Rethinking Resilience: Conceptualizing a more Equitable Approach in the 21^st Century

Abstract

Resilience has been a common-place term in the realm of environmental policymaking. At its core, resilience is defined in this field as the ability to withstand severe weather, often the result of climate change, while maintaining the status quo. However, there has been minimal critique or analysis of resilience-based policies' impact and effectiveness in responding to climate change. This paper analyzes resilience-based policies in responding to two extremes of climate change's impacts: flooding in the Great Lakes region and drought in Jordan. First, a literature review of the impacts of climate change on these regions and the development of resilience in the climate change policy literature is conducted, followed by an assessment of resilience-based policies in both regions. For the Great Lakes, the Tunnel and Reservoir Plan (TARP) is explored, and water privatization is explored for Jordan. Each policy is assessed for its ability to address the particular water crisis at hand sustainably and equitably for both humanity and the natural ecosystem. This paper concludes that the concept of resilience, and its accompanying policies, are unsustainable and significantly contribute to the present inequities in climate change's impacts. The status quo, including the drivers of disproportionate impacts of climate change, is treated as unproblematic. Resilience-based policies seek to protect and maintain existing institutions, infrastructure, economies, lifestyles, and inevitably, existing inequities. Alternatives or adjustments to the concept of resilience are paramount to achieving more equitable and environmental justice-based solutions in both regions and globally.