Research, part of a special feature on The Next Wave in Water Governance

INTRODUCTION

(...) Global consultancies and other global corporations have taken the lead in spreading an urban resilience gospel” (Leitner et al. 2018:6).

Private consultancy firms play a significant role in addressing complex global sustainability challenges, while involved in confidential projects and clients at times. They are the hired hands of public and private institutions for advising on environmental policies. However, research on their role has remained conspicuously rare (with the exceptions of Keele 2019 and Stone et al. 2021, for instance). From the little attention that these firms have received, we see indications that they are integral components of policy networks and that they sit in important positions when it comes to refining, certifying, and diffusing existing policy concepts rather than being the architects of entirely new ones (see Jordan and Huitema 2014, Marciano 2023, Burchard-Levine et al. 2024). Given these outstanding positions, consultancy firms play a significant role in diffusing and brokering policies and even in contributing to turning policies into paradigms. Yet the question persists: How are private consultancy firms interpreting and engaging with key policy concepts within their policy networks?

A highly relevant example in this respect is the paradigm of resilience, which has gained a lot of traction, and critique, in global environmental debates (see Carpenter et al. 2001, Bahadur et al. 2013, Linkov et al. 2013, Sudmeier-Rieux 2014, Béné et al. 2017), with private environmental consultancy firms actively involved in brokering and promoting this paradigm (e.g., Leitner et al. 2018:6). The understanding, use, and application of resilience by environmental consultants remain open questions, with their interpretations influencing governance decision-making and on-the-ground actions. Only a handful of studies have explored how practitioners perceive and translate resilience thinking into practice, predominantly focusing on urban resilience and neglecting consultant perspectives (see Aldunce et al. 2015, Meerow et al. 2016, Borie et al. 2019, Kim et al. 2021). For instance, depending on their understanding, consultants’ involvement in water resilience projects was found to significantly influence project outcomes with implications for water users, in some cases negative (see Scott and Carter 2019). These may include the prevalence of decontextualized practices with potential impact on communities in contributing to inequities (see Dobbin and Lubell 2021, Dobbin et al. 2023). The complex, case-based nature of consultancy work, often shrouded in confidentiality, contributes to the scarcity of research in this area (see Kipping and Wright 2012).

In the field of water management, resilience serves as a trendy guiding paradigm (see Harm Benson and Garmestani 2011, McGreavy 2016), with private environmental consultancy firms playing a prominent advisory role in shaping water resilience strategies (e.g., Torabi et al. 2018, Laeni et al. 2019, Weinstein et al. 2019). The discourse on water governance has shifted significantly from a focus on resource efficiency to prioritizing system resilience (Falkenmark 2020), highlighting the water sector’s importance in examining the advisory practices of private environmental consultancy firms in enhancing water resilience. Notably, international consultancy firms have played impactful roles in advising the water sector, for instance in participating in the privatization process of water in Berlin (e.g., Beveridge 2012).

As paradigms travel, interpretations spark disagreements and debates. It becomes crucial to shed light on the activities of consultants in diffusing these paradigms, understanding the diverse perspectives they offer, and recognizing the potential tensions linked to their spread. Dewulf et al. (2019:10) extensively explore the power dynamics of defining resilience and its implications, highlighting the influence of external experts in shaping resilience parameters. Their findings accentuate the significance of understanding how global environmental consultancy firms conceptualize resilience and diffuse their perspectives on water governance.

Our research aims to address this knowledge gap within the context of consultancy firms and their involvement in water-related resilience projects. We seek to understand the diverse perspectives of resilience among consultants, as these interpretations shape design choices, action plans, and investment decisions in water projects around the world, while legitimizing specific forms of knowledge. Our main research question is “How do consultants from global environmental consultancy firms understand and conceptualize resilience in water governance?”

How can we uncover what consultants do in a closed-off professional world where practices are closely guarded and self-reflection may be limited? Exploring the consultancy industry means navigating through confidentiality and potential reluctance to allocate time and willingness to openly discuss roles and perspectives. Designing a study in this context requires methods that break through secrecy, such as confidential clients, projects, and private information, as well as encourage open conversation about how the industry operates. To address this, we conducted, in 2022, an online survey using Q-methodology (Stephenson 1953) involving 34 consultants in leadership and management roles from 18 top^[1] global environmental consultancy firms, all specializing in “resilient water solutions.” Our results present a comprehensive tapestry of consultants’ perspectives on water resilience and their implications for environmental governance. We shed light on how these engage with, broker, and translate paradigms, starting with their understanding and conceptualization of resilience in water governance.

BACKGROUND

Role of global consultants in tackling environmental issues

Global environmental consultancy firms are part of a large network of actors from science, policy, and commercial arenas who play a significant role in societies’ responses to climate change challenges (see Brown 2013, Leitner et al. 2018, Meerow and Stults 2016). Although research has generally overlooked environmental consultancy firms (see Howlett and Migone 2013, Stone et al. 2020, White 2020), it is clear that such firms have gained significant influence in environmental governance and the market around climate knowledge expertise (see Keele 2019, 2017).

Here we refer to consultancy firms as private sector companies composed of professionals or experts who advise public and private clients on the identification of problems and solutions on a fee-for-service basis (compare Alvesson 2004). They offer services that can be considered “knowledge intensive” (Hojem 2012) and their raison d’être is to offer knowledge for a price (White 2020).

Environmental consultancy firms are a specific category within this broader class of organizations, where some are stand-alone consulting firms and others part of larger (often engineering) groups (see Owen 2019). These firms offer a range of services, including environmental impact assessments, risk and vulnerability assessments, decision-support tools, climate risk modeling, and adaptation plans, reflecting their expertise, converting climate science into monetized practical knowledge (see Fincham et al. 2008, Keele 2017). Water is thereby often one focal sector among a wide array of different ones, such as energy, agriculture, transportation, or industry.

Practitioners of the environmental consultancy sector come from a wide range of backgrounds, such as engineering, environmental science, and other natural sciences (see Thompson 2012, Keele 2019, Owen 2021). The industry has no single educational requirement or professional licensing (Owen 2021), but general academic training is complemented with company-specific curricula (see Reihlen and Nikolova 2010, Thompson 2012). Most companies’ offices and staff are located in North America, Western Europe, and Australia, even though they service the world (see Bouteligier 2011, Keele 2019).

We view private environmental consultancy firms as knowledge brokers tasked with the transfer of scientific knowledge to non-academic users (see Gagnon 2011, Hojem 2012, Sardo and Weitkamp 2017, Nieuwenhuis et al. 2022). This role becomes important in bridging the gap between academia and practice, impacting the outcomes of public policy in areas of scientific uncertainty (see Michaels 2009). They are often hired by clients, such as governments, who view them as trusted partners to implement environmental regulations (see Owen 2021). Moreover, they serve as translators, adapting and contextualizing knowledge to new contexts and for new users (see Vogelpohl 2018, Keele 2019). However, challenges arise when consultants promote solutions based only on their international experience or so called “best practices,” potentially neglecting the specific needs of local context parameters (see Vogelpohl 2018, Hasan et al. 2019). Additionally, limitations in consultancy advisory practices stem from consultants not solely utilizing the “best available science.” They recycle language from previous projects (see Scott et al. 2022), exhibit tardiness in adopting new information (see Hojem 2012), are not always the perfect translators, and possess limited knowledge of social context and connections to specific project locations, which may lead to overlooking environmental justice issues (see Dobbin et al. 2023).

