Good Governance, Resilience, and Sustainable Development: A Combined Analysis of USA Metropolises’ Strategies through the Lens of the 100 RC Network

Abstract

Intense urbanization creates large cities that are functionally and administratively dependent on the surrounding regions and cities. As the boundaries of cities expand, so do the chronic stresses and sudden shocks they face. To reduce the impact of these threats and increase the safety and well-being of residents, metropolises must become more resilient and sustainable. Governance emerges as a critical element in achieving the resilience and sustainable development of metropolises. It is said that “good urban governance and sustainable development are closely linked”. This paper examines governance in the context of the 100 Resilient Cities network program and tries to diagnose the role that good governance plays at a metropolitan scale in achieving urban resilience and sustainable development using the 100 RC network’s metropolitan US cities as a case study. It adopts a combined methodology, and its critical documents are (a) The City Resilience Framework and (b) the strategic study of metropolises. This article aspires to contribute to a better understanding of the relationship between urban governance, urban resilience, and sustainable development, and highlights good urban governance as an important tool for the effective management of chronic pressures and risks in cities.

1. Introduction

Cities are complex and adaptive systems with a high vulnerability to threats and risks. They are global engines of economic growth, generating 80% of the world’s gross domestic product, and are therefore a positive force for economic growth and poverty reduction. Today, 55% of the world’s population lives in urban areas, a figure that is expected to rise to 68% by 2050 [1]. “As today’s cities adapt to these challenges, it is estimated that more than 60% of metropolitan regions that will exist in 2050 have yet not even form [2]. This growing urbanization creates cities that are functionally dependent on the surrounding regions and cities. Geographical and administrative boundaries are widening, and the chronic stresses facing cities are becoming more intense [3]. “To reduce the risk and impact of these threats and to increase the safety and wellbeing of their residents, cities and communities must be more resilient and prepared to address the threats head-on. If they are not, their urban communities will live under continuous threat, and more and more will become vulnerable to risks” [4].

“Resilience as a notion concerning cities and planning surfaced in the 1990s in response to the environmental threats of adjusting social and institutional frameworks” [5]. Following the definition of the 100 RC network, urban resilience is defined as “the capacity of cities, individuals, communities, institutions, businesses, and systems to survive, adapt, and thrive no matter what kind of chronic stresses or acute shocks they experience” [6]. It is argued that urban resilience is connected to sustainability. Consequently, intense urbanization combined with climate change and the threat of disasters pose a multi-level challenge for building resilience and achieving sustainable development. Thus, cities need to plan and implement objectives and actions that promote urban resilience in order to be able to fulfil basic daily functions and provide uninterrupted services to their residents at the metropolitan level. “How effectively urban problems and opportunities can be addressed will increasingly be determined by how well urban agglomerations are governed and planned; however, the speed at which urbanization is happening challenges the governments’ capacity for managing cities” [7]. It is said that “good urban governance and sustainable development are closely interlinked”. As such, urban resilience is viewed as an important outcome of good urban governance. Van der Waldt states that there is a close relationship between urban government and city resilience” [8].

Despite other researchers’ strong interest in resilience governance, we found skepticism about this new form of “governance from a distance” and the need to develop “locally contextualized, participatory, negotiated, and endogenous forms of urban resilience” [9]. The 100 RC network’s governance spirit is clarified by another [10], and several studies perceive resilience governance as a “governmental experiment” [11] or an “urban experiment or laboratory of urban living” [12] and as an “urban experiment in metropolitan governance” [13]. Finally, few examine the issue of participation in resilience governance [14], or the contribution to resilience decisions as a form of social justice [15].

This paper examines the governance of the USA metropolitan members of the 100 RC network and aims to diagnose the role that good governance could play in achieving urban resilience and sustainable development in the metropolitan areas. It also advances the understanding of the prospects for achieving urban resilience and sustainable development by emphasizing good urban governance as an important tool for effectively managing chronic urban stresses and risks. We start with a literature review on the concepts of resilience and sustainable development. Then, we describe the notions of urban governance and good urban governance and the importance of the latter in building resilience and sustainability, and we present the program and tools of the 100 RC network. Using a combined methodology, we study the resilience strategies of the US metropolitan areas and describe how they integrate governance into their programs. Then, we discuss the results, answer the research questions, and finally, in the last section, summarize the conclusions of this study.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Resilience

Over the last decade, resilience has become the focus of many researchers and is used in various fields of science, including ecology, physics, psychology, and even disaster management, whether due to man-made or natural threats. The concept has frequently been defined with various or broad definitions, and these definitions frequently differ depending on the field of study or the specific application of the analysis (e.g., society, urban). This conceptual ambiguity is beneficial because it can serve as a “boundary object”, a “common object”, or a concept that addresses multiple “social worlds” and thus fosters interdisciplinary collaboration. The word “resilience” is derived from the Latin words resilire, resilio, meaning “bounce back” or “bounce forward” [16].

