	data	and	is	thus	likely	ill-equipped	to	deal	with	uncertainty—a	factor	that	likely	contributes	to	institutional	inability	to	deal	effectively	with	change	in	hydrologic	regimes,	which	have	been	recognized	as	key	for	resilient	water	governance.	Overall,	as	water	systems	inherently	encompass	social,	ecological	and	technical	dimensions,	I	believe	a	more	integrative	thinking,	and	specifically	bridging	these	distinct	paradigms,	will	likely	be	highly	productive	and	indeed	necessary	for	achieving	water	resilience	in	a	meaningful	way.		Lastly,	an	important	emerging	theme	in	the	water	resilience	domain	is	the	notion	of	ecological,	or	nature-based	solutions	(i.e.,	green	or	ecological	infrastructure)	for	increased	water	resilience.	In	other	words,	there	is	an	enhanced	interest	in	addressing	water	ecosystem	health	as	a	key	priority	in	water	resilience	building	efforts	instead	of	relying	on	costly	and	inflexible	engineered	systems	(e.g.,	Chapter	3).	However,	situating	water	resilience	in	Cape	Town’s	highly	unequal	urban	form	highlights	the	importance	of	recognizing	that	urban	watersheds	are	deeply	interconnected	with	urban	form	and	socio-political	dynamics	(Chapter	5).	Specifically,	in	contexts	such	as	the	global	South,	informality,	inequality,	marginalization	and	power	are	central	factors	in	the	uneven	urban	social-ecological	dynamics	and	therefore	play	a	key	role	in	shaping	socio-hydrological			 150	resilience.	In	Cape	Town	informal	settlements	are	simultaneously	recipients	of	and	drivers	of	social	and	environmental	risks.		More	specifically,	urban	marginalization,	and	associated	risks	and	vulnerabilities,	are	products	of	Cape	Town’s	historical	and	contemporary	development	trajectories,	and	in	turn	also	interact	with	and	affect	the	city’s	hydrological	processes	(Chapter	5).	As	such,	marginalized	urban	spaces	play	an	integral	part	in	urban	socio-hydrological	processes.	Ignoring	these	spaces	does	not	only	disproportionally	affect	Cape	Town’s	many	impoverished	communities,	but	also	effectively	undermines	the	socio-hydrological	resilience	of	Cape	Town	as	a	whole.			6.3 Notes on the methodology: strengths and limitations Methodologically,	this	dissertation	draws	on	Nightingale’s	(2009)	notion	of	“triangulation	for	complementarity”	and	employs	several	methods—systematic	scoping	review,	quantitative	survey	and	qualitative	fieldwork	methods—to	investigate	dimensions	of	“water	resilience”	across	different	scales	(global	and	local)	and	across	different	communities	of	knowledge	and	practice	(researchers,	planners	and	city	managers,	civil	society,	and	community	members).	This	approach	helped	trace	key	trends	in	the	academic	scholarship	on	water	resilience	revolving	around	engineering	and	eco-hydrological	framings	and	their	contested	articulations	in	applied	planning	discourses	in	Cape	Town.	The	evidence	from	interviews	with	city	officials	in	Cape	Town	helped	demonstrate	tensions	that	emerged	from	the	centrality	of	these	distinct	approaches	and	the	need	for	bridging	these	perspectives	for	a	more	inclusive	and	integrative	thinking	on	water	resilience.	Namely,	each	perspective	enabled	only	a	limited	focus	on	different	dimensions	of	Cape	Town’s	otherwise	complex	and	unequal	waterscape.	Fieldwork	evidence	further	demonstrated	the	need	for	hybrid	approached	to	water	resilience	that	are	more	centrally	focused	on	the	social	and	ecosystem	dynamics	of	specific	places	and	their	social	and	environmental	justice	dimensions.		Further,	the	choice	of	methodologies	allowed	me	to	investigate	resilience	both	as	a	global	and	local	discourse.	Building	resilience	is	widely	embraced	by	the	global	community	as	the	responsibility	of	cities	(Beilin	and	Wilkinson,	2015;	Coaffee	and	Lee,	2016;	Meerow	et	al.,			 151	2016).	As	the	systematic	review	(Chapter	2)	and	insights	from	Cape	Town	(Chapter	4)	demonstrate,	cities	are	considered	key	players	in	building	resilience,	and	many	water	resilience	building	approaches	focus	on	urban	scales	(see	also	Meerow	et	al.,	2016).	Focusing	on	global	and	local	articulations	of	resilience	helped	illuminate	key	tensions	that	arise	when	applying	the	often-abstract	ideas	of	resilience	in	specific	contexts.	To	capture	global	water	resilience	discourses,	I	focused	on	the	academic	community	and	studied	the	various	ways	academics	and	researchers	think	about	water	resilience.	This	focus	helped	delve	into	the	conceptual	and	philosophical	aspects	of	resilience,	but	it	unfortunately	missed	the	global	policy	community,	which	remained	outside	the	scope	of	this	dissertation.	To	study	localized	and	situated	notions	of	water	resilience,	I	focused	on	Cape	Town,	a	city	that	lends	invaluable	insights	related	to	water	governance,	inequality,	and	complex	urban	dynamics;	however,	inevitably	this	approach	missed	national	and	regional	dynamics	that	are	also	at	play.		Several	other	limitations	are	of	note.	The	systematic	scoping	review	in	Chapter	2	investigated	only	how	the	specific	term	“resilience”	is	articulated	in	the	scholarly	peer-reviewed	literature.	While	the	explicit	focus	on	resilience	was	helpful	for	an	in-depth	investigation	of	uses	of	“resilience”,	it	may	have	excluded	literatures	that	engage	with	similar	themes	without	drawing	on	the	language	of	resilience	(e.g.,	adaptive	capacity).	Further,	grey	literature	was	not	reviewed	as	part	of	the	systematic	review,	and	therefore	the	analysis	may	have	missed	how	resilience	is	applied	in	water	projects	by	NGOs	or	other	entities.	As	the	scoping	review	captured	literature	from	the	1980s	to	the	present,	it	is	subject	to	a	temporal	bias,	whereby	the	more	conventional	notions	or	definitions	of	resilience	in	water	systems	are	proportionately	more	frequent	than	newer	and	more	recent	approaches.	As	such,	this	methodology	risks	underestimating	the	significance	of	more	recent	work,	which	I	tried	to	address	by	making	sure	to	represent	more	recent	ideas,	even	if	they	did	not	appear	in	many	papers	(e.g.,	I	report	low-frequency	principles	in	the	tables	in	Chapter	2).	