A Ladder of Urban Resilience: An Evolutionary Framework for Transformative Governance of Communities Facing Chronic Crises^†

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article addresses a topic of crucial relevance with innovative approach. Moving beyond traditional conceptions, it proposes an evolutionary framework that interprets resilience not as a simple return to normality, but as a dynamic process of collective transformation and learning.

The evaluations for the various aspects are as follows

Connection with the theme of sustainability:
Strongly embedded and well developed. The proposed evolutionary model of resilience promotes adaptive, just, and sustainable urban systems, critically engaging with approaches that perpetuate vulnerability and offering transformative mechanisms essential for long-term sustainability.

Clarity of the research question:
The main objective is clear and the core research question does emerge, yet it lacks an explicit and formalised statement at the outset, which may hinder immediate understanding of the argumentative framework.

Theoretical framework:
Robust and well-grounded, drawing critically on multidisciplinary literature, and effectively supporting the article’s innovative proposal.

Methodology:
Primarily conceptual-theoretical in nature, informed by an illustrative case study. Appropriate for proposing a new theoretical-operational paradigm, though less suited to rigorous empirical validation.

Consistency between research aims and case study:
There is a good level of consistency. The case study is relevant and meaningful in illustrating the framework, though its role is more illustrative and argumentative than strictly empirical.

For publication purposes, the following improvements are recommended:

Make the research objective explicit:
More clearly formulate the central research question or objective at the beginning, to orient the reader from the outset.

Clarify methodology and role of the case study:
Explicitly define the conceptual nature of the methodological approach and the illustrative function of the case study.

Structure the case study analysis:
A more structured presentation of the case could better highlight connections with specific elements of the proposed framework.

Practical implications for policy-makers:
Summarise more directly the operational recommendations for urban planners and public administrators, possibly in a dedicated subsection.

Definition of key concepts:
Ensure that key concepts—especially those that are novel—are clearly defined and their role within the framework fully understood.

Author Response

Reviewer Comment 1:
Make the research objective explicit.

Response:
An explicit research objective has now been clearly formulated at the end of the introduction, and a clearer structure is provided to guide the reader throughout the paper.

 

Reviewer Comment 2:
Clarify methodology and role of the case study.

Response:
The methodology section (Section 3.1) now clearly explains the conceptual and illustrative nature of the paper and the rationale behind the selection of the Taranto case study as a critical exemplar of the chronic crisis scenario.

 

Reviewer Comment 3:
Structure the case study analysis.

Response:
The case study section (Section 4) has been restructured to explicitly reflect how each step of the ladder is represented in the Taranto context, aligning the analysis with the proposed framework.

 

Reviewer Comment 4:
Include practical implications for policy-makers.

Response:
A new subsection titled “Policy Implications” has been added in Section 5.5, providing a bullet-point summary of key operational insights for urban planners and decision-makers.

 

Reviewer Comment 5:
Definition of key concepts.

Response:
A new dedicated subchapter “2.1 Clarifying Key Concepts” has been introduced, providing a refined conceptual vocabulary to distinguish between resilience as capacity, capability, and process-based transformation.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The framework integrates well-established theories on resilience, but the analysis of the relevance of socio-ecological resilience theories is shallow and fails to clearly differentiate the differentiated contribution of its framework from the established models SMR project and Sendai framework. It is recommended to add comparisons with key theories.
2. The selection criteria of the case study are not stated, and the Taranto case study is only a descriptive narrative without quantitative data support (e.g., community participation indicators, ICT platform utilization rate, etc.), which is not able to verify the feasibility of the "ladder leap". It is recommended that the research methodology chapter be supplemented to clarify the process of data collection and validation.
3. As a core empowerment tool, ICT is too abstract in its description of specific mechanisms. It is suggested to add the schematic diagram of technology realization or the quantitative results of empirical data.
4. The "ladder model" in Figure 7 lacks operationalization guidelines, and does not explain the specific triggering mechanism of how to transition from the "baseline scenario" to the "chronic crisis breakthrough".
5. The three stages of the ladder model were applied to the Taranto case in limited detail, without demonstrating their applicability to different city types. It is recommended to add multiple case comparisons or sensitivity analysis. 6.
6. Some paragraphs are repetitive, and it is suggested that they be streamlined and integrated into the theoretical framework section, and the use of terminology needs to be harmonized.