Resilience as a concept was established by Holling in 1973. Holling defines ecosystem resilience as “the measure of the persistence of systems and their ability to absorb change and disturbance and maintain the same relationships among populations or state variables”, while in terms of system equilibrium, resilience is defined as “the amount of disturbance that can be absorbed before the system changes its structure by altering the variables and processes that control behavior” [17]. Resilience, however, according to Folke, does not only mean being persistent or resistant to disturbances. It is also about the opportunities that the disorder opens in terms of recombining evolved structures and processes, renewing the system, and emerging new trajectories. For Adger, resilience is “the ability of human communities to withstand external shocks to their social infrastructure, such as environmental variability or social, economic, and political upheavals”, and for Carpenter et al., resilience is an approach, a way of thinking about the analysis of socio-ecological systems, and is defined as (a) the amount of disturbance a system can absorb while remaining in the same state or region of attraction; (b) the degree of capacity to build upon which the system can self-organize; and (c) the ability to increase learning and adaptation capacity [18].

Resilience as a concept in urban planning emerged in the 1990s as a response to the environmental threats of adapting social and institutional contexts [6]. Urban resilience generally refers to the ability of an urban system and all components of socio-ecological and sociotechnical networks—at spatial and temporal scales—to maintain or return quickly to desired functions in the face of a disturbance, to adapt to change, and to rapidly transform systems that limit current or future adaptive capacity [16]. From a risk mitigation perspective, resilience is “the ability of a system, community, or society exposed to risks resisting, absorb, adapt, and recover from the effects of a risk in a timely and effective manner, including by maintaining and restoring its essential structures and functions” [19]. According to the Network of 100 Resilient Cities, resilience is defined as “the capacity of individuals, communities, institutions, businesses, and systems within a city to survive, adapt, and grow no matter what kinds of chronic stresses and acute shocks they experience” [6]. Defining resilience, we notice that, initially, it refers to the stability of systems, while the concepts of the ability to transform and to adapt are then added. Across these definitions, resilience is conceptualized as an ability or a process. Finally, we notice that the definition from the risk mitigation perspective and the definition given from the 100 Resilient Cities network entail the notion of recovery and reorganization of systems that address threats and risks. In this framework, these definitions are more inclusive and complete, as they incorporate all the characteristics of resilience that each definition individually describes.

2.2. Sustainable Development

In the 1980s, when environmental issues were linked to those of development, the Brundtland Commission, in its report “Our Common Future”, introduced the now classic definition as follows: “sustainable development is the development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” [8]. Development is defined as “an evolutionary process in which human capacity increases in terms of initiating new structures, coping with problems, adapting to constant change, and attempting in a purposeful and creative way to achieve new goals”. Development should not only focus on economic and social issues but also on issues related to the management of natural resources; i.e., it should also be sustainable [20].

As Τhiele states, “sustainability is one of the very few ideals or values, such as democracy and human rights, that receive near universal recognition”. Climate change, the depletion of natural resources, and failing states brought the notion of sustainability to the forefront. The word “sustainability” derives from the Latin sustinere, which literally means to “hold up”. Sustainability should not be seen as an effort to maximize a singular good. “Rather, it requires an integrated and balanced response to ecological health, economic welfare, and social empowerment” [21].

For some scholars, sustainable development represents the mechanism through which society can interact with the environment and improve its standard of living without compromising the ecosystem, while for others, it is an approach to development that aims for economic and social progress that is balanced with the environment and does not undermine the prospects of future generations to meet their own needs. “Sustainable development can be seen as a tool for creating prototypes and normalizing those that bring prosperity to citizens”. It is not an easy goal to implement at the international, national, or local level. “Urban sustainability requires a holistic approach to addressing it, as it requires not only urban planning but also the commitment of local government and the local community (stakeholders and civil society)” [22].

2.3. The notion of Metropolitan Urban Governance

Governance is a complicated and controversial concept. As per the UNDP’s definition, “governance” is the exercise of political, economic, and administrative authority in the management of a country’s affairs at all levels. It comprises the mechanisms, processes, and institutions through which citizens and groups articulate their interests, exercise their legal rights, meet their obligations, and mediate their differences. Two aspects of this definition are crucial. Firstly, governance is not the government. The concept of governance recognizes that power exists both within and beyond the formal authority and institutions of government. In many formulations, governance involves the government, the private sector, and civil society. Second, governance focuses on the “process”. It recognizes that decisions are made based on complex relationships between multiple stakeholders with different priorities [23]. Therefore, governance is not identified with the official government of the state, but includes citizens of an urban area, businesses, communities, and various non-governmental organizations. While some scholars argue that “it also includes the rules and norms of a society that inform and determine how decisions are made and resources are allocated” [24].

Following Pierre, urban governance can be described and understood as a process directed at blending and coordinating public and private interests within a context characterized by different institutional models based on different systems of values, norms, beliefs, and practices. Furthermore, to analyze urban governance, it is essential to focus on the capacities of the range of actors involved in a system of urban governance [25]. Hence, the defining feature of urban governance is that the management of cities is not the sole preserve of government or the private sector but is the preserve of a wide variety of actors that interact with one another to govern cities [26].