Another	important	reflection	on	this	method	is	that	it	captured	how	authors	choose	to	define	resilience	in	published	work,	which	can	be	a	result	of	their	training,	disciplinary	norms	or	intended	audience.	Focusing	on	stated	definitions	in	the	academic	literature	does	not	sufficiently	capture	how	authors	actually	think	about	resilience	in	a			 152	broader	sense,	or	how	their	thinking	might	have	changed	over	time,	as	resilience	ideas	have	evolved	and	transformed.			In	Chapter	3	I	asked	participants	to	apply	their	understanding	of	resilience	to	specific	actions	or	strategies	to	help	enhance	resilience	in	water	systems	and	governance.	The	chosen	survey	methodology	is	vulnerable	to	self-selection	bias	among	respondents.	For	example,	while	we	know	from	the	scoping	review	that	there	is	a	strong	engineering	bias	in	the	water	resilience	literature,	a	proportionally	smaller	number	of	survey	participants	aligned	with	an	engineering	perspective	or	indicated	that	they	work	in	an	engineering	field.	This	method	may	not	have	yielded	a	balanced	sample,	or	experts’	thinking	does	indeed	differ	somewhat	from	their	published	definitions.	Of	note	is	that	the	MANOVA	statistical	analysis	ensured	that	groups	had	equal	representation	in	the	sample	(i.e.,	it	adjusted	for	imbalanced	samples).	Overall,	while	the	lower	number	of	participants	who	selected	the	engineering	definition	of	resilience	was	not	a	problem	for	the	statistical	analysis,	it	is	possible	that	the	survey	may	not	have	fully	captured	the	water	engineering	perspective.		There	is	also	the	possibility	that	a	growing	number	of	academics	who	write	about	resilience	in	water	systems	are	moving	away	from	the	conventional	engineering	understanding	of	resilience,	or	that	more	non-engineers	are	engaging	in	work	on	water	resilience.	Given	that	the	survey	was	conducted	in	2017,	it	sought	to	capture	how	participants	think	and	understand	water	resilience	at	that	point;	in	contrast,	the	scoping	review	is	biased	towards	past	thinking.	More	research	on	innovative	practices	in	water	governance	is	likely	needed	to	confirm	that	a	shift	in	thinking	on	water	resilience	has	begun	to	occur	in	recent	years.		The	fieldwork	research	presented	in	this	dissertation	faced	several	limitations	as	well.	First,	I	spent	only	six	months	in	the	field	in	2016.	In	addition,	municipal	elections	happened	during	the	period	of	fieldwork,	which	resulted	in	difficulties	in	securing	meetings	with	some	key	officials.	The	elections	also	resulted	in	delays	around	actions	related	to	the	Cape	Town’s	participation	in	the	100	Resilient	Cities	Program,	which	was	of	particular	importance	for	this	research.	As	a	result,	I	was	not	able	to	document	in	person	many	of	the	subsequent	developments.	The	drought	crisis	also	became	acute	after	data	collection.	Not			 153	being	able	to	document	in	person	ongoing	developments	in	relation	to	the	water	crisis	and	Cape	Town’s	Water	Resilience	Plan	may	have	impeded	the	uptake	of	this	work.		While	these	limitations	affect	the	extent	this	research	can	contribute	to	debates	on	the	ongoing	water	crisis,	this	dissertation	offers	a	glimpse	into	the	underlying	views	and	processes	that	characterized	water	governance	in	Cape	Town	at	the	onset	of	the	crisis.			Finally,	as	mentioned	in	the	introductory	chapter,	interdisciplinary	research	on	complex	domains	such	as	water	resilience	involves	a	degree	of	simplification	in	order	to	help	make	sense	of	complexity.	Consequently,	there	is	a	danger	of	imposing	simplistic	or	binary	ways	of	characterizing	my	observations.	In	reality,	many	of	the	processes	I	discuss,	and	indeed	the	framings	that	are	used	to	conceptualize	water	resilience,	are	not	static	nor	binary	but	are	instead	often	hybrid,	fluid	and	dynamically	changing.			6.4 Research reflections and dissertation contributions 6.4.1 Resilience as a boundary concept Defining	resilience	is	not	an	easy	challenge	because	this	concept	has	several	dimensions	that	can	be	conceptualized	and	theorized	in	synergistic	or	contradictory	ways	(see	also	Olsson	et	al	2015).	For	example,	resilience	can	refer	to	either	social,	natural	or	engineered	systems	(including	hybrid	systems),	all	of	which	can	be	understood	in	ontologically	and	epistemologically	different	ways.	Further,	resilience	can	refer	to	bouncing	back	or	bouncing	forward	and	each	direction	entails	fundamentally	different	processes—the	former	is	typically	related	to	maintaining	the	status	quo,	while	the	latter	might	involve	imaging	new	future	pathways.	The	tensions	stemming	from	this	epistemological	and	ontological	plurality	in	resilience	theory	are	likely	impossible	to	resolve.	However,	as	this	dissertation	suggests,	not	having	a	singular	unifying	conceptualization	of	resilience	(or	water	resilience	in	this	case)	is	not	necessarily	problematic	(see	Chapter	3).	The	mere	exercise	of	contrasting,	reconciling	or	debating	the	various	ways	of	conceptualizing	or	operationalizing	resilience	can	be	highly	productive.	It	may	open	up	new	possibilities	of	thinking	about	and	governing	water	systems	or	it	may	unearth	contradictions	and	tensions	that	are	necessary	to	address	in	order	to	achieve	more	resilient	water	systems	(Chapters	4	and	5).			 154		In	this	dissertation,	I	simplified	some	of	this	definitional	complexity	in	the	resilience	scholarship	to	make	comparisons	between	different	ways	of	conceptualizing	water	resilience	in	order	to	illuminate	key	differences	associated	with	any	one	approach	(e.g.,	Chapter	4).	This	is	not	to	say	that	the	different	definitions	of	water	resilience	are	easily	comparable.	To	the	contrary,	it	is	indeed	challenging	to	compare	the	resilience	of	social	systems	versus	that	of	engineered	systems	as	they	are	not	similar	enough.	However,	having	done	this	work,	I	believe	it	is	productive	to	understand	with	more	nuance	what	might	be	gained	and	what	might	be	lost	by	using	any	one	type	of	conceptualization	over	others.	Chapters	2	and	4	demonstrate	precisely	that,	even	though	the	methodologies	I	chose	necessarily	imposed	many	simplifications	on	the	definitions	of	resilience.			