The scant literature on consultants hints that environmental consultancy firms play a role in shaping environmental policy processes from global (see Stone et al. 2020) to local (see Dearing et al. 1994) scales. They often balance the interests of clients, profit-driven motivations, and the promotion of a sustainable socio-environmental policies system (e.g., Taber 2020, Thoradeniya et al. 2020). Some critics argue that consultancy firms may prioritize their own market growth over tailoring solutions to specific contexts, perpetuating generic one-size-fits-all approaches (see Leitner et al. 2018, Torabi et al. 2018, Laeni et al. 2019, Weinstein et al. 2019, Stone et al. 2021). Dougherty (2019) referred to them as “double agents” as they navigate the interests of clients, stakeholders, and their own motivations through project engagements. As Dewan’s (2020) study contended, they are requested to work in a way that reproduces scripts and agendas from clients such as donors.

In response to the growing demand for resilience thinking, global environmental consultancy firms have cultivated specialized knowledge to assist both private and public entities in integrating the notion of resilience into their operations and complying with new regulations (see Bouteligier 2011). Examples include their involvement in designing coastal resilient cities (e.g., Torabi et al. 2018). Firms, such as ARUP and AECOM, have contributed to the roll-out of the paradigm of resilience, or, in the words of Leitner et al. (2018), we can view these firms as preachers promoting the “resilience gospel.” How do consultants understand the paradigm of resilience and what resilience perspectives are they preaching?

The multifaceted debates on resilience

Resilience was originally defined as a system’s capacity to withstand and recover from disruptive changes while reducing vulnerability to future adverse events (Holling 1973, Folke 2006). Resilience proposes an alternative to risk management, where instead of simply anticipating and preparing for foreseeable events, resilience is incorporated into systems to help them resist and swiftly recover when unpredictable events do occur (Linkov et al. 2014). Holling’s definition has later been advanced by applying it in dynamic, non-linear environments, where there is an ongoing interaction between stable states and newly formed configurations, called “adaptive capacity” (Carpenter et al. 2001, Walker et al. 2004, Levin et al. 2012). Therefore, resilience also describes the ability of a system to adapt to change, self-organize, and transform completely, moving to a new state and equilibrium (Walker et al. 2004). This feature of complex systems is substantiated by the notion of panarchy, which explains how nested system components can undergo change at the same time, but at different scales (Holling and Gunderson 2002). This posits that smaller-scale, incremental reforms might be required to generate resilience at larger dimensions, while also describing resilience as the process of handling the journey between the various pathways possible after crossing planetary thresholds (Folke 2016).

Resilience related to water systems (Rockström et al. 2014; Rodina 2018, Shin et al. 2018, Boltz et al. 2019, Falkenmark et al. 2019, McClymont et al. 2020) more specifically has been defined as “the ability to anticipate, adapt, respond and flourish in the face of a range of shocks and stresses to the water sector in order to maintain services for people and protect the natural environment now and in the future” (Arup et al. 2019:24). Water resilience has been differentiated as achieving stability of the hydrological cycle to “safeguard and sustain a particular desired state of a social-ecological system,” namely the state of biomes, weather, and climate, production of biomass, and population water needs (Falkenmark et al. 2019:1). Boltz et al. (2019) justify that water is a “master variable” that can serve as a representative medium to understand how coupled human-ecological systems should be managed to achieve resilience. However, the emergent water resilience paradigm is not converging toward a unified and measurable approach covering all water-related ecosystem services, being only sparsely applied in the context of water supply, water resource management, and stormwater management (Rodina 2018).

Since the inception of resilience thinking, academic literature has witnessed numerous adjustments, additions, and derivatives of the resilience paradigm, used in a wide variety of contexts. Resilience theory has not developed in a cohesive direction, but rather has been loaded diverse meanings across fields ranging from psychology, engineering, and ecology (Demiroz and Haase 2018). The “malleability” of resilience allowed different scientific fields and stakeholders to embrace their own characterization, conferring upon it the role of a boundary object (Brand and Jax 2007); a concept serving as a bridge between different disciplines and communities as a boundary object, resilience has worked as a powerful communication tool, facilitating dialogue between fields such as the social and ecological sciences. By fostering a shared vocabulary, it facilitates cross-disciplinary and science-practice dialogue. However, this same flexibility also distances resilience from a precise and well-defined scientific concept (Brand and Jax 2007, Borie et al. 2019).

The various interpretations of resilience carry a significant political dimension, raising critical questions (see Dewulf et al. 2019:3, Meerow and Newell 2019:309), such as: “Resilience of what? At what scale? To what? For what purpose? For whom, when, where, and why?” These inquiries highlight that understanding resilience goes beyond a conceptual accuracy; it also involves interpreting it based on underpinning worldviews. Addressing these key power-sensitive questions encourages deeper reflection on the multifaceted characteristics of resilience in different contexts (see Sudmeier-Rieux 2014, Weichselgartner and Kelman 2014, Kaika 2017, Amo-Agyemang 2021).

In understanding resilience, the literature presents three overarching variations in how it is perceived. First, the types of systems to which resilience is applied can be categorized as social, technological/engineering, or ecological/coupled social-ecological (Rodina 2018). Technological or engineering resilience is concerned with critical infrastructure, ecological resilience with natural capital and ecosystem quality, and social resilience with human welfare and community capabilities (Folke 2006, Rodina 2018, Stockholm Resilience Center 2022). Second, the disruptive events can vary in type and intensity, including shocks, stressors, or a combination of both (Olsson et al. 2014). Examples of shocks are natural disasters (Klisel et al. 2018), whereas stresses are incessant pressures put on the system architecture, such as climate change, degradation of natural resources, economic recessions, and social unrest (Folke, 2006). Third, resilience definitions can be categorized on the basis of the degree of induced systems change, ranging from resistance to transformation, with dichotomous discourses of “bounce back,” “bounce forward” and in between (Pelling 2010, Manyena et al. 2011). Resistance emphasizes the capacity to withstand adversity and buffer the impact of sudden disruption while maintaining the operation of fundamental processes (Walker et al. 2004). When a system is disrupted but recovers by absorbing the consequences, reorganizing, and returning to the pre-disturbance performance it can be said it is “bouncing back” (Manyena et al. 2011). If gradual modifications and innovations are also part of the system response while facing adversity, then the system is adapting or “bouncing forward” (Manyena et al. 2011). Transformation entails that a system has the potential to follow a different development pathway and move to a new state in the wake of tipping points being passed or other major structural changes (Pelling 2010, Olsson et al. 2014). Figure 1 illustrates how resilience can be categorized on a transformability axis based on the degree of induced systems change ranging from resistance to transformation.

Based on these diverse interpretations of resilience, we identified a list of 19 commonly linked strategies, drawing from the study of Kim et al. (2021). We then cross-referenced, mapped, and refined these strategies against key references (see Folke 2006, Berkes 2012, Meerow et al. 2016, Rodina 2018) that portray various aspects of a resilience system. The resulting comprehensive list, detailed in Table 1, encompasses a wide range of strategies and descriptive statements associated with resilience. These individual aspects delve into the nuances of resilience perspectives across different types of systems, disruptive events, and degree of induced systems change. By synthesizing insights from seminal works, the list offers an exhaustive overview of strategies and statements that underpin resilience interpretations, providing a robust foundation for further analysis.