The concept of urban governance, according to Jabareen, contributes to the resilience of a city as a city with inclusive decision-making processes in the fields of planning, open dialogue, accountability, and cooperation. “A more resilient city is one in which governance is able to quickly restore basic services and resume social, institutional, and economic activity after a disastrous event”. According to Haley, understanding urban governance is critical for urban resilience, which relates to the quality of life and the quality of the spatial organization of urban areas, distributive justice, environmental well-being, and economic vitality [5]. Urban governance can be more effective in achieving resilience when it works from the bottom up and especially when it prioritizes the needs of the most vulnerable, because “having a governance agenda centered on the needs of the poor and most vulnerable has the potential to reduce asymmetries and improve resilience building” [25]. Urban governance is recognized by some scholars as “the key factor in achieving sustainable cities. The success or failure of cities depends in many ways on the cities themselves, and upon visionary political leadership and sound management” [27]. In the context of disasters, risk governance involves both the institutional structure and the political process that guide and control the activities of social groups. Local authorities in all countries play a critical role in the mitigation and adaptation to climate change [5]. Equally crucial is the involvement of citizens as well as non-governmental organizations in risk management, as the situation during a hazard is chaotic, and coordination, information dissemination, and assistance are essential to mitigate the impacts of the disaster. According to Rao, “the community is the first responder to initiate rescue and relief operations”. The dynamic and unpredictable situation affects the social system, economies, and recovery processes, and in this period, governance is everything. This means that governance for disaster reduction includes all actions to avoid or even mitigate the impacts of hazards, which include preparedness, prevention, and mitigation [28].

Large cities—which, due to their large urban agglomerations, face challenges and risks such as climate change, providing housing for vulnerable residents, transport, public health, and preparing residents to cope with stress and shocks—require planning and action on a larger scale, thus creating the need for good governance at the metropolitan scale. This is undoubtedly a complicated process, as cities will have to coordinate different levels of governance and actors belonging to several local governments with actors belonging to the same urban area, which makes the intergovernmental coordination of neighboring areas necessary. Metropolitan governance has been defined as the process by which a set of governmental and non-governmental actors interact to formulate policies and deliver collective goods at a metropolitan scale. It has become an essential tool to address the growing need for metropolitan-scale coordination, joint decision making, and integrated planning of urban functions and services for large cities to serve the interests of their residents [4].

2.4. Good Urban Governance

Good urban governance refers to the desired standards of practice in urban governance. The characteristics that qualify governance as good governance are participation, the rule of law, transparency, responsiveness, consensus orientation, equity, inclusion, efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability. Following Murphy, “there is no one ideal model of good urban governance, nowhere is the ‘one size fits all’ model less appropriate. The governance structure of each city must be tailored to meet the specificities and context of the country in which it is located. The challenge is to produce appropriate forms of governance, which optimize the potential of the urban area in question and respond adequately to its evolving needs” [25].

Some scholars argue that the core values of good governance include community participation and stakeholder involvement, effective urban management and municipal administration, and transparent and accountable councils [8]. Good urban governance involves the participation and interaction of public institutions, the private sector, and civil society organizations, while others claim that “the principles of good urban governance have become a global standard in urban policies”. “The concept is advocated as a strategy for improving the quality of life in urban settlements in both developed and developing countries, where sustainable development and inclusive policies for urban areas are threatened by rapid urbanization” [29].

In 1999, UN-Habitat, in its global campaign on urban governance to achieve the goal of sustainable human settlements in an urbanizing world, stated that “good urban governance is characterized by the independent and mutually reinforcing principles of sustainability, equity, efficiency, effectiveness, transparency, accountability, citizen engagement, citizenship, and security” [25], while according to the UNDP, good governance promotes sustainable development by empowering citizens to influence policies that promote growth and prosperity, protecting citizens from economic and political crises, and allowing people to participate in decisions that shape their lives [8]. The United Nations, in its Development Agenda in the late 1970s, defined “good governance” as participatory, transparent, and accountable. “It is also effective, equitable, and provides the rule of law” [25]. Some scholars argue that the fundamental values of good governance include community participation and stakeholder involvement, effective urban management and municipal administration, and council transparency and accountability [8]. In the case of metropolitan governance, a crucial element is the cooperation of the central city or cities with their wider region. Joint strategic planning and coherent policies, as well as the integration of private partners, are essential for modern metropolitan development [30].

2.5. Good Governance for Resilience and Sustainable Development

Good governance and sustainable development are interlinked concepts, while urban resilience is viewed as an effect of good governance, in the sense that local governments are responsible for building resilience and promoting and implementing sustainable development practices. According to Kardos, “good governance is always recognized as a critical tool for promoting sustainable development and is also considered a critical element to be integrated into development strategies, and although good governance does not guarantee sustainable development, its absence significantly limits it and can, at worst, impede it” [31].