Author Response

Reviewer Comment 1:
The framework integrates well-established theories on resilience, but the analysis of the relevance of socio-ecological resilience theories is shallow and fails to clearly differentiate the differentiated contribution of its framework from the established models SMR project and Sendai framework.

Response:
Thank you for this important observation. In response, the revised manuscript now includes a more structured discussion of the evolution of resilience theory from ecological to socio-technical frameworks (Section 2.1). It also clearly distinguishes the proposed ladder framework from the SMR and Sendai models by emphasizing its process-based, scenario-driven structure and focus on governance under chronic crisis. The conclusion and background sections also reiterate these differentiations.

 

Reviewer Comment 2:
The selection criteria of the case study are not stated, and the Taranto case study is only a descriptive narrative without quantitative data support.

Response:
This has been addressed in the updated methodology section (Section 3.1), which now explicitly frames the case study as illustrative and instrumental, rather than empirical. Its selection is justified based on its relevance to the chronic crisis scenario and its alignment with the conceptual dimensions of the proposed framework. Given the conceptual nature of the paper, the case study does not aim to quantitatively validate the model, but to exemplify its application.

 

Reviewer Comment 3:
ICT is too abstract in its description of specific mechanisms.

Response:
Thank you for this suggestion. We have added more detailed descriptions of how ICT is implemented in the ReCITY project (Sections 4.2 and 5.2), highlighting its use in enabling feedback loops, supporting digital participation, and enhancing distributed decision-making. These functions are now more explicitly linked to the phases of the resilience ladder.

 

Reviewer Comment 4:
The "ladder model" lacks operationalization guidelines.

Response:
This concern has been addressed with the addition of a new operational table (Table 2 in Section 5.4), which breaks down each ladder level into objectives, challenges, enabling conditions, tools, and qualitative indicators. This structure provides practical guidance for operationalizing the transition between the three scenarios.

 

Reviewer Comment 5:
The framework was applied to Taranto but not tested in other cities.

Response:
We acknowledge this limitation and have clarified in the "Limits and Outlook" section that the framework is intended as a decision-support structure and that further empirical applications across multiple contexts will be necessary to evaluate scalability.

 

Reviewer Comment 6:
Some paragraphs are repetitive; terminology should be harmonized.

Response:
A thorough revision of the manuscript was performed to eliminate redundancy, improve readability, and ensure terminological coherence (e.g., consistent use of “capacity,” “capability,” “resilience scenarios”).

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article “A Ladder of Urban Resilience: An Evolutionary Framework for Transformative Governance of Communities Facing Chronic Crises” proposes a conceptual approach on resilience in urban systems as a step by step development process. It addresses a topic of high interest with regard to sustainability and the general ideas bear some potential. However, in the current state it is not a scientific article but rather written as an essay. Three main issues should be addressed:

Firstly, the definition of key terms and concepts such as resilience remain vague and should be more clearly formulated. In line 460ff. it is described as “quality of change”, “capability” as well as capacity”. As resilience is diversly discussed in different scientific disciplines, the perspective taken and the involved stakeholders should be comprehensively worked out. It is recommended to explain the perception of the author of the main terms for this paper in chapter 2 based on review of the current state of research. As the concept targets urban development, it also needs to be defined what is considered as an urban system (that should become resilient), and what functions are considered within the urban system that are to be maintained through increasing resilience. These “urban functions” as a goal of resilience building need to be described as targets.