This extensive compilation serves as the groundwork for our exploration into how consultants from environmental consultancy firms perceive the resilience paradigm.

METHODS

The aim of our study was to explore how consultants from global environmental firms understand and conceptualize resilience in water governance. To achieve this, we conducted an online survey supplemented with an online Q-methodology (Stephenson 1953). Q-methodology provides a set of replicable procedures to elicit stakeholders’ views and detect diverse patterns in the data (Sneegas et al. 2021), which are “typologies of perspectives” (Zabala and Pascual 2016:1) on a given topic such as resilience. It has been used to identify a spectrum of perspectives on sustainability discourses (Barry and Proops 1999), infrastructure resilience (Kim et al. 2021), vulnerability of water-based ecosystem services, and future urban water management (Nieuwenhuis et al. 2022).

Figure 2 presents our methodological framework that outlines the steps of Q-methodology. The initial step involved developing the concourse, i.e. the population of definitions that exist related to resilience, from which we derived the Q-set. This set is a selection of statements related to resilience (see Table 1) that will be used to deduce different interpretations. Simultaneously, we selected study participants (P-Set) from top environmental consultancy firms specializing in water resilience (see Table A.2). At first, we identified and contacted 243 consultants through LinkedIn and contact details on company websites, covering all companies in the sample (see Table A.1). As we were “cold calling” individuals and introducing ourselves for the first time, combined with the busy and at times confidential nature of consultancy work, our response rate was comparatively low. Eventually, following up via direct email outreach with those who initially responded, we obtained responses from 34 individuals across 18 globally leading consultancy firms (pseudonymized in Table A.2). This is an acceptable and not unusual sample size for Q-methodology, as a relatively small pool of 12 participants is enough to generate revelatory discourses (Barry and Proops 1999). In addition, our final sample can be considered representative of the population as we obtained responses from at least one consultant representative from four of the top 10 environmental consultancy firms based on the top 200 ranking for 2023 of Engineering News Record, plus a variety of representatives from smaller yet globally active firms. An overview of the study participants profile can be viewed in Table A.3.

Using the Q Method Software (2022), we adapted an online Q-methodology for our study and incorporated a survey consisting of pre- and post-sorting questionnaires to deepen our understanding into consultants’ perspectives on resilience (see survey questions in Table A.4). The central part of the Q-methodology is the collection of participant perspectives via Q-sorting, the procedure of ranking the Q-set items relative to each other (Brown 1993). Participants engaged in an online Q-method exercise, sorting resilience statements (Q-sorts) into a pre-determined grid based on their understanding (see Fig. A.1). The Q-sorting board is a forced-choice pyramid along a 7-point Likert scale with increasing level of relevance from left to right. Through these Q-sorts, respondents crafted their own mental maps of comprehension on resilience.

By means of factorial analysis, we identified patterns and clusters across the Q-sorts (see Table A.5). We used the “qmethod” package (Zabala 2014) to analyze our Q-sorts data in R. Subsequently, we examined the composite Q-sorts, known as factor arrays, to identify clusters of respondents with shared perspectives (Brown 1993). Adhering to the findings of Sneegas et al. (2021), the factors were examined by using six criteria (Table A.6) to determine which ones should be kept for rotation and subsequent analysis. The decision was to retain the first four factors, as they satisfy all mentioned criteria, also visible in the scree plot where the slope of the line levels off after factor 4 (Figure A.2). The four-factor solution is statistically meaningful because it explains 59.8% of the study variance, and each factor accounts for at least 10% (Sneegas et al. 2021).

The relative placement of statements in relation to other factors is used to enhance the descriptions of each perspective. Defining statements are those placed at the poles of each idealized Q-sort, and they describe the core themes of a specific discourse, those that generated the most (dis)agreement. Emphasis is also placed on distinguishing statements, those ranked statistically distinct at the 0.05 level between all factors (Brown 1993), which in our study is only the case for the statement of renewability/recovery. Ranging from −3 to +3, the Z-scores represent the weighted average value assigned to each strategy in the sorting process by respondents designated to a factor (Kim et al. 2021).

Lastly, to contextualize the quantitative results of the factor analysis, we interpreted the idealized factors by defining four narrative perspectives. The aim of the interpretation was to shed light on the deeper meanings associated by consultants to resilience, and to convey the reasoning behind the choices made in their practice. The interpretation process of the relative statement positions was supported by additional data from the accompanying post-sort questionnaire (Watts and Stenner 2012). Through the assembly of these multiple inputs into the interpretation of factors, the development of cohesive narratives on the studied issue is favored, finally uncovering the implications stemming from resilience framings.

We conducted qualitative analysis of open responses in the survey questionnaire using deductive and inductive coding proposed by Glaser (1978) and Miles and Huberman (1994). We first deductively coded the text from the survey in Atlas.ti based on the codebook (see Table A.10) derived from literature on resilience characteristics as detailed in the Background section. We also found and coded for recurring themes inductively, such as dilemmas and tensions related to consultants’ roles concerning resilience, associated concepts, and influences of their resilience thinking. The qualitative coding commenced with an initial round of test coding performed by the first two authors. After a satisfactory common understanding was achieved, main coding was completed by the first author.

For a detailed methodological description, please refer to the Appendix section on A.1 Methods in detail.

RESULTS

Interpretation of Q-factors and consultants’ understanding of resilience

Our Q-method resulted in four composite Q-sorts, i.e. Q-factors, or in other words four statistically distinct perspectives on resilience. The statistical significance of the four-factor solution is underscored by its capacity to explain 59.8% of the study’s variance, with each factor individually accounting for at least 10% (see Sneegas et al. 2021).

To characterize four perspectives, we used the relative placement of resilience statements. Statements positioned at the poles of each idealized Q-sort, encapsulate the core themes of a specific perspective, reflecting the most significant points of (dis)agreement. We also placed emphasis on distinguishing statements, which were ranked significantly (at 0.05 level) different in one perspective as compared to the others (Brown 1993). Figure 3 visualizes the four perspectives and maps the various statements.

Making sense of the four perspectives, we suggest four different characterizations of the perspectives on resilience exhibited by consultants that are ranked by number based on popularity:

• Perspective 1: flexible infrastructure
• Perspective 2: adaptive multipurpose systems
• Perspective 3: anticipation and risk aversion
• Perspective 4: transformability and renewability

Table 2 provides an overview of these four perspectives, elucidating key characteristics identified during the interpretation process, as well as project examples shared by consultants associated with each perspective. The table also presents the perspectives relative to their position in the transformability axis. Perspective 4, the least popular perspective, focuses on transformability and renewability, reflecting a strong perception on improving quality, systems, and services. The most popular perspective, Perspective 1, emphasizes flexible infrastructure, highlighting innovation, learning, and transformation. Moving toward a more adaptive approach, Perspective 2, the second most popular perspective, focuses on coping (i.e., enabling systems to continue to work properly despite failures and perturbances; see Table 1), and on bouncing forward through adaptive multipurpose systems. Most consultants align with Perspectives 1 and 2, perceiving resilience as a balance between coping and bouncing forward. Finally, Perspective 3 characterized by anticipation and risk aversion, aligns closely with resistance and bouncing back, emphasizing risk management over system transformations.