Van der Waldt argues that “there is a close relationship between urban governance and city resilience. City administrations should foster resilient urban communities through effective scenario development and urban planning, environmental protection, and optimal utilization of scarce resources” [32], while following the UNDP, good governance promotes sustainable development by empowering citizens to influence policies that promote growth and prosperity, protect citizens from economic and political crises, and allow people to participate in decisions that shape their lives [8]. This is because the effective management of human, natural, economic, and financial resources is made possible through good governance, which encourages accountability, transparency, efficiency, and the rule of law at all levels. It also ensures civil society participation in decision-making processes that result in social and economic growth, mitigate poverty and inequalities, and preserve the built and natural environments. Furthermore, good governance is seen as a crucial element in reducing the risks that cities address. Local authorities have a key role to play in fostering sustainable urban policies. Urban governance is more effective at achieving resilience when it works from the top down, as it enables local actors to work together to find appropriate solutions. A key factor in building resilience is the integration of different stakeholders in the decision-making process, combining the experiences of local communities with scientific knowledge [25].

Choudhary and Neeli claim that “capacity building and institutional strengthening, particularly at the local level, government and organized civil society groups, are also crucial, as these are the first to respond to a disaster and are in the best position to work with communities” [8]. Furthermore, in such a condition, the preparedness and active participation of all stakeholders—citizens, non-governmental organizations, private businesses, and all governmental institutions—are considered critical elements in risk response. Xie and Peng state that “cities cannot rely solely on public power to resist disasters and that individuals, schools, businesses, non-profit organizations, and other groups should participate in urban disaster resilience efforts” [33]. Additionally, Lu and Li argued that government-led resilient cities programs focus more on disaster prevention than on the needs of affected people. Therefore, post-disaster development requires the involvement of non-governmental organizations (NGOs). They highlighted the contributions of NGOs to post-disaster development, such as the construction of infrastructure, capacity, mechanisms, and culture [33].

3. The 100 RC Network

In 2013, the Rockefeller Foundation established a non-profit organization called “100 Resilient Cities”, which is committed to helping cities worldwide strengthen their urban resilience at the spatial, economic, and social levels. The project aimed to create a network of 100 cities in the five geographical areas of the world—Africa, Asia–Pacific, Europe–Middle East, Latin America–Caribbean, and North America—that would commit to building and investing in urban resilience. To meet the goals of the 100 RC network, the Rockefeller Foundation first committed USD 100 million, which ended up being USD 160 million. After more than six years of successful development of the urban resilience movement, the existing 100 RC network ended on 31 July 2019 [34]. The 100 RC network provided cities with (1) financial and logistical guidance to establish an innovative urban governance position, the Chief Resilience Office (CRO); (2) technical support to develop a holistic resilience strategy that reflects the unique needs of each city; (3) access to a common platform of private sector partners offering solutions, services, and support; and (4) participation in the global network of 100 RC member cities for the mutual sharing of knowledge and best practices [35]. The 100 RC network also developed strategies for resilience through planning and assessment tools in collaboration with the international consultancy Arup. These tools are the Urban Resilience Framework (CRF) and the Urban Resilience Index (CRI), which have the same basic structure and assess the strengths and weaknesses of a city to identify its vulnerabilities and develop an appropriate development strategy. The CRF is a unique framework that works alongside other tools and has been based on research in cities for a long time. It helps cities to understand the complexity of problems and determine where they should focus their resilience-building strategies [36]. The CRF, illustrated in Figure 1 [37], consists of four dimensions—(1) health and well-being; (2) economy and society; (3) infrastructure and environment; and (4) leadership and strategy (exterior ring)—and twelve drivers (interior ring) that cities must consider for reaching resilience.

These drivers are especially relevant when a city is dealing with a wide range of chronic conditions or a sudden disaster. These range from the basic needs of the residents of a city to inclusive economic participation, as well as the capacity to manage infrastructure and sound plans and strategies for the future [38]. Its 12 drivers are the backbone of a resilient city and identify all the factors that allow individuals and businesses to prosper. A weakness in one of the drivers can result in a city’s resilience being compromised. The 12 drivers are complemented by qualities that distinguish a resilient city from a city that is simply viable, sustainable, or prosperous, and are considered very important for cities [36]. According to Arup, there are seven qualities of resilient systems: Reflectiveness and resourcefulness are about the ability to learn from the past and act in times of crisis. Robustness, redundancy, and flexibility help to design systems and assets that can withstand shocks and stresses. Inclusivity and unity refer to the processes of good governance and effective leadership that ensure that investments and actions are appropriate, address the needs of the most vulnerable people, and collectively create a resilient city for everyone [38]. All three layers of the CRF—dimensions, drivers, and qualities—are important to understand the gaps and design appropriate actions that will lead to city resilience, which is undoubtedly a complex process and requires input from all stakeholders.