Secondly, the manuscript currently lacks scientific method. The research hypotheses needs to be more clearly stated and grounded on a more thorough analysis of existing literature in this field, as there are several concepts already to be found for integrating resilience in urban development. The process and employed methods for the literature review and the findings presented in chapter 2 should be added to this section. It should be clarified if the results are a concept, a framework or an implementation procedure (or a combination of these). The structure of the paper is currently very lengthy and repetitive, yet important methodological parts are missing. A restructuring of the paper could improve the readability, support to focus on the main contribution and enhance the potential applicability: Section 1: Introduction with addressed research questions, 2. Background (State of research) with a structured analysis of existing concepts and approaches towards resilience of urban systems, 3. Ladder of Urban Resilience Concept with applied methods to create the concept and how this concept can be applied, 4. Discussion with potential applications and the evaluation of the implementation results that are briefly mentioned, 5. Summary and Outlook. The overall length of the paper could be significantly reduced by a thorough restructuring and the main contributions enhanced.

Thirdly, the applicability of the concept should be emphasized. It should be stated, who can use and should implement measures and systemic changes to move an urban system towards higher resilience and how it can be put into action. This would significantly improve the potential impact of the presented work. ICT is mentioned several times as key enabler for urban resilience, yet the actual application of ICT in this context remains a bit vague and should be worked out more clearly.

General comments:

• The concept of resilience factors is so far not mentioned. The same applies to the distinction between specific and general resilience. Including these aspects would provide a conceptual foundation for the presented work, especially as some core elements as for instance experience, adaptivity, resourcefulness etc. are resilience factors that are addressed in literature.
• One main issue is the lack of definition of crucial terms used and consistency of their use. It should be clearly defined what can be understood as “capacities”, “capabilities”, “properties” etc. and if the presented work is a concept or a framework.
• The order and formatting of the literature should be revised. If possible, primary sources should be cited (for instance for the quotation of Max Planck). The last date of access should be added to online sources.
• The figures and their captions should allow the reader to understand their meaning. Especially for figures 4, 6 and table 1 this could be improved.
• The aspect of “chronic crisis” is very interesting, yet the connection to the presented concept or its implications are not clear.

Specific comments:

Section 1:

• The introduction is currently too long and repetitive.
• In line 69-70 resilience is defined as a process. Linking back to the general comment in the introduction on the required definition of resilience, the function and purpose of the urban system should be integrated into this perspective, as without any
• Any claims on literature (for instance line 79ff) should be backed up by literature.
• Resilience as a system property is not suggesting that internal or external disturbances have no negative effects on the system, as it is suggested in line 108ff.

Section 2:

• Stated numbers (as for instance “draws millions to urban areas each week”) should be backed up with supporting evidence as citations
• The growth, change or decline of urban landscapes is very diverse in the world and not everywhere “unchecked” as suggested.
• The word cloud as a visualization has limited value for the scientific paper. Some words are not readable and some, with regard to the topic, meaningless words (as for instance “its”) are prominently displayed. A table, list or other form of visualization would be more helpful to the reader.
• How was the literature searched and the sources selected for analysis of resilience definitions? This is particular important as in the following it is derived that most of the definition are rooted in the domain of engineering, which might be related to the employed literature search strategy.
• It is an interesting point that research and concepts on urban resilience seem to ignore the socio-ecological perspective (line 331), as the concept of resilience has historically emerged in psychology and has subsequently first been transferred to ecosystems before it has been taken up by an wider audience recently towards socio-technical systems.

Section 3:

• Where do the domains in figure 2 come from and how was the selection process? It should be comprehensively explained to answer, why for instance recreation, culture, value creation etc. are not included, which are very important urban functions.
• Efficiency requires a function to be fulfilled that can be put into relation with the required effort. What is/are the function considered for the urban system in this context?
• The paths in figure 4 are not sufficiently explained. For instance, how is the connection of a learning city to a smart city fostered by “sustainability”?
• How is the “rotation” process visualized in figure 6 conducted?

Section 4:

• Chapter 4 does not actually present any results. In its current state it partly repeats the deduction towards the concept described before and anticipates the following discussion. It is recommended to integrate and shorten this chapter in the preceding and successive sections.

Section 5:

• Utilizing the potential of ICT to increase urban resilience is a very important pathway for urban systems. The actual use of ICT and the most suitable technologies should be described here in more detail.
• In the cited project it is stated that the impact of ICT has been assessed. These results should be added to the paper with regard to what impacts were assessed, how was this measured and what are the most significant results.
• Who are the intended stakeholders that should implement the derived principles?