The categorization of the participants that share each of these four perspectives are quite diverse, and we found that there are no significant indications that gender, academic backgrounds, seniority, geography, or specific consultancy firm represent or influence a specific way of understanding the notion of resilience through these four different perspectives. The consultants in each of the perspectives are working on projects all over the world; there is not one perspective that is more influenced by any specific region of the world.

In the following subsections, we will present the idealized Q-sorts (Figs. 4, 5, 6, and 7) for each of the four perspectives on resilience among consultants that we have identified in this study, alongside detailed descriptions of the results and interpretations. These descriptions include values in parenthesis indicating the statement number (s#); the Z-score, i.e. the degree to which respondents agreed to the statements (ranging from −3 to +3 where the vertical order has no meaning); the relative relevance attributed by participants; and references to pseudonymized participant inputs as per Table A.2. We will elaborate on the meaning of these four perspectives and offer insights of the influences shaping consultant perspectives, as well as the challenges they may encounter when dealing with resilience strategies.

Perspective 1: flexible infrastructure

This first and most represented idealized Q-sort reflects a perception around the notion of resilience as “flexible infrastructure” (see Fig. 4). This perspective covers 11 of the 34 Q-sorts of the study participants. Although not displaying statistical significance within our sample, we have observed a tendency where this perspective is shared predominantly by consultants with engineering backgrounds compared to the three other perspectives.

This perception considers flexibility (s11, +3) as the most relevant statement related to the notion of resilience, together with the statements of innovation (s2, +1) and learning by doing (s10, +2). The capacity for adaptation and flexibility are key to avoiding maladaptation (Interview K.3). For consultant D.1, as shared through the open survey questionnaire, it is necessary “to learn to live with the challenges and not try to suppress them.” This perspective emphasized the need for flexibility and learning how to cope with change instead of trying to avoid change. This is a clear way of conceptualizing resilience as “bouncing forward,” where resilience is perceived closely to transformability (s19, 1). For instance, as the “opportunity to continuously improve a system to adapt to changing environmental and natural hazards” (Q.2). There is an emphasis on the need to move beyond the “status quo” and focus on long-term adaptation that requires significant changes, design, innovation, and resource protection (L.2).

In line with this flexible, innovative, and transformative perception of resilience, this perception distinguishes the statement of oversizing as the most irrelevant (s13, −3). “Over-designing solutions is not practical in a world of finite resources” (J.2). It also distinguishes as less relevant the statements of fail-operation/coping (s7, −2) and renewability/recovery (s15, −1). It is not about “putting up greater defenses but building to allow space for water, and ability to retain water where needed through droughts” (K.3). Building a system that is fool-proof and able to cope with all known and unknown stresses is impossible (C.3). The consultants who produced this idealized Q-sort clearly reject isolation (#9, −2) as a strategy for resilience but embrace connectivity. Particularly when working on water resilience, water is mentioned as a connecting element, and it must be managed as such (K.3).

What stands out in this perception is the recurring reference to infrastructure. Consultants mention the need to adjust or manipulate infrastructure to deal with shocks such as unpredictable weather events, for instance during hurricane Katrina (O.1, Q.2, O.4). They prioritize technical expertise and specifically mentioned examples of flexible infrastructures such as lowering storm surge barriers or raising dikes (O.1). Consultant O.4 emphatically calls on giving up on “single purpose infrastructure systems and promote hybrid infrastructure.” Other ways that consultants referred to infrastructure was as “assets” or “facilities” to continue to operate/function in the face of changing climatic and environmental pressures (J.2).

Another distinguishing statement in this perception was related to self-organization (s17, 0), which is about enhancing community-based management. This statement also ranks the lowest for this perspective compared to the other three. The consultants agree that the social aspect of resilience is important, but others see technical considerations as a priority starting point. Consultant Q.2 believes that resilience is “not only ensuring that protection from natural hazards [...] but also that social services to support community members before, during, and after hazard events are critical.” It is interesting to note that consultant L.1 sees acceptability and stakeholder involvements as key, but acceptability does not mean participative. We can interpret this as resilient projects being designed and implemented with more of a buy-in approach with communities, instead of participative and co-designed. Although inclusivity (s18, +1) is a statement that seems to be important for consultants, some (such as consultant I.1) believe that social inclusivity “is only relevant to a degree. Stakeholders in a technical project need to be led by technical subject matter experts.” On the other hand, consultant C.3 firmly believes that “it’s all about people using the installations of processes. If these are not tailor-made, people won’t use them, completely missing the goal of the project.” Hence, this perspective ranks high in inclusivity and self-organization, but these are priorities only to some degree.

Consultants identified sources for this perspective in national norms (D.1), global networks such as 100 Resilient Cities (I.1), clients such as donors (L.1), practical project experiences (O.4, M.1, L.2), internal company initiatives (K.3), and academia (K.3). Furthermore, consultant I.1 made explicit connections to resilience with other notions such circularity and the water-energy nexus.

Perspective 2: adaptive multipurpose systems

The perspective of resilience as “adaptive multipurpose systems” covers Q-sorts of nine (out of 34) survey participants, being the second most represented perspective (see Fig. 5). Adaptive capacity (s1, +3) is here the most relevant and distinguished statement, with other distinguishing statements being efficiency (s6, −3), anticipation (s3, −1), sensing (s16, −1), oversizing (s13, 0) and renewability/recovery (s15, 0).

This perspective reflects a cohort of consultants that understand the notion of resilience as adaptive capacity (s1, +3). Respondents perceive resilience as “having the capacity to continue its intended function throughout a range of conditions over time, and under a range of future scenarios” (A.1). This represents a coping perspective, i.e., remaining the same and resist to a shock. Costs are rather secondary to this understanding, as the strong disagreement with the statement of efficiency (s6, −3) and of all clusters the highest value on oversizing (s13, 0) suggest. Consultant A.1 puts it this way: “The efficiency strategy, while important from a sustainability perspective, is not essential to the success from a resilience perspective. However, long-term resilience requires sustainable inputs.”

For the justification of their perspective, consultants here referred frequently to systems thinking, stressing “living systems” (A.1) or that resilience is about “building adaptive capacity at a systems level, considering the interconnectedness of the water with other natural capital” (G.1). This thinking may be rooted in a natural science background (e.g., ecology [A.1]), which many participants with this perspective have. But connections to other systems are also emphasized, such as social and infrastructural systems. When consultant A.1 works on resilience projects, the idea is “to plan actions which increase the capacity of communities (both ecological and human), and the infrastructure.”

Perspective 3: anticipation and risk aversion

This third most represented idealized Q-sort reflects a perception of resilience as anticipation and risk aversion, which covers five survey participants (see Fig. 6). This distinct perspective is characterized by strong agreement to anticipation (s3, +3) and renewability/recovery (s15, +2), with fail-operation/coping (s7, 0), efficiency (s6, −1) and transformability serving as further distinguishing statements with a neutral or negative stance. For these consultants, anticipation (s3, +3) is key: “Anticipation of impacts are critical when making decisions in this field” (K.2). Consultant F.1 “chose anticipation because you can find many short-term solutions to fight short-term issues. But if you anticipate these issues soon enough, a long-term solution can be found” (F.1). “Knowledge is power - prediction is important, so you can plan for it. Fortune favors the bold, but it also favors the prepared,” as consultant O.5 shared with us.

