A critical review of frameworks, gaps and prospects for urban climate resilience research in the Global South
This study critiques the conceptual fragmentation and decision-orientation gaps in Global South urban climate resilience research through a PRISMA-guided review of 71 publications, identifying structural flaws like technocratic reductionism and the marginalization of local knowledge, while proposing a reconceptualized, ethically charged framework with specific governance levers and decision metrics to enable more actionable and equitable adaptive performance.
Original paper licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This is an AI-generated explanation of the paper below. It is not written or endorsed by the authors. For technical accuracy, refer to the original paper. Read full disclaimer
Cities are living systems that must constantly adjust to survive. When the weather turns extreme, a resilient city is one that can absorb the shock, keep its essential functions running, and adapt to a new normal without collapsing. For decades, experts have tried to measure this ability, creating lists of indicators and technical models to help planners decide where to build flood walls or where to plant trees. The goal has always been to protect people from harm. However, a growing body of thought suggests that simply having a strong wall or a good plan is not enough. The way a city organizes itself, who gets to speak in the planning room, and how quickly help actually arrives at a doorstep matter just as much as the physical infrastructure. If a city is strong on paper but slow to act for its poorest residents, it is not truly resilient.
A new review of research published between 2010 and 2025 takes a hard look at how we currently understand and build this resilience, specifically in the Global South, where rapid urbanization and climate change intersect most intensely. The author, Vasilii Kurian, examined 71 peer-reviewed studies to see what tools experts are using and where the current approaches are failing. The review found that while we have many sophisticated frameworks for managing risk, they often treat resilience as a purely technical problem. This focus on engineering and management tends to ignore the messy reality of informal settlements, where many of the world's urban poor live. It also overlooks the fact that time is a critical resource; a solution that arrives too late or is delayed for certain groups is no solution at all.
The research reveals three major gaps in how we currently study and build resilient cities. First, the literature frequently treats informal settlements—areas where housing and infrastructure are built without official permission or state support—as mere background noise or a source of vulnerability. These communities are rarely analyzed as places where people actively adapt and solve problems on their own. Second, there is very little evidence on how climate finance actually reaches the people who need it most. Most studies track large, formal projects, leaving the distribution of funds to low-income neighborhoods largely invisible. Third, almost all assessments are snapshots in time. Researchers rarely track how a city's ability to cope changes over years, meaning we do not know if a project that looks good today is actually helping people in the long run.
Kurian's analysis suggests that the tools we use to plan for the future are shaping the future itself, often in ways that create inequality. For example, digital maps and dashboards are powerful tools for visualizing risk, but they tend to highlight areas with good data and clear property records. This leaves out the informal districts where data is scarce, effectively making those areas invisible to planners and investors. Similarly, decision-making models that rely on complex scenarios often fail to account for the daily realities of people who do not have the luxury of waiting for a perfect plan. The review argues that resilience is not just about bouncing back to a previous state, but about how a society distributes the burden of waiting and the speed of recovery.
To fix these issues, the paper proposes a new way of thinking about resilience that focuses on the timing and fairness of decisions. Instead of just asking if a flood wall works, planners should ask who gets to use it first, how long it takes to build, and whether the process respects local knowledge. The author introduces a simple framework to help: look at the device being used, the timing mechanism attached to it, and the final outcome for the people involved. For instance, a "trigger" is a rule that says "if the water rises to this level, we open the gates." If that rule is tied to a fair process that ensures the poorest neighborhoods get the water diverted away from them first, the outcome is just. If the rule is vague or slow, the outcome is unjust.
The review concludes that the most effective strategies are those that combine technical solutions with inclusive governance. When local communities are genuinely involved in planning, and when funding rules include safeguards to ensure fair access, cities adapt better. The study does not claim to have a single magic formula for every city, but it offers a set of practical levers for change. These include setting strict deadlines for when benefits must reach the first person in line, tracking how long different groups have to wait, and ensuring that informal community efforts are recognized as valid parts of the city's defense system. By shifting the focus from just building stronger walls to building fairer systems, cities can move toward a resilience that is not only strong but also just.
Drowning in papers in your field?
Get daily digests of the most novel papers matching your research keywords — with technical summaries, in your language.