Section 6/7

• These sections should be combined and streamlined to more explicitly state the intended applications of the presented framework/concept and focus on a summary and the outlook.
• Table 2 as a part of the framework should be moved to the according sections, in which the framework/concept is described.

Author Response

Reviewer Comment 1:
Clarify key terms and definitions.

Response:
Thank you for this insightful observation. Section 2.1 has been rewritten to explicitly clarify how this work defines core concepts like “resilience,” “capacity,” and “capability,” referencing socio-ecological literature and distinguishing the proposed process-based approach.

 

Reviewer Comment 2:
State the research hypothesis and clarify methods.

Response:
The introduction now clearly outlines the research goal, and the literature review process is briefly explained in Section 2.1. While the paper does not formulate a traditional hypothesis, its aim is to propose and apply a new conceptual framework.

 

Reviewer Comment 3:
Define the nature of the results: concept, framework, or implementation.

Response:
The revised introduction and conclusion explicitly state that the result is a conceptual and operational framework intended for use by cities and governance actors.

 

Reviewer Comment 4:
Improve structure, streamline discussion.

Response:
The paper’s structure has been refined and redundancies removed across Sections 2, 3, and 5. The “Policy Implications” and “Outlook” sections were also clarified.

 

Reviewer Comment 5:
Clarify the use and role of ICT.

Response:
Section 4.2 includes a clearer articulation of ICT roles, with examples from the ReCITY platform and their implications for participatory governance and anticipatory capacity-building.

 

Reviewer Comment 6:
Add operational orientation: who should use this?

Response:
A paragraph has been added at the end of Section 5.4 to clearly state who the intended users of the framework are — including urban planners, civic leaders, and innovation facilitators.

 

Reviewer Comment 7:
Improve citation formatting and figures.

Response:
All references have been reviewed for consistency, and primary sources cited where possible. Captions and descriptions for Figures 4 and 6, and Tables 1–2 have been revised for clarity and alignment with the narrative.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for addressing the initial comments in the revision. The clarification of the key terms and the more detailed description of the figures is a helpful addition for the reader.

However, I feel that the main issue with this paper still remains as it is very lengthy and would benefit from a more focused presentation of the actual results and contribution to the practical as well as scientific community. Specifically, potential for shortening and focusing the manuscript is located at:

• Section 1, lines 95-147: This can partly be integrated with section 2 on existing literature
• Section 2: lines 273-305: Doubles with the following paragraphs on resilience
• Section 4: could be omitted, as most of the content can also be found in sections 3 and 5
• Section 5.2: Focus on the ICE related content, lines 1134-1171 could be omitted.
• Section 6 and 7 could be combined and shortened with regard to duplicates of sections 3-5. The summary, conclusion and outlook should crisply present the key points that have been developed and discussed in the preceding chapters.

Additionally, the methodological approach taken for developing the concept/framework still remains elusive and should be clearly articulated.

The added sentences in lines 761-764 are not correctly reflecting the principle of “economy of scale”, which is indeed focused on higher efficiency by larger (manufacturing) systems, not effectiveness.

Author Response

Comment 1:

“The paper is still very lengthy and would benefit from a more focused presentation of the actual results and contribution to the practical as well as scientific community.”
Author’s Response:
I thank the reviewer for highlighting the need for a more focused presentation. In response to this suggestion—and in line with the revisions prompted by other comments (notably comments 3,4,5, 6, and 7)—I have significantly streamlined the manuscript. Specifically:

• Section 4 was fully removed, and its relevant content was integrated into Section 3.4 to avoid redundancy and improve coherence with the theoretical framework (see Response to Comment 5).
• Section 5.2 was restructured to focus more clearly on ICT-related contributions, removing general reflections not directly relevant to the technological dimension (see Response to Comment 6).
• Sections 6 and 7 (now Sections 5 and 6) were thoroughly revised to avoid overlaps and excessive length. They were not merged, but each was shortened and refined to serve distinct purposes: Section 5 focuses on limits and future research, while Section 6 offers a condensed and impactful conclusion (see Response to Comment 7).