4. Materials and Methods

4.1. Combined Methodology

This study was conducted using a combined methodological approach, first with a case study analysis. Case studies can involve either single or multiple cases and multiple levels of analysis that are either qualitative (e.g., words), quantitative (numbers), or both [39]. The present analysis uses case studies of metropolitan cities in the US that are participating in the 100 RC network program. These are American metropolitan areas that are rapidly growing; their population is composed of different nationalities, and they face economic, social, environmental, and infrastructural challenges. All are participating in the 100 RC network and have launched strategic planning to build resilience and achieve sustainable development. Second, content analysis is applied, which is a technique that allows researchers to select large volumes of data easily and systematically. Holsti claims that “it is any technique for making inferences by systematically and objectively identifying specified features of messages”. Kerlinger defined content analysis as “a method of studying and analysing communication in a systematic, objective, and quantitative manner for the purpose of measuring variables”, while Krippendorff defined it as “a research technique for drawing replicable and valid inferences from data in their context”. For Weber, content analysis “is a research methodology that utilizes a set of procedures to make valid inferences from text”. These inferences concern the senders of the message, the message itself, or the audience of the message. According to Stone, content analysis refers to any process for assessing the relative extent to which specific references, attitudes, or themes permeate a given message or document [40]. And finally, a comparative study is applied, which is a methodology of scientific research, including resilience and sustainability [22]. Comparative case studies are conducted over time and emphasize comparisons within and across contexts. They may be chosen when it is not feasible to conduct an experimental design and/or when there is a need to understand and explain how context characteristics affect the success of program or policy initiatives. This information is valuable for tailoring interventions to support the achievement of the intended results. Comparative case studies involve the analysis and synthesis of similarities, differences, and patterns in two or more cases that share a common focus or objective. To be able to do this well, the specific characteristics of each case should be described in depth at the beginning of the study. The rationale for selecting specific cases is directly linked to the key evaluation questions (KEQs) and, therefore, to what needs to be explored [41].

In this study, the critical documents are (a) the City Resilience Framework and (b) the strategic studies of the metropolitan areas launched under the 100 RC network’s program. Based on the above, we have used the strategic studies of each of the metropolitan areas—Atlanta, Chicago, Houston, El Paso, Dallas, Greater Miami and the Beaches, Los Angeles, New Orleans, New York, and San Francisco—as the content of our study, and focused on the “Leadership and Strategy” dimension and its drivers (

Table 1. The drivers of leadership and strategy.

Dimension	Drivers	Content of Driver
Leadership and Strategy	10. Promotes leadership and management	Relating to government, business, and civil society. This is recognizable in trusted individuals, multistakeholder consultation, and evidence decision making.
	11. Empowers a broad range of stakeholders. 12. Fosters long-term and integrated planning.	Education for all, access to up-to date information, knowledge to enable people/organizations to take appropriate action. Along with education and awareness, communication is needed to ensure that knowledge is transferred between stakeholders and cities. Holistic vision, informed by data. Strategies/plans should be integrated across sectors and land use plans should consider and include different departments, users, and uses. Building codes should create safety and remove negative impacts.

) [38], because these drivers are important to the metropolises to help them to identify their critical areas of weakness, assess the extent of the problem, and identify appropriate actions and policies to improve their resilience.

4.2. Research Questions

This analysis aims to understand how the cities of the network perceive the governance of their city and to answer our research questions, which are the following:

Q1. Does the planning of the 100 RC network metropolitan cities we will examine meet the principles of good governance?

Q2. Is good governance a prerequisite for building urban resilience and sustainable urban development?

Q3. Is it feasible to implement good governance at the metropolitan scale?

5. Content and Comparative Analysis and Outcomes

5.1. Comparing the Governance Strategies of US Metropolitan Cities

As mentioned above, we studied the strategies of 100 RC network USA metropolitan areas, which all have planned actions for each driver of the “Leadership and Strategy” dimension to respond to the risks. Atlanta, being a transportation hub, attracts a regional population, generates job growth, and attracts large corporations. Its diversity is the cornerstone of its rich history and culture. Chicago is centrally located in America, and it is the crossroads of the country’s transportation system. It is home to many companies and a city that attracts a lot of foreign investment. Houston is a coastal city and the fourth largest in the US, and its port is one of the busiest in the world. El Paso accounts for half of the largest metropolitan area in the Western Hemisphere, and the region’s population is expected to exceed 3.2 million by 2030. Dallas is the fourth largest metropolitan area in the US by population, and due to its economic growth, it is the destination for many people seeking employment, thus increasing the number of people experiencing economic failure. Greater Miami and the Beaches is a partnership of Miami-Dade County, the City of Miami, and the City of Miami Beach, and is the most densely populated county in the United States. Los Angeles is California’s largest city and the most popular US destination, a world-class cultural and economic hub. However, 22% of the population lives in poverty, and the city is facing the effects of climate change and ageing infrastructure. New Orleans is a coastal city and is strategically located for trade, at the point where the Mississippi River Delta becomes the Gulf of Mexico. In 2010, the Gulf Coast experienced the largest environmental disaster in US history after the BP oil spill and explosion. New York City is a prominent center of US commerce and culture, and it is the place where people come to realize their dreams. In 2014, it welcomed a record 56.4 million tourists and continues to attract thousands of new people every year. And finally, between 2010 and 2040, San Francisco is projected to grow its population from 7.2 million people to 9.5 million and its jobs from 3.4 million to 4.7 million. This will result in nearly 3.6 million households and a demand for more than 3.6 million housing units [42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51].

