Risk-thinking versus resilience-thinking
Many cities have finished their resilience strategies, and more will follow. There is currently a tendency towards working on these resilience strategies from a risk point of view, by calculating and collecting different risk maps and hazard maps and using these for city strategies. By doing this, we focus on single problems for which we design single protective solutions.
However, resilience strategy calls for a bigger picture and a combination of different types of solutions. Protective, robust measures will solve problems for a certain period, but for long-term, resilient planning you need to complement robust solutions (such as sewage systems and flood retaining walls) with integral (e.g. nature-based solutions), flexible (e.g. early warning systems, awareness campaigns and educational programs) and redundant solutions (e.g. flood protective transformer stations).
Robust strategy based on protective measures versus a mixed strategy
STAIN is designed to reach that required level of common understanding and uses a certain abstraction to keep the bigger picture in mind. The people attending a STAIN workshop use their own expert knowledge on city assets, residents and short-term city plans and explain this to each other in order to reach a level of understanding and agreement. Not only does this result in an integral strategy, but the further planning and development phases also benefit from this level of agreement and understanding. This can accelerate the urban planning process. When a resilience strategy is designed within STAIN, the next phases will require detailed, objective city data to move towards a detailed resilience plan.