Additionally, I revised and shortened both the Introduction and Conclusion sections to improve readability and emphasize the article’s original contributions, particularly:

• The conceptual advancement of an evolutionary, process-based framework for urban resilience;
• The practical implications for urban planners and policy-makers, including operational tools such as the Urban Resilience Matrix, the Resilience Ladder, and the enabling capacities table;
• The applicability of the framework in complex and chronic crisis contexts, demonstrated through the case study of Taranto and the ReCITY project.

These interventions collectively enhance the clarity, accessibility, and practical relevance of the paper for both academic and practitioner audiences, in accordance with the reviewer’s recommendation.

 

Comment 2:

“Section 1, lines 95–147: This can partly be integrated with section 2 on existing literature.”
Author’s Response:
Thank you for this insightful comment. I have fully accepted the suggestion and restructured the manuscript accordingly. The content from lines 95–147 has been removed from Section 1 (Introduction) and carefully integrated into Section 2, specifically into the new subsections 2.2 (Scientific Interpretations of Resilience and Conceptual Debates) and 2.3 (Operational Formalizations and Their Limitations). This reorganization improves conceptual clarity and ensures that theoretical discussions are consistently placed within the literature review. Additionally, the Introduction has been revised to retain a concise yet coherent overview of the epistemological shift proposed by the paper, while avoiding redundancies with the background section.

 

Comment 3:

“Section 2: lines 273–305: Doubles with the following paragraphs on resilience.”
Author’s Response:
I appreciate this useful observation. In the revised manuscript, the overlapping content has been addressed by redistributing and consolidating the theoretical discussion across newly defined subsections in Section 2. The key conceptual elements from lines 273–305 have been either:

• absorbed into the Introduction, where the epistemological stance and theoretical positioning are now clearly presented; or
• integrated into a new and better structured Section 2, which now comprises four distinct subsections:
  • 1 Rethinking Resilience: A Process-Based Approach to Urban Systems
  • 2 Scientific Interpretations of Resilience and Conceptual Debates
  • 3 Operational Formalizations and Their Limitations
  • 4 Toward a Process-Based and Transformative Understanding of Urban Resilience

This reorganization eliminates redundancy, reinforces the internal logic of the manuscript, and clarifies the contribution of the proposed framework within the broader scientific discourse.

 

Comment 4:

“Section 4: could be omitted, as most of the content can also be found in sections 3 and 5.”
Author’s Response:
I agree with the reviewer’s observation. Section 4 has been removed as a standalone section to avoid redundancy and improve the overall coherence and structure of the article. However, I also recognized that some concepts originally introduced in Section 4 added valuable reflections that complemented the discussion on governance transitions and the process-based interpretation of resilience.

To preserve and integrate these contributions effectively, the relevant content has been redistributed across the manuscript as follows:

• One paragraph from the beginning of the former Section 4—focused on the shift in planning paradigms from goal-oriented to process-based approaches—has been moved to the Introduction to reinforce the rationale behind the proposed methodological and epistemological shift.
• Another paragraph—emphasizing the process-based paradigm as both a means and an end—has been relocated to Section 4.4, where it supports the discussion of enabling capacities and transformative governance.
• The remaining content has been fully restructured and merged with the closing paragraphs of Section 3.3 to create a new, coherent section now titled Section 3.4: From Integrated Matrix to Transformative Governance. This new section strengthens the transition between the analytical framework and the governance implications, further reinforcing the paper’s main conceptual argument.

I believe this revision streamlines the narrative and enhances clarity, while also fully addressing the reviewer’s concern.

 

Comment 5:

“Section 5.2: Focus on the ICT-related content, lines 1134–1171 could be omitted.”
Author’s Response:
Thank you for your observation. I agree that the original section was overly broad and did not sufficiently focus on the ICT dimension. In response, I have restructured Section 5.2 (now 4.2) by introducing a dedicated subsection titled "4.2.1 ICT-Enabled Awareness and Co-Governance for Resilience". This new subsection consolidates and streamlines the ICT-related content, presenting it in a more focused and coherent way. It elaborates on how technologies—particularly ICT platforms—can support anticipatory governance, relational awareness, and community-based innovation, as operationalized in the ReCITY project.