As these consultants value anticipation, preparedness, and prediction when working on resilient solutions, they are risk-averse and “look at the various risks clients face” (O.5). In consultant F.1’s opinion: “A resilient water-related project needs to include activities and results which aim to understand the vulnerabilities of the water body studied.” These consultants “look for solutions that simultaneously reduce the risk of hazards while building adaptive capacity” (E.1). This perspective is therefore not about seeing resilience as transformability (s19, −3); incremental change rather than transformability can be most important for change (K.2).

Another emphasis of this perspective lies on the social aspects of resilience, i.e., inclusivity (s18, +2) and social organization (s17, +2). According to consultant E.1, their firm takes “a systemic approach to resilience that centers around equity.” Resilience projects must also look at patterns that generate or exacerbate underlying stressors, including systemic racism, and should be designed collaboratively with those most impacted and those chronically excluded from processes that impact them (E.1). These are strong social and equity approaches connected to resilience thinking that can vary greatly from the opinions of other consultants who see technical knowledge as a priority for resilience (see Perspective 1).

Especially under this perspective, participants voiced critiques related to the notion of resilience and its use. Some find it very difficult to work around resilience as there is a “lack of a suitable metric for measuring resilience” that “makes it useful only as a broad generic description, not an implementation tool [...] I tend only to apply it in generic policy terms, not suitable for project metrics” (K.2). Some are “skeptical about the term resilience but have accepted the use of the term since the mid-2010s while working for [a government agency]” (K.2). For others, resilience is “jargon” or a “business language” (O.5). Some see resilience as another term for “sustainability” (O.5) and connect it to other paradigms in water management such as “Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM)” (F.1).

Respondents identified national regulators (J.1), international development agencies (K.2), and academia (E.1) as main sources for their perceptions. One younger consultant, F.1, also believes that the younger generation of consultants is more sensitive to working around the notion of resilience: “I also think that younger generations are way more sensitive to these questions and have a better sense or emergency to find solutions as they (we) are going to be the most impacted.”

Perspective 4: transformability and renewability

Perspective 4, transformability and renewability, is composed by Q-sorts of four survey participants (see Fig. 7). Distinguishing statements are renewability/recovery (s15, +3) and transformability (s19, +2)—the highest value of all—whereas biological and social diversity (s5, −1) and fail/silence (s8, −3) appeared significant but with a negative direction. Thus, this perspective sees resilience as “bouncing forward.” This understanding of resilience is said to be influenced by the academic background of the consultants (C.2), the coronavirus pandemic (C.2), and from clients (H.1).

Under this perspective, consultants believe that resilience means to improve by adapting to new forms of operating. It is about “improv[ing] the quality of life moving forward” (C.1) and being able to “quickly [...] resume in an earlier or a better state to provide service” (H.1). Consultant C.2 shared: “I chose transformability, as I hope that we transform towards a system that is more inclusive of humans and the environment. Currently, I do not think adaptation is enough to curb the socio-environmental challenges that we face.”

As this statement further highlights, this perspective strongly emphasizes social and political characteristics around resilience. Consultants here understand that the “political economy” drives the decisions taken to tackle water challenges, and not only the other way around where “water drives the political, social and environmental economy” (L.3). They further mention the importance of working with diverse perspectives for achieving resilience: “I’m a strong believer of a multi-actor approach because of the strength and power of many brains” (C.1). Consultant C.1 believes that “these topics are too impactful to rely on the communities alone to solve the issues at hand.”

DISCUSSION

Key insights

Through this study using the Q-methodology and surveying consultants, we have identified four distinct perspectives among consultants from top global environmental consultancy firms regarding resilience. These perspectives all presented distinct perspectives, albeit with degrees of overlap, related to the types of systems to which resilience is applied, types of disruptive events such as shocks or stressors or a combination of both, as well as a wide spectrum of transformability affinity, ranging from resistance to transformation (see Muñoz-Erickson et al. 2021). We found distinct differences in perspectives in relating resilience to social systems and deep systemic stressors. Beyond the differences in perspectives, consultants expressed challenges and skepticism in working on resilience as well as their own roles in circulating resilience thinking. The next sections discuss these findings.

Social systems and resilience

Most consultants align with Perspectives 1 and 2, perceiving resilience as a balance between coping and bouncing forward. What does differ between these two perspectives is their association of resilience with either technological or social-ecological systems thinking (see Grimm et al. 2017). Perspective 1, the most popular perspective, prioritizes technical expertise and explicitly refers to infrastructure, whereas Perspective 2 refers to a systems approach with a stronger human and ecological perspective. These findings closely align with Rodina’s (2018) work, which describes the types of systems to which resilience is applied, categorizing these as social, technological/engineering, or ecological/coupled social-ecological systems. We observed these categories in both perspectives.

Consultants demonstrated varied perspectives on the role of social systems in resilience projects. Although social aspects are deemed important by all perspectives, some consultants prioritize technical aspects over community engagement and view stakeholder involvement as project “buy-in” instead of working with communities in a participative manner (see Perspective 1). There is an emerging emphasis on designing resilient solutions with people as central, particularly in the face of shocks such as storms (see Perspective 1). At the same time, consultants acknowledged a systemic approach to resilience that centers around equity, urging to investigate, not only shocks but underlying stressors, such as systemic racism, and co-designing solutions with the most impacted and chronically excluded (Perspectives 3 and 4). This raises critical questions about how consultants allocate time in their projects to reflect on and address key issues: resilience for what purpose and for whom? (see Dewulf et al. 2019:3, Meerow and Newell 2019:309). Furthermore, we might ask: resilience with whom? This invites reflection on who consultants are collaborating with in designing and implementing resilience projects, and how—or whether—they are meaningfully engaging the affected communities in these processes.

Reflexivity and root causes

The study reveals consultants’ varying considerations of shocks and systemic stress in characterizing resilience (in line with Olsson et al. 2014). Perspective 1 made more explicit mentions of shocks, whereas systemic stresses such as racism or the political economy appeared in Perspectives 3 and 4. Nevertheless, these root cause topics were largely missing in all perspectives and in this sense our results relate well with critiques from social scientists on the use of resilience (see Sudmeier-Rieux 2014, Kaika 2017, Amo-Agyeman 2021, Marshall and Lobry de Bruyn 2021). This prompts a reflection on consultants’ reflexive practices in their daily work and their engagement with root questions when working on resilience projects.

Engaging with and circulating the malleability of resilience

Our study showcases the variety of interpretations and conceptualizations of resilience (see Amo-Agyemang 2021). Consultants often find resilience to be a fluid and adaptable term, making it challenging to navigate in practice (see Brand and Jax 2007). Our findings reveal how consultants actively engage with the malleability of resilience, drawing influences from various sources or making it fit to their own circumstances. They are not only influenced by diverse understandings of resilience but also actively participating by brokering and circulating their diverse perspectives on resilience.

Despite embracing resilience, consultants expressed skepticism toward it and acknowledged its label as an industry jargon (see Leitner et al. 2018). They often advocate for specific resilience strategies in different situations. This means that consultants also act in a manner where they broker and translate resilience based on specific interests. The malleable nature of resilience is apparent as consultants easily connected resilience to notions of circularity, water-energy-nexus, sustainability, and IWRM. However, consultants also admitted that working around resilience is difficult because of a lack of suitable metrics to measure it, but it is useful as a broad generic description.