Putting	in	conversation	Chapters	2	and	3	with	the	complex	and	messy	realities	of	urban	planning	and	lived	urban	dynamics	in	Cape	Town	(Chapters	4	and	5)	helped	engage	more	constrictively	with	the	complexity	and	context	specificity	that	shape	how	resilience	actually	plays	out	on	the	ground.	Through	interviews	with	city	officials	and	civil	society	members	it	became	obvious	that	the	way	resilience	works	on	the	ground	is	through	forming	new	decision	spaces	(e.g.,	creating	resilience	task	forces)	or	through	the	trade-offs	that	arise	from	the	various	different	ways	water	resilience	can	be	enhanced.	As	such,	water	resilience	in	an	applied	sense	is	much	more	than	what	any	specific	definition	would	suggest.	Further,	as	shown	in	Chapter	3,	how	resilience	is	defined	is	not	actually	a	strong	driver	in	these	processes.	Quite	the	contrary,	many	resilience	experts	can	and	do	agree	on	the	importance	of	specific	pathways	to	build	resilience	regardless	of	the	way	they	conceptualize	resilience.	This	does	not	mean	that	defining	resilience	is	not	important,	but	it	does	suggest	two	things.	First,	it	reinforces	Olsson’s	characterization	of	resilience	as	a	boundary	concept	that	encompasses	multiple	dimensions	and	ontologies,	although	it	does	not	necessarily	reconcile	them	(Olsson	et	al.,	2015).	Second,	resilience	begins	to	“work”	when	it	is	situated	in	specific	spaces	of	power	(e.g.,	Cape	Town’s	municipal	water	departments),	eco-hydrological	contexts	(e.g.,	surface	water-centered	water	systems,	water	scarcity,	polluted	waterways),	and	social	systems	(e.g.,	highly	segregated	or	unequal	systems).	Resilience	outcomes	are	thus	shaped	by	the	networks	through	which	resilience	is	operationalized	and			 155	the	novel	decisions	spaces	it	opens	up,	albeit	in	tension	with	existing	agendas	and	power	structures.	Ultimately,	resilience	outcomes	are	shaped	by	the	interactions	between	these	internal	and	external	forces.				6.4.2 A focus on Southern urbanism helps elucidate the relationship between inequality and resilience Chapters	2	and	3	demonstrate	clearly	the	Western/Northern	roots	of	the	resilience	discourse,	produced	by	scholars	and	academics	in	OECD	countries,	and	supported	by	funding	from	Northern	organizations,	such	as	Rockefeller’s	100	Resilience	Cities	in	the	case	of	Cape	Town,	but	also	through	the	World	Bank,	UN	Water	and	others.	In	contrast,	Southern	contexts	tend	to	have	higher	levels	of	vulnerability	to	environmental	and	other	risks,	stemming	from	lower	governance	capacity,	high	level	of	inequality,	colonial	past,	and	poor	infrastructure	among	other	factors	(IPCC,	2014a).	As	a	result,	Southern	cities	tend	to	be	the	recipients	of	resilience	“lessons”	or	funding.	As	such,	the	way	resilience	discourses	travel	follows	established	geopolitical	trajectories	whereby	resilience	“solutions”	created	in	Northern/Western	contexts	are	transported	to	their	Southern	counterparts.	However,	as	shown	in	Chapter	4,	there	is	a	notable	sense	of	opposition	to	this	one-directional	knowledge	transfer.	As	city	officials	in	Cape	Town	point	out,	the	nature	of	risks	in	Cape	Town	is	rather	different,	with	nearly	a	million	residents	living	in	unregulated,	informal	spaces	on	marginal	land,	and	with	a	long	social	and	political	contestation	around	water	issues.		Of	course,	it	is	understandable	why	much	of	the	resilience	scholarship	comes	from	Western	contexts.	Countries	such	as	Canada,	Australia,	USA	or	Sweden	tend	to	have	higher	research	capacity	and	publish	more	academic	literature.	The	issue,	however,	is	that	in	addition	to	the	geopolitical	dynamics	of	North-South	knowledge	transfers,	there	is	a	danger	here	that	many	of	the	resilience	strategies	or	solutions	are	not	well	suited	for	cities	with	higher	levels	of	informal	urbanism	or	lower	capacity	to	resolve	the	difficult	trade-offs	that	arise	from	resilience	building	approaches.	For	example,	we	see	that	the	expert	community	almost	unanimously	supports	focus	on	ecological	or	nature-based	approaches	to	building			 156	resilience	in	the	water	sector,	despite	disciplinary	differences.	In	the	context	of	flood	resilience,	for	example,	green	infrastructure	solutions	are	among	the	most	prominent	resilience	strategies	(Chapter	3).	However,	in	Cape	Town,	restoring	and	indeed	transforming	rivers	into	“green”	resilience	infrastructures	creates	trade-offs	between	meeting	resilience	goals	and	the	needs	of	those	lacking	in	housing,	employment,	or	citizenship	rights.	How	are	these	trade-offs	to	be	resolved	if	the	expert	knowledge	produced	in	the	North	is	still	lacking	in	much	needed	practical	guidance	on	these	issues?		Further,	of	note	is	that	the	popularity	of	the	resilience	discourse	is	in	part	due	to	the	focus	of	resilience	on	co-benefits—i.e.,	resilience	approaches	tend	to	be	framed	as	“win-win”	solutions	through	combining	improved	ecosystem	services,	reduced	risk	to	climate	change	impacts	and	public	enjoyment	of	green	space	(e.g.,	Chapter	5).	This	is	evidenced	in	the	scholarly	literature	and	in	experts’	narratives	from	the	municipal	offices	in	Cape	Town.	In	Chapter	5,	however,	situating	resilience	in	the	context	of	a	highly	unequal	city	demonstrated	a	vast	potential	for	conflict	between	social,	ecological	and	broader	resilience	objectives—	a	conflict	that	is	not	explicitly	addressed	in	the	resilience	scholarship	or	in	expert	narratives.	As	such,	the	analytical	focus	on	Southern	urbanism	brought	to	light	the	latent	conflicts,	trade-offs	and	tensions	that	actively	shape	or	indeed	inhibit	the	on	the	ground	realization	of	resilience.	The	focus	on	Southern	cities	also	helped	bring	to	light	the	strong	relationship	between	social	inequality,	social	justice	and	resilience,	which	might	be	less	notable	or	observable	in	other	contexts.	Scholars	have	only	recently	begun	to	tackle	the	complex	conceptual	and	empirical	links	between	unequal	social	systems	and	resilience	(e.g.,	Allen	et	al.,	2017;	Caniglia	et	al.,	2017;	Matin	et	al	2018;	Rodina	et	al.,	2017;	Ziervogel	et	al.,	2017).	