LAUSR

Abstract Existing but limited empirical research suggests that while inclusivity, equity and justice are centrally important to building resilience, City governments do not consistently prioritize equity in resultant plans. Hence, more research is needed to unearth pathways toward equitable resilience planning. The goal of this paper is to contribute to this empirical gap, asking whether and how principles of justice have been incorporated in in-situ resilience planning. We explore a case study from one participating City in the “100 Resilient Cities” (100RC) program, Toronto. Using key informant interviews and document analysis, we examine how Toronto addressed equity and inclusion throughout the “ResilientTO” public engagement process. We find that Toronto's Resilient Conversations approach supports the notion that programs that treat resilience as a process of negotiation rather than a discrete outcome can help to advance procedural justice. We analyze the benefits and limitations to applying the theory of negotiated resilience in relation to common criticisms of collaborative planning. We find that certain bureaucratic norms, such as a tendency toward project-based planning and consultation, impede the transformative potential of negotiated resilience in practice. The findings of this research can inform more procedurally just strategic planning processes in North American cities.