Frontiers of Urban Resilience
Multi‐Hazard Risks and Nonlinear Recovery Pathways in a Conflict‐Exposed City
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 22018508 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Nadiia Antonenko (0000-0001-9047-3669, Kyiv National University of Construction and Architecture), Daria Malchykova (0000-0002-7197-8722, Kherson State University), Ihor Pylypenko (0000-0001-6640-1163, Kherson State University) |
| Year | 2026 |
| Volume | 11 |
| Publication date | 2026-05-13 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Urban Planning (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 2183-7635 • E-ISSN: 2183-7635 |
| Publisher | Cogitatio (PUBLISHER • PT) |
| DOI | 10.17645/up.11551 |
| OpenAlex | W7161030077 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 40 |
This research advances understanding of urban resilience amid polycrisis by analysing how continuous military violence interacts with pre‐existing urban vulnerabilities. Using Kherson (Ukraine) as a critical case, the research offers a unique lens on urban responses to unprecedented short‐term and long‐term challenges. It shows how a city that experienced occupation, infrastructural collapse, and depopulation, in the face of constant instability and continuous attacks after liberation, reorganises its socio‐spatial systems and shapes its recovery trajectories. Drawing on spatial analysis of destruction, thematic mapping of socio‐demographic and logistical changes, and institutional capacity analysis, the study conceptualises recovery as a nonlinear dynamic process that unfolds through absorptive (stabilisation of key functions in partially populated areas), adaptive reorganisation of logistics and service networks, and transformative shifts in the most damaged areas, where conventional models of governance are no longer viable. By situating Kherson in a broader comparative debate, the study offers conclusions relevant to cities in zones of armed conflict, climate disasters, and large‐scale social upheaval. The trajectory of urban spatial development in such contexts is characterised by spatial heterogeneity, threshold conditions, and multi‐vector processes in which systemic loss, stabilisation, and adaptation occur simultaneously. The case of Kherson demonstrates that continuous military pressure limits traditional reconstruction and urban planning models. The future of cities in a multi‐crisis environment depends not only on reconstruction resources but also on rethinking recovery as a new model of socio‐spatial development, grounded in absorptive, adaptive, and transformative capacities, differentiated spatial strategies, and context‐sensitive governance
Complex adaptive system · Corporate governance · Psychological resilience · Transformative learning · Urban planning · Urban resilience · Regional resilience and development · Urban Planning and Governance · Urbanization and City Planning
Urban Resilience for Urban Sustainability
A review of urban resilience literature
Global polycrisis
(Re)adaptation of urban space in post-disaster recovery
A research-based, practice-relevant urban resilience framework for local government
Urban resilience
Implementing urban resilience in urban planning
Using the Warsaw reconstruction plan to rebuild Ukrainian cities
Entrepreneurial ecosystems in conflict regions
Principles for guiding future research on resilience and tipping points
Local government resilience in the face of Russian aggression
Urban resilience for whom, what, when, where, and why
Assessment of urban identity through a matrix of cultural landscapes
Future urban development scenarios for post-conflict Syria. How will returning refugees shape the future
Renaming and Reclaiming Urban Spaces in Ukraine
| Highly cited | No |
|---|