This	dissertation	thus	hopes	to	provide	useful	empirical	insights	to	this	emerging	and	very	important	body	of	work.			Overall,	this	dissertation	contributes	to	a	more	situated	understanding	of	“water	resilience”	by	critically	evaluating	the	various	tensions	and	implications	of	the	different	framings	and	understandings	of	resilience	in	the	context	of	water.	Situating	resilience	means	acknowledging	unequal	outcomes,	latent	conflicts	and	the	fact	that	power	permeates	social-eco-technical	systems	and	is	thus	an	important	drivers	of	resilience	agendas	and			 157	how	their	benefits	are	distributed.	While	the	boundary	concept	of	“water	resilience”	is	inevitably	co-opted	by	various	agendas,	I	am	hopeful	and	believe	it	holds	promise	to	open	up	new	spaces,	invite	new	actors,	challenge	conventional	approaches	and	ultimately	pave	the	way	for	new	discourses	in	water	governance.	As	such,	“water	resilience”	can	contribute	to	a	new,	more	integrative	and	holistic	thinking	towards	a	future	where	communities	and	cities	will	not	only	cope	with	uncertain	risks	and	shocks,	but	also	thrive	in	the	face	of	change.	 			 158	Bibliography 	Allen,	A.,	Griffin,	L.,	&	Johnson,	C.	(Eds.).	(2017).	Environmental	Justice	and	Urban	Resilience	in	the	Global	South	(pp.	1–314).	New	York,	US:	Palgrave	Macmillan.	http://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-47354-7		Alberti,	M.	(2016).	Cities	That	Think	like	Planets:	Complexity,	Resilience,	and	Innovation	in	Hybrid	Ecosystems.	Seattle,	US:	University	of	Washington	Press.	Aldaya,	M.	(2017).	Environmental	science:	Eating	ourselves	dry.	Nature,	543(7647),	633–634.	http://doi.org/10.1038/543633a		Alexander,	P.	(2010).	Rebellion	of	the	poor:	South	Africa's	service	delivery	protests	–	a	preliminary	analysis.	Review	of	African	Political	Economy,	37(123),	25–40.	http://doi.org/10.1080/03056241003637870	Andersson,	K.	P.,	&	Ostrom,	E.	(2008).	Analyzing	decentralized	resource	regimes	from	a	polycentric	perspective.	Policy	Sciences,	41(1),	71–93.	http://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-007-9055-6	Archer,	E.	R.	M.,	Landman,	W.	A.,	Tadross,	M.	A.,	Malherbe,	J.,	Weepener,	H.,	Maluleke,	P.,	&	Marumbwa,	F.	M.	(2017).	Understanding	the	evolution	of	the	2014-2016	summer	rainfall	seasons	in	Southern	Africa:	Key	lessons.	Climate	Risk	Management,	16,	22–28.	http://doi.org/10.1016/j.crm.2017.03.006		Armitage,	N.,	Fisher,	J.,	Carden,	K.,	Winter,	K.,	Naidoo,	V.,	Spiegel,	A.,	et	al.	(2014).	Water	Sensitive	Urban	Design	(WSUD)	for	South	Africa:	Framework	and	Guidelines	(No.	TT	588/14)	(pp.	1–234).	Pretoria,	South	Africa:	Water	Research	Commission.	Arnold,	C.	A.	T.,	Gosnell,	H.,	Benson,	M.	H.,	&	Craig,	R.	K.	(2017).	Cross-interdisciplinary	insights	into	adaptive	governance	and	resilience.	Ecology	and	Society,	22(4),	art14.	http://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09734-220414		Attwater,	R.,	&	Derry,	C.	(2017).	Achieving	Resilience	through	Water	Recycling	in	Peri-Urban	Agriculture.	Water,	9(3),	223.	http://doi.org/10.3390/w9030223	Bahadur,	A.	V.,	Ibrahim,	M.,	&	Tanner,	T.	(2013).	Characterizing	resilience:	unpacking	the	concept	for	tackling	climate	change	and	development.	Climate	and	Development,	5(1),	55–65.	http://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2012.762334		Bahadur,	A.,	Tanner,	T.,	King,	D.,	Kirbyshire,	A.,	&	Morsi,	H.	(2015).	Resilience	scan	|	October			 159	-	December	2015.	London,	UK:	Overseas	Development	Institute.	Baird,	J.,	Dzyundzyak,	A.,	Plummer,	R.,	Bullock,	R.,	Dupont,	D.,	Jollineau,	M.,	et	al.	(2016a).	Ecosystem	Perceptions	in	Flood	Prone	Areas:	A	Typology	and	Its	Relationship	to	Preferences	for	Governance.	Water,	8(5),	191.	http://doi.org/10.3390/w8050191		Baird,	J.,	Plummer,	R.,	Moore,	M.-L.,	&	Oliver,	B.	(2016b).	Introducing	Resilience	Practice	to	Watershed	Groups:	What	Are	the	Learning	Effects?	Society	&	Natural	Resources	29(10),	1214–1229.	http://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2015.1107788		Baggio,	J.	A.,	Brown,	K.,	&	Hellenbrandt,	D.	(2014).	Boundary	object	or	bridging	concept?	A	citation	network	analysis	of	resilience.	Ecology	and	Society,	20(2),	2.	Baker,	L.	A.	(2012).	Drought	Resilience	as	a	Socio-Ecological	Phenomenon	(pp.	1–25).	Baker,	L.,	Shanahan,	P.	&	J	Holway	(2009).	Principles	for	Managing	the	Urban	Water	Environment	in	the	21st	Century.	In:	L.	Baker	(Ed).	The	Water	Environment	of	Cities.	Springer.	Bakker,	K.	(2003).	An	Uncooperative	Commodity:	Privatizing	Water	in	England	and	Wales.	Oxford	University	Press.	Bakker,	K.,	&	Morinville,	C.	(2013).	The	governance	dimensions	of	water	security:	a	review.	Philosophical	Transactions	of	the	Royal	Society	a:	Mathematical,	Physical	and	Engineering	Sciences,	371(2002),	20130116–20130116.		http://doi.org/10.1177/030913259301700103		Bakker,	K.,	&	Cameron,	D.	(2005).	Governance,	business	models	and	restructuring	water	supply	utilities:	recent	developments	in	Ontario,	Canada.	Water	Policy,	7(2005),	485–508.	Bassett,	T.	J.,	&	Fogelman,	C.	(2013).	Déjà	vu	or	something	new?	The	adaptation	concept	in	the	climate	change	literature.	Geoforum,	38(2013),	42–53.	Beaudrie,	C.	E.	H.,	Satterfield,	T.,	Kandlikar,	M.,	&	Harthorn,	B.	H.	(2013).	Expert	Views	on	Regulatory	Preparedness	for	Managing	the	Risks	of	Nanotechnologies.	Plos	One,	8(11),	e80250–9.	http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0080250	Beck,	T.,	L.	Rodina,	E.	Luker	&	L.	Harris.	(2016).	Institutional	and	Policy	Mapping	of	the	Water	Sector	in	South	Africa.	The	University	of	British	Columbia,	Institute	for	Resources,	Environment	and	Sustainability.	Beilin,	R.,	&	Wilkinson,	C.	(2015).	Introduction:	Governing	for	urban	resilience.	Urban			 160	Studies.	http://doi.org/10.1177/0042098015574955	Bell,	S.	(2015).	Renegotiating	urban	water.	Progress	in	Planning,	96(2015),	1–28.	http://doi.org/10.1016/j.progress.2013.09.001	Bell,	S.,	Allen,	A.,	Hofmann,	P.,	&	Teh,	T.-H.	(Eds.).	(2017).	