The remainder of Section 4.2 has also been revised to enhance clarity and remove generalizations. It now specifically addresses the challenges of critical scenarios and the need for inclusive decision-making and structural adaptation. In this way, the revised structure responds to the reviewer’s suggestion by distinguishing the ICT-related content from the broader governance discussion and enhancing the overall readability and thematic coherence of the section.

 

Comment 6:

“Section 6 and 7 could be combined and shortened with regard to duplicates of sections 3–5. The summary, conclusion and outlook should crisply present the key points that have been developed and discussed in the preceding chapters.”
Author’s Response:
I appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion regarding Sections 6 and 7. After careful consideration, I chose to maintain these sections as distinct units due to the overall richness and complexity of the paper. However, both sections have been significantly revised to reduce redundancy and improve clarity, in line with the reviewer’s advice.

In particular:

• Section 6 (Limits and Future Outlook) now presents a more concise reflection on the limitations of the proposed framework and outlines actionable directions for future research and application, including the operationalization of the Urban Resilience Matrix and the development of diagnostic and governance tools.
• Section 7 (Conclusions) has been stylistically streamlined and conceptually reorganized to crisply summarize the article’s key contributions, highlight the enabling capacities underpinning the framework, and emphasize the importance of social intelligence, systemic creativity, and adaptive governance in fostering transformative resilience.

I believe that maintaining the distinction between these sections improves the structural coherence of the manuscript and allows each to serve a clearly defined function: one focusing on limitations and forward-looking research implications, the other on integrative conceptual closure. The revised versions aim to respect the reviewer’s concerns about duplication while preserving the conceptual richness of the paper.

 

Comment 7:

“The methodological approach taken for developing the concept/framework still remains elusive and should be clearly articulated.”
Author’s Response:
I thank the reviewer for this valuable observation. I fully acknowledge the importance of clarifying the methodological foundations underlying the construction of my conceptual framework.

In response, I have added a dedicated paragraph in the introduction to make explicit the theoretical strategy adopted. As the article proposes an original conceptual framework rather than reporting on empirical research, I clarified that the approach is rooted in abductive reasoning and iterative theory-building, informed by a critical literature review and guided by paradigmatic contributions from the fields of socio-ecological resilience, complexity science, and urban governance.

I also referenced relevant methodological sources, such as Jabareen (2009) on conceptual framework construction, Reichertz (2010) on abduction, and Peirce (1931) for the philosophical grounding of abductive logic. This addition aims to better situate the work within established theory-building traditions and make the intellectual trajectory leading to the framework more transparent for the reader.

I hope this clarification addresses the reviewer’s concern and strengthens the academic rigor of the contribution.

 

Comment 8:

“The added sentences in lines 761–764 are not correctly reflecting the principle of 'economy of scale', which is indeed focused on higher efficiency by larger (manufacturing) systems, not effectiveness.”
Author’s Response:
Thank you for pointing out this terminological inaccuracy. I agree that the reference to the concept of “economy of scale” was inappropriate in this context, which does not pertain to manufacturing or production efficiency. I have removed the original sentence and rephrased the passage to better convey the intended meaning using the expression “scale-sensitive effectiveness”, which more accurately reflects the idea that certain solutions must be tailored to different spatial or governance scales in order to remain effective. The revised sentence now emphasizes the importance of contextual responsiveness rather than implying generic scaling efficiencies.

I believe that the cumulative effect of the revisions made in response to all comments has significantly improved the manuscript’s conceptual clarity, methodological rigor, and practical relevance for both academic and policy audiences.

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the consideration of the comments and suggestions. Overall, the changes in the manuscript are sufficient and have improved the submission providing a clearer description for the reader of the actual concept and its origin. For future work, it is recommended to start with the core aspects of the research to be presented and then subsequently extend it with the necessary content, as the paper is still rather lengthy.