Our study resonates with existing research that views resilience as a “boundary object” (Brand and Jax 2007) and even as far as portraying it as an “empty signifier” (Weichselgartner and Kelman 2014). Consultants embrace resilience as a boundary object to facilitate connections and implement resilient projects. By engaging with diverse perceptions of resilience and circulating their own meanings, consultants play a pivotal role in shaping the narrative and application of resilience in their practice. We find how consultants are actively part of global networks of environmental governance where they play a role in brokering and diffusing four clustered perspectives of resilience in the international agenda.

Limitations

This study is not without any limitations. Firstly, we adopted an online Q-method and survey. Implementing this study online had its advantages and disadvantages. The advantages were that the method allowed us to work in the scenario and context of the COVID-19 pandemic. At the same time, working online allowed for a more efficient manner to use less participant time in busy consultancy schedules. It also allowed us to include participants in different countries, therefore expanding the scope of participants. Nevertheless, the online Q method was not always easy to implement for the participants. At the same time, the sample size was small and the participation of consultants in the survey may be correlated with their interest in the topic. Nonetheless, given the culture of closeness and secrecy of the consultancy sector, we believe that our sample provides a useful overview of the various ideas and interpretations prevalent among this globally active actor group. Therefore, for future research our analysis could be complemented with, for instance, a focus group discussion.

CONCLUSION

(...) But only if we use [resilience] with our eyes open wide, and if we bring to the fore the implicit values that underpin resilience when it is used (...) (Davoudi 2013:4).

Through this study, we have found that consultants from environmental consultancy firms conceptualize and understand water resilience in different ways. Specifically, consultants from global environmental consultancy firms perceive resilience in four ways ranked by popularity: (1) resilience through flexible infrastructure, (2) resilience through adaptive multipurpose systems, (3) resilience through risk anticipation and aversion, and (4) resilience through transformability and renewability. Consultants prioritize aspects such as technical expertise or social systems related to resilience differently, and they push the paradigm of resilience in directions based on different (market) interests. Through this paper, we hope to have shed light on how private consultancy firms interpret and engage with key policy concepts within their policy networks. Our findings reveal varying understandings of resilience from the perspective of the consultancy industry and align with recognizing resilience as a malleable concept and a boundary object. Furthermore, we highlight the active role consultants play in perpetuating the malleability of resilience through their involvement in global environmental policy networks. Consultants are neither passive nor merely reactive; they have agency and influence over policy concepts in relation to other actors, such as clients, donors, and affected communities. They both contribute to and perpetuate the malleability of policy concepts. Moreover, because of the predominantly project-based and short-term nature of their work, consultants often lack the opportunity or incentive to address the root causes of the issues they are contracted to solve. Therefore, questions related to with whom and how consultants are advising on policy concepts deserve more attention.

As future avenues for research on consultancies as well as their praxis, we suggest—in line with current scholarship (see Dewulf et al. 2019, Meerow and Newell 2019, NEWAVE 2023)—a more reflexive way of regarding consultancies within international environmental governance: resilience for/with whom, what, when, where, and why? Future research questions may ask: Are consultants operating in a reflexive manner when commissioned to roll out a resilience project? This study gives the first indications that this might not be a general common practice, but this would be interesting to investigate further. Moreover, our invitation to the consultancy praxis is to put into practice asking resilience questions that bring consultants closer to working on advising at the level of core stresses, whether political, environmental, or economical, which call for communities to become resilient.

__________

^[1] See 2023 Top 200 Environmental Firms in Engineering News-Record: http://www.enr.com/toplists/2023-Top-200-Environmental-Firms-Preview.

LITERATURE CITED

Akhtar-Danesh, N. 2017. A comparison between major factor extraction and factor rotation techniques in Q-methodology. Open Journal of Applied Sciences 7:147-156. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojapps.2017.74013

Aldunce, P., R. Beilin, M. Howden, and J. Handmer. 2015. Resilience for disaster risk management in a changing climate: practitioners’ frames and practices. Global Environmental Change 30:1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.10.010

Alvesson, M. 2004. Knowledge work and knowledge-intensive firms. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199259342.001.0001

Amo-Agyemang, C. 2021. Decolonising the discourse on resilience. International Journal of African Renaissance Studies - Multi-, Inter- and Transdisciplinarity 16:4-30. https://doi.org/10.1080/18186874.2021.1962725

Armatas, C., T. Venn, and A. Watson. 2017. Understanding social-ecological vulnerability with Q-methodology: a case study of water-based ecosystem services in Wyoming, USA. Sustainability Science 12:105-121. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-016-0369-1

Arup, The Resilience Shift, The Rockefeller Foundation. 2019. City Water Resilience Approach: Water Resilience Literature Review. https://www.resilienceshift.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/CWRA_Literature-Review.pdf

Bahadur, A. V., M. Ibrahim, and T. Tanner. 2013. Characterising resilience: unpacking the concept for tackling climate change and development. Climate and Development 5:55-65. https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2012.762334

Barry, J., and J. Proops. 1999. Seeking sustainability discourses with Q methodology. Ecological Economics 28:337-345. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(98)00053-6

Béné, C., L. Mehta, G. McGranahan, T. Cannon, J. Gupte, and T. Tanner. 2017. Resilience as a policy narrative: potentials and limits in the context of urban planning. Climate and Development 10(2):116-133. https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2017.1301868

Berkes, F. 2012. Implementing ecosystem‐based management: evolution or revolution? Fish and Fisheries 13(4):465-476. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-2979.2011.00452.x

Beveridge, R. 2012. Consultants, depoliticization and arena-shifting in the policy process: privatizing water in Berlin. Policy Sciences 45:47-68. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-011-9144-4

Boltz, F., N. LeRoy Poff, C. Folke, N. Kete, C. M. Brown, S. St. George Freeman, J. H. Matthews, A. Martinez, and J. Rockström. 2019. Water is a master variable: solving for resilience in the modern era. Water Security 8:100048. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasec.2019.100048

Borie, M., M. Pelling, G. Ziervogel, and K. Hyams. 2019. Mapping narratives of urban resilience in the global south. Global Environmental Change 54:203-213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.01.001

Bouteligier, S. 2011. Exploring the agency of global environmental consultancy firms in earth system governance. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics 11:43-61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-011-9149-7

Brand, F. S., and K. Jax. 2007. Focusing the meaning(s) of resilience: resilience as a descriptive concept and a boundary object. Ecology and Society 12(1):23. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-02029-120123

Brown, K. 2013. Global environmental change I: a social turn for resilience? Progress in Human Geography 38(1):107-117. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132513498837

Brown, S. R. 1993. A primer on Q methodology. Operant Subjectivity 16:91-138. https://doi.org/10.22488/okstate.93.100504

Burchard-Levine, A., D. Huitema, N. W. Jager, and I. Bijlsma. 2024. Consultancy firms’ roles in policy diffusion: a systematic review from the environmental governance field. Policy Sciences 57:691-718. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-024-09540-x

Carpenter, S., B. Walker, J. M. Anderies, and N. Abel. 2001. From metaphor to measurement: resilience of what to what? Ecosystems 4:765-781. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-001-0045-9

Davoudi, S. 2013. On resilience. disP - The Planning Review 49(1):4-5. https://doi.org/10.1080/02513625.2013.799852

Dearing, J. W., G. Meyer, and J. Kazmierzak. 1994. Portraying the new: communication between university innovators and potential users. Science Communication 16:11-42. https://doi.org/10.1177/0164025994016001002