Urban	Water	Trajectories	(pp.	1–229).	Springer.	Berkes,	F.,	Colding,	J.,	&	Folke,	C.	(Eds.).	(2012).	Navigating	Social-Ecological	Systems	(pp.	1–84).	West	Nyack,	USA:	Cambridge	University	Press.	Berkowitz,	M.	(2013).	Translating	Resilience.	Blog	post	for	the	100ResilientCities.org.	Available	online	at	http://www.100resilientcities.org/translating-resilience/			Berrang-Ford,	L.,	Pearce,	T.,	&	Ford,	J.	D.	(2015).	Systematic	review	approaches	for	climate	change	adaptation	research.	Regional	Environmental	Change	15(5),	755–769.	http://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-014-0708-7	Bichai,	F.,	&	Flamini,	A.	C.	(2018).	The	Water-Sensitive	City:	Implications	of	an	urban	water	management	paradigm	and	its	globalization.	Wiley	Interdisciplinary	Reviews:	Water.	http://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1276		Biermann,	F.,	Abbot,	K.,	S,	A.,	Bacstrand,	K.,	&	Bernstein,	S.	(2012).	Navigating	the	Anthropocene:	Improving	Earth	System	Governance.	Science,	335(6074),	1306–1307.		Biggs,	R.,	Schlüter,	M.,	Biggs,	D.,	Bohensky,	E.	L.,	BurnSilver,	S.,	Cundill,	G.,	et	al.	(2012).	Toward	Principles	for	Enhancing	the	Resilience	of	Ecosystem	Services.	Annual	Review	of	Environment	and	Resources,	37(1),	421–448.	http://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-051211-123836		Biswas,	A.	(2009).	Integrated	Water	Resources	Management:	A	Reassessment.	Water	International	29(2),	248-256.	Bodin,	O.	(2006).	Social	Networks	in	Natural	Resource	Management:	What	Is	There	to	Learn	from	a	Structural	Perspective?	Ecology	and	Society,	11(2),	1–8.	Bond,	P.,	&	Tait,	A.	(1997).	The	Failure	of	Housing	Policy	in	Post-Apartheid	South	Africa.	Urban	Forum,	8(1),	19–41.	Bourblanc,	M.	(2017).	State	Transformation	and	Policy	Networks:	The	Challenging	Implementation	of	New	Water	Policy	Paradigms	in	Post-Apartheid	South	Africa.	Water	Alternatives,	10(2),	303–321.	Brand,	F.	S.,	&	Jax,	K.	(2007).	Focusing	the	Meaning(s)	of	Resilience:	Resilience	as	a			 161	Descriptive	Concept	and	a	Boundary	Object.	Ecology	and	Society,	12(1),	23.	Brown,	H.	(2014).	Next	Generation	Infrastructure.	Springer.	Brown,	K.	(2016).	Resilience,	Development	and	Global	Change	(pp.	1–229).	London,	New	York:	Routledge.	Bond,	P.,	&	Dugard,	J.	(2008).	Water,	Human	Rights	and	Social	Conflict:	South	African	Experiences.	Law,	Social	Justice	&	Global	Development,	2008(1),	1–21.		Brown,	R.	R.,	Keath,	N.,	&	Wong,	T.	H.	F.	(2009).	Urban	water	management	in	cities:	historical,	current	and	future	regimes.	Water	Science	&	Technology,	59(5),	847-855.	http://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2009.029			Brunn,	S.	D.,	&	Wilson,	M.	W.	(2013).	Cape	Town's	million	plus	black	township	of	Khayelitsha:	Terrae	incognitae	and	the	geographies	and	cartographies	of	silence.	Habitat	International,	39,	284–294.	http://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2012.10.017	Caniglia,	B.,	Valee,	M.,	&	Frank,	B.	(Eds.).	(2017).	Resilience,	Environmental	Justice	and	the	City	(pp.	1–263).	Earthscan.	Carlisle,	K.,	&	Gruby,	R.	L.	(2017).	Polycentric	Systems	of	Governance:	A	Theoretical	Model	for	the	Commons.	Policy	Studies	Journal.	http://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12212	Cattell,	R.B.	(1966)	The	scree	test	for	the	number	of	factors.	Multivariate.	Behavioural	Research	1(2):	245-276.	https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr0102_10	Chandler,	D.	(2014).	Beyond	neoliberalism:	resilience,	the	new	art	of	governing	complexity.	Resilience,	2(1),	47–63.	http://doi.org/10.1080/21693293.2013.878544			Chandler,	D.,	&	Reid,	J.	(2016).	The	Neoliberal	Subject:	Resilience,	Adaptation	and	Vulnerability.	London,	UK:	Rowman	&	Littlefield	International.	Chelleri,	L.,	Waters,	J.	J.,	Olazabal,	M.,	&	Minucci,	G.	(2015).	Resilience	trade-offs:	addressing	multiple	scales	and	temporal	aspects	of	urban	resilience.	Environment	and	Urbanization,	27(1),	181–198.	City	of	Cape	Town.	(2012a).	Cape	Town	Spatial	Development	Framework.	City	of	Cape	Town.		City	of	Cape	Town.	(2012b).	Trends	and	Change	-	10	years:	Census	2001	–	Census	2011	(December	2012)	(pp.	1–16).	City	of	Cape	Town.	City	of	Cape	Town.	(2012c).	Cape	Town	Overview	–	2011	Census	(December	2012)	(pp.	1–5).	City	of	Cape	Town.	City	of	Cape	Town.	(2012d).	Statistics	for	the	City	of	Cape	Town	-	2012	(pp.	1–4).	City	of			 162	Cape	Town.	City	of	Cape	Town.	(2015e).	Five-Year	Integrated	Development	Plan	2012-2017.	capetown.gov.za.	City	of	Cape	Town.	City	of	Cape	Town.	(2015f).	Water	Services	Departmental	Sector	Plan	for	City	of	Cape	Town	2012/12-2016/17	IDP	Term.	capetown.gov.za.	City	of	Cape	Town.	City	of	Cape	Town.	(2017g).	Five-Year	Integrated	Development	Plan	July	2017-June	2022	(pp.	1–54).	City	of	Cape	Town.	City	of	Cape	Town.	(2017h).	Critical	Water	Shortages	Disaster	Plan	Summary.	City	of	Cape	Town	(pp.	1–9).	Coaffee,	J.,	&	Lee,	P.	(2016).	Urban	Resilience:	Planning	for	Risk,	Crisis	and	Uncertainty.	New	York,	US:	Palgrave	Macmillan.	Cohen,	A.	(2012).	Rescaling	Environmental	Governance:	Watersheds	as	Boundary	Objects	at	the	Intersection	of	Science,	Neoliberalism,	and	Participation.	Environment	and	Planning	A,	44(9),	2207–2224.	http://doi.org/10.1068/a44265	Cook,	C.,	&	Bakker,	K.	(2012).	Water	security:	Debating	an	emerging	paradigm.	Global	Environmental	Change,	22(2012),	94–102.	Cosens,	B.,	Gunderson,	L.,	Allen,	C.,	&	Benson,	M.	(2014).	Identifying	Legal,	Ecological	and	Governance	Obstacles	and	Opportunities	for	Adapting	to	Climate	Change.	Sustainability,	6(4),	2338–2356.	http://doi.org/10.3390/su6042338		Cosens,	B.	A.,	&	Stow,	G.	A.	(2014).	Resilience	and	Water	Governance:	Addressing	Fragmentation	and	Uncertainty	in	Water	Allocation	and	Water	Quality	Law.	In:	A.	S.	Garmestani	&	C.	D.	Allen	(Eds.),	Social-Ecological	Resilience	and	Law.	New	York:	Columbia	University	Press.	Cosens,	B.	A.,	&	Williams,	A.	(2012).	Resilience	and	Water	Governance:	Adaptive	Governance	in	the	Columbia	River	Basin.	Ecology	and	Society,	17(4),	3.	Cosgrove,	W.	J.,	&	Loucks,	D.	