All metropolises followed long participatory processes involving many stakeholders, including communities, local government agencies, academia, and residents. After considering the CRF, they identified the vulnerabilities and challenges they would need to address to be prepared for any future risks and formulated their strategic studies. Furthermore, metropolitan cities followed the same process in both phases required by the 100 RC network program, conducting surveys and organizing consultation and information workshops, either locally or internationally, in collaboration with other cities in the network to share knowledge, ideas, and best practices. Then, at the end of the two phases, they presented the Metropolitan Resilience Strategy and then proceeded to phase 3, the implementation phase of the resilience strategy. Their strategies include the challenges they will need to address, their vision for the future, and details of each action they will implement to increase social cohesion, address social, racial, and economic inequalities, and strengthen local structures and governance institutions in the city (

Table 2. Content analysis of the strategies of the US metropolises.

City	Challenges	Vision	Promotes Leadership and Effective Stakeholders	Empowers a Broad Range of Stakeholders	Foster Long-Term and Integrated Planning	Values
Atlanta	Economic and housing insecurity. Environmental stresses. Infrastructural deficiencies.	Design our systems to reflect our values.	Expand equity in sustainability training program. Develop an equity strategy among sustainability practitioners. Promote the development of an interfaith coalition.	Improve the city’s community outreach. Create an education liaison. Create a community resource center. Re-envision public libraries. Audit neighborhood planning units. Launch a participatory budgeting pilot.	Create a city investment checklist. Establish a system and evaluation process for joint infrastructure. Create an equity and resilience scorecard.	Leader in equity, sustainability, and resilience.
				The 311 Customer Service social media platform
Chicago	Poverty. Socioeconomic inequality. Education. Public safety. Racism/racial equity.	Connected Chicago.	Health awareness project. Advance the community policing strategy Use behavioral science to promote resilient staff of 911 call center.	Inform system 311 for health and human services. Centralized city newsletter. Foster community preparedness. Urban heat response pilot project. Website to connect residents.	Resilience lens to hazard mitigation planning. Urban sensing program to collect real time city data. Strengthen cyber security. Disaster recovery technology infrastructure.	Regional governments are connected and work together. Residents connected to opportunity. Communities connecting with each other.
Houston	Lack access to basic health care. Deep segregation (income/jobs/race). Climate change impacts. Growth and development. Transformative economy.	Resilient Houston in 2050.	Encourage community leadership/stewardship/participation. Maximize access to economic opportunity and prosperity. Opportunities for more to start/maintain/grow small businesses. Prepare workforce and all youth for future jobs.	Ensure Houstonians have the information, skills, and capacity to prepare for any emergency. Mobilize Houstonians to adapt to climate change. Support small businesses to have access to information and resources.	Make streets 100% safe for all. Programming and urban design interventions. Shelter and housing for any Houstonian in need.	Emergency response stabilization. Adaptive recovery. Institutionalization.
El Paso	Challenges of a border metroplex. Poverty. Flash flooding. Extreme heat. Food access. Drought. Human health.	El Paso will have safe and beautiful neighborhoods, a vibrant regional economy, and exceptional recreational, cultural and educational opportunities.	Activate non-traditional tools to build productive dialog among the community. Enhance the practice of resilience within the city’s organizational structure and operations.	Connect people to citywide assets and programs. Improve conditions and enhance preparedness for low-income residents. Connect people and initiatives across the region. Activate the bi-national community.	Cultivate local/regional/global relationships supportive of cooperative building efforts.	Emergency response stabilization. Adaptive. Recovery. Institutionalization.
Dallas	Homelessness. Poverty. Unemployment. Social/racial inequality. Lack of reliable transportation. Violence.	Close the gap between the haves and have-nots. Restore opportunities for working families.	Drive collaborative action across sectors. Prioritize workforce readiness and training, skill development, small business capacity building, and access to wrap-around services. Regularly convene Dallas members to establish and formalize city goals and policy recommendations to guide decision making and align representation with Dallas’ priorities.	Support and partner with anchor institutions and community-based efforts for equity. Build an equitable city administration and workplace culture. Develop community leadership partnership strategy with focus on immigration reception/increasing immigrant participation in civic life.	City’s strategic plan: Dallas will be a welcoming city to immigrants and residents. Community input and data to inform of the strategic mobility plan. Collaborate with Dallas County health/human services/hospital systems to share data. Conduct a geospatial analysis of health disparities to identify specific areas of need, available resources, and gaps in services.	Effective leadership and management. Multi-stakeholder involvement. Long-term planning. Reliable communication and mobility in public health.
Greater Miami and the Beaches	Growing traffic congestion. Sea level rise and coastal erosion. Aging infrastructure. Decreasing housing quality and affordability. Income inequality.	By connecting, engaging, and empowering every voice in our community, we will stand strong and share our unique history in South Florida.	The 311 Contact Center. The 305 Network will support its member cities. Collaborate with universities and leverage experience. Create an advisory panel.	Increase neighborhood response. Promote volunteer opportunities. Support resilience hubs. Create a plan for resilience literacy. Support several organizations in creating visual infographics, photos, and short video vignettes to explain resilience in all its facets.	Prepare for property. Preplanning for post-disaster toolkit. Distribute resilient urban land use essential guide. Develop shared resources. Plan efficiently and effectively together.	Community cohesion. Enhance community-based interventions. Number of active volunteers. Understanding of resilience. Streamline government processes. Disaster preparedness.