Demiroz, F., and T. W. Haase. 2018. The concept of resilience: a bibliometric analysis of the emergency and disaster management literature. Local Government Studies 45:308-327. https://doi.org/10.1080/03003930.2018.1541796

Dewan, C. 2020. ‘Climate change as a spice’: brokering environmental knowledge in Bangladesh’s development industry. Ethnos 87:538-559. https://doi.org/10.1080/00141844.2020.1788109

Dewulf, A., T. Karpouzoglou, J. Warner, A. Wesselink, F. Mao, J. Vos, P. Tamas, A. E. Groot, A. Heijmans, F. Ahmed, et al. 2019. The power to define resilience in social-hydrological systems: toward a power-sensitive resilience framework. WIREs Water 6:e1377. https://doi.org/10.1002/WAT2.1377

Dobbin, K. B., M. Kuo, M. Lubell, D. Bostic, J. Mendoza, and E. Echeveste. 2023. Drivers of (in)equity in collaborative environmental governance. Policy Studies Journal 51:375-395. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12483

Dobbin, K. B., and M. Lubell. 2021. Collaborative governance and environmental justice: disadvantaged community representation in California sustainable groundwater management. Policy Studies Journal 49:562-590. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12375

Dougherty, M. L. 2019. Boom times for technocrats? How environmental consulting companies shape mining governance. Extractive Industries and Society 6:443-453. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exis.2019.01.007

Falkenmark, M. 2020. Water resilience and human life support - global outlook for the next half century. International Journal of Water Resources Development 36:377-396. https://doi.org/10.1080/07900627.2019.1693983

Falkenmark, M., L. Wang-Erlandsson, and J. Rockström. 2019. Understanding of water resilience in the Anthropocene. Journal of Hydrology X 2:100009. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hydroa.2018.100009

Fincham, R., T. Clark, K. Handley, and A. Sturdy. 2008. Configuring expert knowledge: the consultant as sector specialist. Journal of Organizational Behavior 29:1145-1160. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.559

Folke, C. 2006. Resilience: the emergence of a perspective for social-ecological systems analyses. Global Environmental Change 16:253-267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.04.002

Folke, C. 2016. Resilience (republished). Ecology and Society 21(4):44. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09088-210444

Gagnon, M. L. 2011. Moving knowledge to action through dissemination and exchange. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 64(1):25-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.08.013

Glaser, B. G. 1978. Theoretical sensitivity. Advances in the methodology of grounded theory. Sociology Press, Mill Valley, California, USA.

Grimm, N. B., S. T. A. Pickett, R. L. Hale, and M. L. Cadenasso. 2017. Does the ecological concept of disturbance have utility in urban social-ecological-technological systems? Ecosystem Health and Sustainability 3(1):e01255. https://doi.org/10.1002/ehs2.1255

Harm Benson, M., and A. S. Garmestani. 2011. Can we manage for resilience? The integration of resilience thinking into natural resource management in the United States. Environmental Management 48:392-399. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-011-9693-5

Hasan, S., J. Evers, A. Zegwaard, and M. Zwarteveen. 2019. Making waves in the Mekong Delta: recognizing the work and the actors behind the transfer of Dutch delta planning expertise. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 62(9):1583-1602. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2019.1592745

Henry, D., and J. E. Ramirez-Marquez. 2012. Generic metrics and quantitative approaches for system resilience as a function of time. Reliability Engineering & System Safety 99:114-122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2011.09.002

Hojem, T. S. M. 2012. Bridging two worlds? The troubled transfer of new environmental knowledge from science to consulting engineers. Acta Sociologica 55(4):321-334. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001699312460252

Holling, C.S. 1973. Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 4:1-23. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.es.04.110173.000245

Holling, C. S., and L. H. Gunderson. 2002. Panarchy: understanding transformations in human and natural systems. Island Press, Washington, D.C., USA.

Howlett, M., and A. Migone. 2013. Policy advice through the market: the role of external consultants in contemporary policy advisory systems. Policy and Society 32(3):241-254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polsoc.2013.07.005

Jordan, A., and D. Huitema. 2014. Innovations in climate policy: the politics of invention, diffusion, and evaluation. Environmental Politics 23(5):715-734. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2014.923614

Kaika, M. 2017. ‘Don’t call me resilient again!’: the New Urban Agenda as immunology ... or ... what happens when communities refuse to be vaccinated with ‘smart cities’ and indicators. Environment & Urbanization 29(1):89-102. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956247816684763

Keele, S. 2017. Outsourcing adaptation: examining the role and influence of consultants in governing climate change adaptation. Dissertation. University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.

Keele, S. 2019. Consultants and the business of climate services: implications of shifting from public to private science. Climate Change 157:9-26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-019-02385-x

Kim, Y., N. B. Grimm, M. V. Chester, and C. L. Redman. 2021. Capturing practitioner perspectives on infrastructure resilience using Q-methodology. Environmental Research: Infrastructure and Sustainability 1:025002. https://doi.org/10.1088/2634-4505/ac0f98

Kipping, M., and C. Wright. 2012. Consultants in context: global dominance, societal effect, and the capitalist system. Pages 165-186 in T. Clark and M. Kipping, editors. The Oxford handbook of management consulting. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199235049.013.0008

Klise, K. A., R. Murray, and T. Haxton. 2018. An overview of the Water Network Tool for Resilience (WNTR). WDSA / CCWI 2018 Joint Conference, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.

Laeni, N., M. van den Brink, and J. Arts. 2019. Is Bangkok becoming more resilient to flooding? A framing analysis of Bangkok’s flood resilience policy combining insights from both insiders and outsiders. Cities 90:157-167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2019.02.002

Leitner, H., E. Sheppard, S. Webber, and E. Colven. 2018. Globalizing urban resilience. Urban Geography 39(8):1276-1284. https://doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2018.1446870

Levin, S., T. Xepapadeas, A.-S. Crépin, J. Norberg, A. de Zeeuw, C. Folke, T. Hughes, K. Arrow, S. Barrett, G. Daily, et al. 2012. Social-ecological systems as complex adaptive systems: modeling and policy implications. Environment and Development Economics 18:111-132. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355770X12000460

Linkov, I., T. Bridges, F. Creutzig, J. Decker, C. Fox-Lent, W. Kröger, J. H. Lambert, A. Levermann, B. Montreuil, J. Nathwani, et al. 2014. Changing the resilience paradigm. Nature Climate Change 4:407-409. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2227

Linkov, I., D. A. Eisenberg, M. E. Bates, D. Chang, M. Convertino, J. H. Allen, S. E. Flynn, and T. P. Seager. 2013. Measurable resilience for actionable policy. Environmental Science & Technology 47(18):10108-10110. https://doi.org/10.1021/es403443n

Lutfallah, S., and L. Buchanan. 2019. Quantifying subjective data using online Q-methodology software. The Mental Lexicon 14(3):415-423. https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.20002.lut

Manyena, B., G. O’Brien, P. O’Keefe, and J. Rose. 2011. Disaster resilience: a bounce back or bounce forward ability? Local Environment 16(5):417-424. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2011.583049

Marciano, R. 2023. More than just experts for hire: a conceptualization of the roles of consultants in public policy formulation. Policy Studies Journal 51:573-585. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12495

Marshall, G. R., and L. A. Lobry de Bruyn. 2021. Water policy reform for sustainable development in the Murray-Darling Basin, Australia: insights from resilience thinking. In J. Baird and R. Plummer, editors. Water resilience. Springer, Cham, Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-48110-0_4

McClymont, K., D. Morrison, L. Beevers, and E. Carmen. 2020. Flood resilience: a systematic review. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 63(7):1151-1176. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2019.1641474

McGreavy, B. 2016. Resilience as discourse. Environmental Communication 10(1):104-121. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2015.1014390

Meerow, S., and J. P. Newell. 2019. Urban resilience for whom, what, when, where, and why? Urban Geography 40(3):309-329. https://doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2016.1206395

Meerow, S., and M. Stults. 2016. Comparing conceptualizations of urban climate resilience in theory and practice. Sustainability 8(7):701. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8070701

Michaels, S. 2009. Matching knowledge brokering strategies to environmental policy problems and settings. Environmental Science & Policy 12(7):994-1011. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2009.05.002

Miles, M. B., and A. M. Huberman. 1994. Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook. Second edition. Sage, Thousand Oaks, California, USA.