P.	(2015).	Water	management:	Current	and	future	challenges	and	research	directions.	Water	Resources	Research	51(6),	1-17.	http://doi.org/10.1002/2014WR016869		Cote,	M.,	&	Nightingale,	A.	J.	(2012).	Resilience	thinking	meets	social	theory:	Situating	social	change	in	socio-ecological	systems	(SES)	research.	Progress	in	Human	Geography,	36(4),	475–489.	http://doi.org/10.1177/0309132511425708				 163	Crutzen,	P.	J.,	&	Steffen,	W.	(2003).	How	Long	Have	We	Been	in	the	Anthropocene	Era?	Climatic	Change,	61(3),	251–257.	http://doi.org/10.1023/B:CLIM.0000004708.74871.62		Cutter,	S.	L.	(2016).	Resilience	to	What?	Resilience	for	Whom?	The	Geographical	Journal	182(2),	110-113.	http://doi.org/10.1111/geoj.12174	Davis,	M.	(2006).	Planet	of	Slums.	London,	UK:	Verso	Davis-Reddy,	C.	L.,	&	Vincent,	K.	(2017).	Climate	Risk	and	Vulnerability:	A	Handbook	for	Souther	Africa.	CSIR	(pp.	1–202).	Pretoria,	South	Africa.	Davoudi,	S.,	Shaw,	K.,	Haider,	L.	J.,	Quinlan,	A.	E.,	Peterson,	G.	D.,	Wilkinson,	C.,	et	al.	(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	Practice?	Resilience	as	a	Useful	Concept	for	Climate	Change	Adaptation?	The	Politics	of	Resilience	for	Planning:	A	Cautionary	Note.	Planning	Theory	&	Practice,	13(2),	299–333.	http://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2012.677124		Derickson,	K.	D.	(2016).	Resilience	is	not	enough.	City,	20(1),	161–166.	http://doi.org/10.1080/13604813.2015.1125713		Donaldson,	R.,	&	Du	Plessis,	D.	(2013).	The	urban	renewal	programme	as	an	area-based	approach	to	renew	townships:	The	experience	from	Khayelitsha's	Central	Business	District,	Cape	Town.	Habitat	International,	39,	295–301.	http://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2012.10.012	D'Odorico,	P.,	Laio,	F.	&	Ridolfi,	L.	(2010).	Does	globalization	of	water	reduce	societal	resilience	to	drought?	Geophysical	Research	Letters,	37(13),	L13403.	Dong,	X.,	Guo,	H.,	&	Zeng,	S.	(2017).	Enhancing	future	resilience	in	urban	drainage	system:	Green	versus	grey	infrastructure.	Water	Research	124(2017),	280-289.	Douglas,	I.	(2013).	Cities:	An	Environmental	History.	I.B.	Tauris.	Dugard,	J.	(2013).	Urban	Basic	Services:	Rights,	Reality	and	Resistance.	In:	M.	Langford,	B.	Cousins,	J.	Dugard,	&	T.	Madlingozi	(Eds.),	Symbols	or	Substance:	The	Role	and	Impact	of	Socio-Economic	Rights	Strategies	in	South	Africa.	(pp.	1–40).	Cambridge	University	Press.	Dunn,	G.,	Harris,	L	&	Bakker,	K.	(2017).	Canadian	Drinking	Water	Policy:	Jurisdictional			 164	Variation	in	the	Context	of	Decentralized	Water	Governance.	In:	S.	Renzetti	&	D.	P.	Dupont	(Eds.)	Water	Policy	and	Governance	in	Canada.	Springer	International	Publishing.	Dunn,	G.,	Brown,	R.	R.,	Bos,	J.	J.,	&	Bakker,	K.	(2016).	Standing	on	the	shoulders	of	giants:	Understanding	changes	in	urban	water	practice	through	the	lens	of	complexity	science.	Urban	Water	Journal,	1–10.	http://doi.org/10.1080/1573062X.2016.1241284		DWAF	(2007a)	Summary	report:	Western	Cape	Water	Supply	System:	Reconciliation	Strategy	Study.	Department	of	Water	Affairs	and	Forestry.	Available	online:	http://www.dwa.gov.za/Projects/RS_WC_WSS/RepDoc.aspx	DWAF.	(2007b).	Free	Basic	Water	(pp.	1–47).	South	Africa:		Department	of	Water	Affairs	and	Forestry.	Eakin,	H.,	Bojórquez-Tapia,	L.	A.,	Janssen,	M.	A.,	Georgescu,	M.,	Manuel-Navarrete,	D.,	Vivoni,	E.	R.,	et	al.	(2017).	Opinion:	Urban	resilience	efforts	must	consider	social	and	political	forces.	Proceedings	of	the	National	Academy	of	Sciences,	114(2),	186–189.	http://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1620081114		Eriksson,	M.	G.,	Gordon,	L.	J.,	&	Kuylenstierna,	J.	(2014).	Cross-sectoral	Approaches	Help	Build	Water	Resilience	–	Reflections.	Aquatic	Procedia,	2(2014),	42–47.	Ernstson,	H.	(2013).	The	social	production	of	ecosystem	services:	A	framework	for	studying	environmental	justice	and	ecological	complexity	in	urbanized	landscapes.	Landscape	and	Urban	Planning,	109(2013),	7–17.	Ernstson,	H.,	Lawhon,	M.,	&	Duminy,	J.	(2014).	Conceptual	Vectors	of	African	Urbanism:	‘Engaged	Theory-Making’	and	‘Platforms	of	Engagement’.	Regional	Studies	48(9),	1563-1577.	Ernstson,	H.,	van	den	Leeuw,	S.	E.,	Redman,	C.,	Meffert,	D.,	Davis,	G.,	Alfsen,	C.,	&	Elmqvist,	T.	(2010).	Urban	Transitions:	On	Urban	Resilience	and	Human-Dominated	Ecosystems.	Ambio	39(8),	531-545.	http://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-010-0081-9		Fainstein,	S.	(2014).	Resilience	and	Justice.	International	Journal	of	Urban	and	Regional	Research,	39(1),	157–167.	http://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.12186		Falkenmark,	M.,	&	Rockström,	J.	(2006).	Editorial:	The	New	Blue	and	Green	Water	Paradigm:	Breaking	New	Ground	for	Water	Resources	Planning	and	Management.	Journal	of	Water	Resources	Planning	and	Management,	132(2006),	129–132.			 165	Falkenmark,	M.,	&	Rockström,	J.	(2008).	Building	resilience	to	drought	in	desertification-prone	savannas	in	Sub-Saharan	Africa:	The	water	perspective.	Natural	Resources	Forum,	32(2),	93–102.	http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-8947.2008.00177.x		Falkenmark,	M.,	&	Rockström,	J.	(2010).	Building	Water	Resilience	in	the	Face	of	Global	Change:	From	a	Blue-Only	to	a	Green-Blue	Water	Approach	to	Land-Water	Management.	Journal	of	Water	Resources	Planning	and	Management,	136(6),	606–610.	Ferguson,	B.,	Frantzeskaki,	N.,	&	Brown,	R.	R.	(2013).	A	strategic	program	for	transitioning	to	a	Water	Sensitive	City.	Landscape	and	Urban	Planning,	117(2013),	32–45.	Ferguson,	B.,	Brown,	R.	R.,	&	Deletic,	A.	(2013).	Diagnosing	transformative	change	in	urban	water	systems:	Theories	and	frameworks.	Global	Environmental	Change,	23(2013),	264–280.	Fielding,	N.	G.	(2012).	Triangulation	and	Mixed	Methods	Designs.	Journal	of	Mixed	Methods	Research,	6(2),	124–136.	http://doi.org/10.1177/1558689812437101		Folke,	C.	(2016).	Resilience	(Republished).	Ecology	and	Society,	21(4),	44.	http://doi.org/doi:10.5751/ES-09088-210444	Funke,	N.,	Nortje,	K.,	Findlater,	K.,	Burns,	M.,	Turton,	A.,	&	Weaver,	A.	