Los Angeles	Turning L.A. into the strongest and safest city in the world.	Earthquakes/fires/ landslides/tsunami. Cyber crime and terrorism. Riots/civil unrest. Public health emergencies.	Expand the Mayor’s resilience office. Designate departmental Chief Resilience Officers. Track and report on resilience outcomes for vulnerable populations and neighborhoods. Increase real-time data gathering and sharing tools. Engage the next generation of leaders in resilience building.	Work with all neighborhood councils to develop preparedness plans. Prepare Angelenos to be self-sufficient for at least seven to fourteen days after an emergency. Build a culture of preparedness by training all city departments and employees on disaster preparedness and recovery on an annual basis.	Bring earthquake early warning technology to all Angelenos. Develop post-disaster service restoration targets for critical infrastructure.	Health and well-being. Preparedness. Strong social network. Leadership and commitment. Disaster preparedness and recovery. Financial security. Climate adaptation. Infrastructure modernization.
New Orleans	We are building a New Orleans for the future, one that embraces change, prepares for the risks of the future, and honors our traditions.	Environment. Climate change. Poverty and inequality. Unemployment. Public violence. Education. Public health. Housing and social mobility. Terrorism and civil unrest. Outbreaks of infectious diseases.	Integrate resilience-driven decision making across public agencies. Performance management programs. One-stop shop for city permits and licenses. Integrated asset management.	Develop the preparedness of our businesses and neighborhoods.	Promote sustainability as a growth strategy. Invest in pre-disaster planning for post-disaster recovery.	A city leader in sustainability, safety, and stability. Protection of critical financial assets. Economic development. Continuity of critical services in times of disaster.
New York	Become a strong and just city.	Growing population. Rising inequality. Poverty and homelessness. Aging infrastructure. Affordable housing. Developing economy. Public spaces. Urban environmental conditions and climate change.	Integrated government and social services. Increase the rate of volunteerism among New Yorkers to 25%. Build a government workforce reflective of the diversity and inclusion of communities. Improve the way N.Y. City develops and retains a diverse workforce.	Strengthen community-based organizations, civic participation, and information capacity. Improve emergency preparedness and planning.	Increase the capacity of accessible emergency shelters to 120,000 residents. Develop and adopt consistent resilient design guidelines.	Innovation. Climate change. Growing and thriving city/sustainable metropolis. Fair and equal participation. Justice.
San Francisco	Stronger today, stronger tomorrow.	Earthquakes. Social inequity. Unaffordability. Infrastructure.	Develop and implement a long-term recovery governance plan. Develop a 50-year long-range transportation vision. Enhance trust in public safety officials. Develop a public digital service strategy. Receive and issue permits electronically. Establish the Office of Resilience and Recovery	Build community readiness through education and technology. Increase training for neighborhood emergency response teams. Reimagine public libraries as community spaces. Partnerships to empower neighborhoods. Build capacity in community-based health organizations. The San Francisco Business Portal information.	Ensure effective city operations during response and recovery. Restore financial position. Expand access to health facilities and services for those most in need. Actively coordinate for recovery with our private and public utilities. Continue the Earthquake Safety Implementation Program. Mitigate earthquake risk through the building code. Streamline the process to quickly re-occupy buildings. Continue building and rebuilding infrastructure. Bayview Neighborhood Support Center.	Financially prepared for disaster. Education and outreach on sustainability concepts. Diverse and distinct character of neighborhoods. Seismic and environmentally conscious building improvements. Social health. Community capacity building. Collaborative community. Public digital services.

).

5.2. Discussion—Outcomes of the Comparative Analysis

5.2.1. Good Governance in the Metropolises’ Strategies

A comparison of the resilience strategies of the metropolitan areas examined (Table 2) undoubtedly shows that all areas have adopted actions and practices consistent with the principles of good urban governance. All the actions of the metropolitan areas are characterized by the need for the participation of inhabitants and the principles of justice, equality, inclusion, responsibility, and efficiency, that is, the values of good urban governance. For instance, Atlanta and San Francisco are maintaining and upgrading their public libraries to become massive meeting places for residents, aiming to achieve social cohesion and prosperity. Other metropolises (Atlanta, Chicago, Miami) have created platforms to encourage residents to participate in the daily life of the city, communicate, and access services with the goal of empowering them. Meanwhile, others support actions to strengthen local councils in neighborhoods by creating committees for people with mental health problems (Chicago), encouraging residents and businesses to cooperate (Los Angeles, New Orleans), and with some creating events on a metropolitan scale to activate two communities (El Paso). At the same time, Houston and Miami support the arts and create cultural activities involving all artists to reach all neighborhoods. The principles and characteristics of good urban metropolitan governance can be found in the metropolitan planning of cities, as we can see.