Muñoz-Erickson, T. A., S. Meerow, R. Hobbins, E. Cook, D. M. Iwaniec, M. Berbés-Blázquez, N. B. Grimm, A. Barnett, J. Cordero, C. Gim, et al. 2021. Beyond bouncing back? Comparing and contesting urban resilience frames in US and Latin American contexts. Landscape and Urban Planning 214:104173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2021.104173

NEWAVE. 2023. Policy brief: overcoming obstacles for reflexive research practices in water governance: perspectives from early stage researchers.

Nieuwenhuis, E., E. Cuppen, and J. Langeveld. 2022. The role of integration for future urban water systems: identifying Dutch urban water practitioners’ perspectives using Q methodology. Cities 126:103659. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2022.103659

Olsson, P., V. Galaz, and W. J. Boonstra. 2014. Sustainability transformations: a resilience perspective. Ecology and Society 19(4):1. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06799-190401

Owen, D. 2021. Private facilitators of public regulation: a study of the environmental consulting industry. Regulation & Governance 15:226-242. https://doi.org/10.1111/REGO.12284

Owen, D. 2019. Consultants, the environment, and the law. Arizona Law Review 61:823.

Pelling, M. 2010. Adaptation to climate change: from resilience to transformation. Routledge, London, UK. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203889046

Q Method Software. 2022. An easy-to-use tool to create & conduct your Q Methodology research online. https://qmethodsoftware.com/

Reihlen, M., and N. Nikolova. 2010. Knowledge production in consulting teams. Scandinavian Journal of Management 26(3):279-289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scaman.2010.05.004

Rockström, J., M. Falkenmark, T. Allan, C. Folke, L. Gordon, A. Jägerskog, M. Kummu, M. Lannerstad, M. Meybeck, D. Molden, et al. 2014. The unfolding water drama in the Anthropocene: towards a resilience-based perspective on water for global sustainability. Ecohydrology 7(5):1249-1261. https://doi.org/10.1002/eco.1562

Rodina, L. 2018. Defining “water resilience”: debates, concepts, approaches, and gaps. WIREs Water 6:e1334. https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1334

Sardo, A. M., and E. Weitkamp. 2017. Environmental consultants, knowledge brokering and policy-making: a case study. International Journal of Environmental Policy and Decision Making 2(3):221-235. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJEPDM.2017.085407

Scott, T. A., and D. P. Carter. 2019. Collaborative governance or private policy making? When consultants matter more than participation in collaborative environmental planning. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning 21(2):153-173. https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2019.1566061

Scott, T. A., N. Marantz, and N. Ulibarri. 2022. Use of boilerplate language in regulatory documents: evidence from environmental impact statements. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 32(3):576-590. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muab048

Shin, S., S. Lee, D. R. Judi, M. Parvania, E. Goharian, T. McPherson, and S. J. Burian. 2018. A systematic review of quantitative resilience measures for water infrastructure systems. Water 10(2):164. https://doi.org/10.3390/w10020164

Sneegas, G., S. Beckner, C. Brannstrom, W. Jepson, K. Lee, and L. Seghezzo. 2021. Using Q-methodology in environmental sustainability research: a bibliometric analysis and systematic review. Ecological Economics 180:106864. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106864

Stephenson, W. 1953. The study of behavior; Q-technique and its methodology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, USA.

Stockholm Resilience Center. 2022. Resilience dictionary. https://www.stockholmresilience.org/research/resilience-dictionary.html

Stone, D., L. A. Pal, and O. Porto de Oliveira. 2021. Private consultants and policy advisory organizations: a blind spot on policy transfer research. Pages 173-195 in O. Porto de Oliveira, editor. Handbook of policy transfer, diffusion and circulation. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781789905601.00017

Stone, D., O. Porto de Oliveira, and L. A. Pal. 2020. Transnational policy transfer: the circulation of ideas, power and development models. Policy and Society 39(1):1-18. https://doi.org/10.1080/14494035.2019.1619325

Sudmeier-Rieux, K. I. 2014. Resilience - an emerging paradigm of danger or of hope? Disaster Prevention and Management 23(1):67-80. https://doi.org/10.1108/DPM-12-2012-0143

Taber, P. 2020. Environmental consulting as experimental system: uncertainty and emergence in Ecuador’s oil sector, 1988-2001. Geoforum 108:88-97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2019.12.001

Thompson, M. 2012. Perspectives from the field: ethics in environmental consulting. Environmental Practice 14(3):233-236. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1466046612000221

Thoradeniya, P., A. Ferreira, J. Lee, and R. Tan. 2020. The diffusion of sustainability key performance indicators in a developing country context. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 34(5):1246-1274. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-07-2019-4106

Torabi, E., A. Dedekorkut-Howes, and M. Howes. 2018. Adapting or maladapting: building resilience to climate-related disasters in coastal cities. Cities 72(B):295-309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2017.09.008

Vogelpohl, A. 2018. Global expertise, local convincing power: management consultants and preserving the entrepreneurial city. Urban Studies Journal Limited 56(1):97-114. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098018768490

Walker, B., C. S. Holling, S. R. Carpenter, and A. Kinzig. 2004. Resilience, adaptability and transformability in social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society 9(2):5. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-00650-090205

Watts, S., and P. Stenner. 2012. Doing Q methodological research: theory, method and interpretation. SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446251911

Weichselgartner, J., and I. Kelman. 2014. Geographies of resilience: challenges and opportunities of a descriptive concept. Progress in Human Geography 39(3):249-267. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132513518834

Weinstein, L., A. Rumbach, and S. Sinha. 2019. Resilient growth: fantasy plans and unplanned developments in India’s flood-prone coastal cities. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 43(2):273-291. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.12743

White, P. 2020. ‛Bastard children’: unacknowledged consulting companies in development cooperation. International Development Planning Review 42(2):219-240. https://doi.org/10.3828/idpr.2019.36

Zabala, A. 2014. qmethod: a package to explore human perspectives using Q methodology. R Journal 6(2):163-174. https://doi.org/10.32614/RJ-2014-032

Zabala, A., and U. Pascual. 2016. Bootstrapping Q Methodology to improve the understanding of human perspectives. PLoS ONE 11(2):e0148087. https://doi.org/10.1371/JOURNAL.PONE.0148087

---