(2007).	Resdressing	Inequality:	South	Africa's	New	Water	Policy.	Environment:	Science	and	Policy	for	Sustainable	Development,	49(3),	10–23.	Gaines,	J.	M.	(2016).	Flooding:	Water	potential.	Nature,	531(7594),	S54–S55.	http://doi.org/10.1038/531S54a		Galaz,	V.	(2009,	February	9).	Machine	Fetishism,	Money	and	Resilience	Theory.	Resilience	Science.	Retrieved	from	http://rs.resalliance.org/2009/05/19/machine-fetishism-money-and-resilience-theory/		Galaz,	V.	(2005).	Social-ecological	Resilience	and	Social	Conflict:	Institutions	and	Strategic	Adaptation	in	Swedish	Water	Management.	AMBIO,	34(7),	567–572.	http://doi.org/10.1579/0044-7447-34.7.567		Gerlak,	A.	K.,	House-Peters,	L.,	Varady,	R.	G.,	Albrecht,	T.,	Zúñiga-Terán,	A.,	de	Grenade,	R.	R.,	et	al.	(2018).	Water	security:	A	review	of	place-based	research.	Environmental	Science	&	Policy,	82,	79–89.	http://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2018.01.009		Grafton,	R.	Q.,	Pittock,	J.,	Davis,	R.,	Williams,	J.,	Fu,	G.,	Warburton,	M.,	et	al.	(2013).	Global	insights	into	water	resources,	climate	change	and	governance.	Nature,	3(4),	315–321.			 166	http://doi.org/doi:10.1038/nclimate1746		Grant,	M.	J.,	&	Booth,	A.	(2009).	A	typology	of	reviews:	an	analysis	of	14	review	types	and	associated	methodologies.	Health	Information	&	Libraries	Journal,	26(2),	91–108.	http://doi.org/10.18438/B8N613		Gunderson,	L.	H.,	Carpenter,	S.	R.,	Folke,	C.,	Olsson,	P.,	&	Peterson,	G.	D.	(2006).	Water	RATs	(Resilience,	Adaptability,	and	Transformability)	in	Lake	and	Wetland	Social-Ecological	Systems.	Ecology	and	Society,	11(1),	16.	Harris,	L.	M.,	Chu,	E.	K.,	&	Ziervogel,	G.	(2017).	Negotiated	resilience.	Resilience	29(1),	123–138.	http://doi.org/10.1177/0956247816686905		Haraway	D.	(1991)	Simians,	cyborgs,	and	women:	the	reinvention	of	nature.	New	York:	Routledge.	Hesse-Biber,	S.	(2012).	Feminist	Approaches	to	Triangulation.	Journal	of	Mixed	Methods	Research,	6(2),	137–146.	http://doi.org/10.1177/1558689812437184		Hashimoto,	T.,	Stedinger,	J.R.	&	Loucks,	D.P.	(1982).	Reliability,	Resiliency,	and	Vulnerability	Criteria	for	Water-Resource	System	Performance	Evaluation.	Water	Resources	Research,	18(1),	pp.14–20	Hordijk,	M.,	Sara,	L.	M.,	&	Sutherland,	C.	(2014).	Resilience,	transition	or	transformation?	A	comparative	analysis	of	changing	water	governance	systems	in	four	Southern	cities.	Environment	and	Urbanization	26(1),	130-146.	http://doi.org/10.1177/0956247813519044		Hossain,	S.	(2011).	Informal	dynamics	of	a	public	utility:	Rationality	of	the	scene	behind	a	screen.	Habitat	International,	35(2),	275–285.	http://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2010.09.003		Howard,	G.,	&	Bartram,	J.	(2003).	Domestic	Water	Quantity,	Service	Level	and	Health	(pp.	1–39).	World	Health	Organization.	Howard,	G.,	Charles,	K.,	Pond,	K.,	Brookshow,	A.,	Hossain,	R.,	&	Bartram,	J.	(2010).	Securing	2020	vision	for	2030:	climate	change	and	ensuring	resilience	in	water	and	sanitation	services.	Journal	of	Water	and	Climate	Change,	1(4),	251.	http://doi.org/10.2166/wcc.2010.105		Huchzermeyer,	M.	(2004).	From	“contravention	of	laws”	to	‘lack	of	rights’:	redefining	the	problem	of	informal	settlements	in	South	Africa.	Habitat	International,	28(3),	333–347.			 167	http://doi.org/10.1016/S0197-3975(03)00058-4	Huchzermeyer,	M.	(2003).	Housing	Rights	in	South	Africa:	Invasions,	Evictions,	the	Media,	and	the	Courts	in	the	Cases	of	Grootboom,	Alexandra,	and	Bredell.	Urban	Forum,	14(1),	80–107.	Huchzermeyer,	M.	(2006).	The	struggle	for	in	situ	upgrading	of	informal	settlements:	Case	studies	from	Gauteng	(pp.	1–13).	Presented	at	the	Southern	African	Housing	Foundation	Conference	&	Exhibition,	Cape	Sun,	9-11	October	2006,	Cape	Town,	South	Africa.	Huitema,	D.,	Mostert,	E.,	Egas,	W.,	Moellenkamp,	S.,	Pahl-Wostl,	C.,	&	Yalcin,	R.	(2009).	Adaptive	Water	Governance:	Assessing	the	Institutional	Prescriptions	of	Adaptive	(Co-)Management	from	a	Governance	Perspective	and	Defining	a	Research	Agenda.	Ecology	and	Society	14(1),	26.	Huntjens,	P.,	Lebel,	L.,	Pahl-Wostl,	C.,	Camkin,	J.,	Schulze,	R.,	&	Nicole,	K.	(2012).	Institutional	design	propositions	for	the	governance	of	adaptation	to	climate	change	in	the	water	sector.	Global	Environmental	Change,	22(1),	67–81.	http://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.09.015	Jabareen,	Y.	(2013).	Planning	the	resilient	city:	Concepts	and	strategies	for	coping	with	climate	change	and	environmental	risk.	Cities,	31(2013),	220–229.	http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2012.05.004	Jaglin,	S.	(2002).	The	right	to	water	versus	cost	recovery:	participation,	urban	water	supply	and	the	poor	in	sub-Saharan	Africa.	Environment	and	Urbanization,	14(1),	231–245.	http://doi.org/10.1177/095624780201400119		Johannessen,	Å.,	&	Wamsler,	C.	(2017).	What	does	resilience	mean	for	urban	water	services?	Ecology	and	Society,	22(1),	1.	http://doi.org/doi:10.5751/ES-08870-220101		Joubert,	A.,	Stewart,	T.	J.,	&	Eberhard,	R.	(2003).	Evaluation	of	Water	Supply	Augmentation	and	Water	Demand	Management	Options	for	the	City	of	Cape	Town.	Journal	of	Multi-Criteria	Decision	Analysis,	12,	17–25.	Jurgens,	U.,	Donaldson,	R.,	Rule,	S.,	&	Bahr,	J.	(2013).	Townships	in	South	African	cities	–	Literature	review	and	research	perspectives.	Habitat	International,	39,	256–260.	http://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2012.10.011		IPCC.	(2014a).	IPCC	WGII	AR5	Chapter	3.	Freshwater	Resources	(pp.	1–76).	International			 168	Panel	on	Climate	Change.	IPCC.	(2014b).	IPCC	WGII	AR5	Chapter	22.	Africa	(pp.	1–115).	International	Panel	on	Climate	Change.	IPCC.	(2014c).	IPCC	WGII	AR5	Summary	for	Policymakers	(pp.	1–44).	International	Panel	on	Climate	Change.	Jackson,	R.	B.,	Carpenter,	S.	R.,	Dahm,	C.	N.,	McKnight,	D.	M.,	Naiman,	R.	J.,	Postel,	S.	L.,	&	Running,	S.	W.	(2001).	Water	In	A	Changing	World.	Ecological	Applications,	11(4),	10–27–1045.	Janssen,	M.	A.,	Schoon,	M.	L.,	Ke,	W.,	&	Börner,	K.	(2006).	