5.2.2. Good Governance as a Perquisite for Resilience and Sustainable Development

As mentioned above, from the comparative analysis of resilience strategies in the dimension “Leadership and Strategy”, we observe that governance and effective management are considered by cities to be of crucial importance. To improve the efficiency of their employees and services, they have planned actions to improve the city administration’s organization. Atlanta created a professional development program on resilience and sustainability for government and non-government employees, and Miami is training many employees. Furthermore, in all these strategies, the participation of residents, private and non-governmental organizations, and businesses in the city’s initiatives has been crucial. During disasters, volunteers, various organizations, and residents play a significant role in contributing. Houston is a notable example of a city that has stepped up local resource and property management by involving all stakeholders, particularly those from under-represented communities. Furthermore, the metropolises have taken action to strengthen and provide protective services to their residents through data, knowledge, and technology between the stakeholders and the cities, and between the cities and the regions that are operationally and administratively dependent on them. Chicago and Miami have established a call center to provide information to citizens in need during crises, while Houston is developing programs to house vulnerable residents. Additionally, they also include long-term planning actions for preparedness for unforeseen risks, such as San Francisco and Los Angeles planning to deal with an earthquake by drawing up various resilience programs, or New York preparing to deal with extreme natural phenomena, such as flooding and extreme wind. Atlanta is developing investment systems to achieve the economic development of its residents, while Dallas is developing technological projects to strengthen the city’s health system.

Outlining some of the best practices that cities have adopted, such as educating residents, creating infrastructure for information and advisory services, and two-way communication between agencies and residents, is vital for building urban resilience. Data-driven planning is becoming increasingly important, and digital tools and technology are preparing residents for any potential pressures. Cities can be resilient and sustainable through community cohesion, inclusion, economic prosperity, and infrastructure. Good governance is, therefore, a key factor in the success of urban management, particularly in situations of risk, and in achieving resilience and sustainable development in metropolitan areas, as it contributes to optimal risk management and an improved quality of life for residents. Based on these considerations, this study contributes to the idea that urban governance, particularly good governance, is a critical factor in building resilience, which can lead to prosperity and growth and transform cities into sustainable ones.

5.2.3. Good Governance at the Metropolitan Scale

This paper’s comparative analysis of resilience strategies demonstrates how USA metropolitan areas have implemented policies that incorporate the entire metropolitan area and transcend traditional boundaries. Cities are faced with issues that go beyond their administrative borders and call for extensive planning and response, including transportation, social and economic inequality, climate change, and resident health. Indeed, all actions are metropolitan in nature and aim to build resilience and achieve prosperity for residents across the metropolitan area. Therefore, in response to the last research question, whether it is feasible to implement good governance at a metropolitan scale, we would argue that it is not only feasible but also imperative.

6. Conclusions and Policy Implications

This paper has attempted to analyze good urban metropolitan governance and its necessity for building resilience and achieving sustainable urban development. Three research questions were posed, and US metropolitan areas participating in the 100 Resilient Cities network (Atlanta, Chicago, Houston, El Paso, Dallas, Greater Miami and the Beaches, Los Angeles, New Orleans, New York, and San Francisco) were used as a case study. A literature review was conducted on the concepts of resilience and sustainable development, and the concepts of urban governance and good urban governance were clarified, as well as governance and the relationship between the latter and resilience and sustainable development.

The contribution of this study is relevant at both the theoretical and policy levels.

At the theoretical level, it emerged that good governance and sustainable development are considered as inter-related concepts, while urban resilience is seen as an outcome of good governance in the sense that local governments are responsible for building resilience and promoting and implementing sustainable development practices. Our findings demonstrated that good governance is a necessary condition for building resilience and sustainability, and is a critical factor for their success. Building resilience and sustainability improves residents’ quality of life. Finally, by using a combined methodology (case study, content, and comparative analysis), this study concluded that good governance can be implemented at a metropolitan scale, as disruptions can affect multitudes of citizens and infrastructure, and therefore large-scale planning is essential. Our arguments support previous studies’ analyses, but also show the differences in applying good governance, related with sustainability principles, between the metropolitan areas of the USA.

At the policy level, our findings can serve as a guide for metropolises designing policies for their resilience and sustainability. Cities should be governed based on a collaborative and participatory model, whereby local governments, residents, volunteers, and various councils are involved in the development and implementation of their objectives. To be effective and inclusive, it is necessary to plan for both general policy issues and specific sectors on a metropolitan scale. The principles of sustainability, efficiency, transparency, accountability, stakeholder participation, equity, and respect for the law should guide cities in their governance. All of these promote social cohesion and quality of life, ultimately fostering the development of resilience and sustainability in metropolitan areas.