Scholarly	networks	on	resilience,	vulnerability	and	adaptation	within	the	human	dimensions	of	global	environmental	change.	Global	Environmental	Change,	16(3),	240–252.	http://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.04.001	Joanna	Briggs	Institute.	(2015).	The	Joanna	Briggs	Institute	Reviewers’	Manual	2015:	Methodology	for	JBI	Scoping	Reviews	(pp.	1–24).	The	Joanna	Briggs	Institute	Johannessen,	Å.,	&	Wamsler,	C.	(2017).	What	does	resilience	mean	for	urban	water	services?	Ecology	and	Society,	22(1),	1.	http://doi.org/doi:10.5751/ES-08870-220101		Jolliffe,	I.	T.	(1986).	Principal	Component	Analysis	and	Factor	Analysis.	In	Principal	Component	Analysis	(pp.	115--128).	Springer	New	York.	Kaiser,	H.	F.	(1974).	An	index	of	factorial	simplicity.	Psychometrika,	39,	31–36.		Keys,	P.	W.	(2016).	The	Precipitationshed:	Methods,	Concepts	and	Applications.	Dissertation.	Stockholm	University.	Kooy,	M.	(2014).	Developing	Informality:	The	Production	of	Jakartaʼs	Urban	Waterscape.	Water	Alternatives,	7(1),	35–53.	Kooy,	M.,	&	Bakker,	K.	(2008).	Splintered	networks:	The	colonial	and	contemporary	waters	of	Jakarta.	Geoforum,	39(6),	1843–1858.	http://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2008.07.012		Krievins,	K.,	Baird,	J.,	Plummer,	R.,	Brandes,	O.,	Curry,	A.,	Imhof,	J.,	et	al.	(2015).	Resilience	in	a	Watershed	Governance	Context:	A	Primer	(pp.	1–33).	St,	Catharines,	ON:	Environmental	Sustainability	Research	Centre.	Laerd	Statistics	(2015).	Principal	components	analysis	(PCA)	using	SPSS	Statistics.	Statistical	tutorials	and	software	guides.	Retrieved	from			 169	https://statistics.laerd.com/		Landman,	K.,	&	Napier,	M.	(2010).	Waiting	for	a	house	or	building	your	own?	Reconsidering	state	provision,	aided	and	unaided	self-help	in	South	Africa.	Habitat	International,	34(3),	299–305.	http://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2009.11.015		Lawhon,	M.	(2013).	Situated,	Networked,	Environmentalisms:	a	case	for	environmental	theory	from	the	South.	Geography	Compass	7(2),	128-138.		Lawhon,	M.,	Ernstson,	H.,	&	Silver,	J.	(2013).	Provincializing	Urban	Political	Ecology:	Towards	a	Situated	UPE	Through	African	Urbanism.	Antipode,	46(2),	497–516.	Lawhon,	M.,	Silver,	J.,	Ernstson,	H.,	&	Pierce,	J.	(2016).	Unlearning	(Un)Located	Ideas	in	the	Provincialization	of	Urban	Theory.	Regional	Studies	50(9),	1611–1622.	http://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2016.1162288		Lawhon,	M.,	Nilsson,	D.,	Silver,	J.,	Ernstson,	H.,	&	Lwasa,	S.	(2017).	Thinking	through	heterogeneous	infrastructure	configurations.	Urban	Studies	55(4),	004209801772014.	http://doi.org/10.1177/0042098017720149		Liao,	K.-H.,	Le,	A.	T.,	&	Nguyen,	K.	V.	(2016).	Urban	design	principles	for	flood	resilience:	Learning	from	the	ecological	wisdom	of	living	with	floods	in	the	Vietnamese	Mekong	Delta.	Landscape	and	Urban	Planning	155(2016),	69-78.	http://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.01.014		Linton,	J.	(2010)	What	Is	Water?	The	History	of	Modern	Abstraction.	Vancouver:	UBC	Press.	Loftus,	A.	(2006).	Reification	and	the	Dictatorship	of	the	Water	Meter.	Antipode,	38(5),	1023–1045.	Luker,	E.	(2017).	Transitioning	towards	water	supply	diversification	:	possibilities	for	groundwater	in	Cape	Town,	South	Africa.	Master’s	Thesis.	University	of	British	Columbia	Luker,	E.,	&	Rodina,	L.	(2017).	Policy	Brief:	The	Future	of	Drought	Management	for	Cape	Town.	Summary	for	Policy	Makers	(pp.	1–6).	The	University	of	British	Columbia.	Available	at	www.edges.ubc.ca		MacKinnon,	D.,	&	Derickson,	K.	D.	(2012).	From	resilience	to	resourcefulness:	A	critique	of	resilience	policy	and	activism.	Progress	in	Human	Geography,	37(2),	253–270.	http://doi.org/10.1177/0309132512454775		Mahlanza,	L.,	Ziervogel,	G.,	&	Scott,	D.	(2016).	Water,	Rights	and	Poverty:	an	Environmental	Justice	Approach	to	Analysing	Water	Management	Devices	in	Cape	Town.	Urban	Forum			 170	27(4),	363-382.	http://doi.org/10.1007/s12132-016-9296-6		Matin,	N.,	Forrester,	J.,	&	Ensor,	J.	(2018).	What	is	equitable	resilience?	World	Development,	109,	197–205.	http://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.04.020	McDonald,	D.	A.,	&	Smith,	L.	(2002).	Privatizing	Cape	Town:	Service	Delivery	and	Policy	Reforms	since	1996.	Municipal	Services	Project,	1–62.	McDonald,	D.	A.,	&	Pape,	J.	(Eds.).	(2002).	Cost	Recovery	and	the	Crisis	of	Service	Delivery	in	South	Africa	(pp.	1–208).	Cape	Town,	South	Africa:	HSRC	Publishers.	McDonald,	D.	A.	(2007).	World	Class	Inequality:	Cape	Town,	South	Africa.	Queen's	Quarterly,	114(3),	395–405.	McDonald	(2008).	World	City	Syndrome:	Neoliberalization	and	Inequality	and	Cape	Town.	Routledge.	Mehta,	V.	K.,	Goswami,	R.,	Kemp-Benedict,	E.,	Muddu,	S.,	&	Malghan,	D.	(2014).	Metabolic	Urbanism	and	Environmental	Justice:	The	Water	Conundrum	in	Bangalore,	India.	Environmental	Justice,	7(5),	130–137.	http://doi.org/10.1089/env.2014.0021	Mutondo,	J.,	Farolfi,	S.,	&	Dinar,	A.	(2016).	Water	Governance	Decentralization	in	Sub-Saharan	Africa:	Between	Myth	and	Reality.	Springer	International	Publishing.	http://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29422-3_2	McFarlane,	C.	(2011).	The	city	as	assemblage:	dwelling	and	urban	space.	Environment	and	Planning	D:	Society	and	Space,	29(4),	649–671.	http://doi.org/10.1068/d4710		McFarlane,	C.	(2012).	Rethinking	Informality:	Politics,	Crisis,	and	the	City.	Planning	Theory	&	Practice,	13(1),	89–108.	http://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2012.649951	McFarlane,	C.,	Desai,	R.,	&	Graham,	S.	(2014).	Informal	Urban	Sanitation:	Everyday	Life,	Poverty,	and	Comparison.	Annals	of	the	Association	of	American	Geographers,	1–23.	http://doi.org/10.1080/00045608.2014.923718		Medd,	W.,	&	Chappells,	H.	(2007).	Drought,	demand	and	the	scale	of	resilience:	challenges	for	interdisciplinarity	in	practice.	Interdisciplinary	Science	Reviews,	32(3),	233–248.	http://doi.org/10.1179/030801807X211748		Meerow,	S.,	Newell,	J.	P.,	&	Stults,	M.	(2016).	Defining	urban	resilie