Abstract Crisis as a result of global environmental change, such as extreme floods, droughts, bushfires, and planetary health issues such as pandemic, is becoming more common, seriously diminishing infrastructure integrity and undermining resilience across many urban areas. The literature conceptualises crisis in terms of a special event of exogenous origin punctuating the evolutionary dynamics of prevailing socio-technical or socio-ecological systems. Crisis has been examined in terms of its opposing functions, i.e. perpetuating the status quo, or, triggering systemic transformation. Each pathway has been studied in isolation, representing a critical gap in theorising the link between governance conditions and the different crisis pathways. In this paper, we extend this debate by developing an analytical framework that brings together the two perspectives while enriching them with institutional and practice theories. Our aim is to guide comparative studies of ongoing practices within urban governance systems that shape the two crisis pathways. Our framework is applied in two empirical case studies of Melbourne’s response to the Millennium Drought and Surabaya’s response to waste crisis. The framework helps clarify how a specific set of reactive responses shaped path dependency in the Melbourne’s crisis, whilst in the case of Surabaya a different set of proactive responses helped trigger transformative adaptation. In linking crisis to specific institutional practices, including policy and regulatory settings, resource allocation, cognitive culture, and social mobilisation, our research shows that proactive responses for transformative adaptation require preparation and long-term commitment to be in place ahead of the onset of crisis. Understanding the conditions under which such proactive pathway may be fostered and reactive pathway kept in check is an important research agenda for advancing knowledge at the intersection between urban governance and sustainability transformation.

中文翻译：

---

将危机在变革性适应中的作用理论化

摘要 全球环境变化（如极端洪水、干旱、丛林大火和大流行等地球健康问题）导致的危机正变得越来越普遍，严重削弱了基础设施的完整性，并削弱了许多城市地区的复原力。文献根据外生起源的特殊事件来概念化危机，该事件打破了流行的社会技术或社会生态系统的进化动态。危机已经从其相反的功能方面进行了审查，即维持现状，或触发系统性转型。每条路径都是单独研究的，这代表了将治理条件与不同危机路径之间的联系理论化的关键差距。在本文中，我们通过开发一个分析框架来扩展这场辩论，该框架将两种观点结合在一起，同时用制度和实践理论丰富它们。我们的目标是指导对塑造两种危机路径的城市治理系统中正在进行的实践的比较研究。我们的框架应用于墨尔本应对千年干旱和泗水应对废物危机的两个实证案例研究。该框架有助于阐明一组特定的反应式反应如何在墨尔本危机中塑造路径依赖，而在泗水的情况下，一组不同的主动式反应有助于触发变革性适应。将危机与具体的制度实践联系起来，包括政策和监管环境、资源分配、认知文化和社会动员，我们的研究表明，变革性适应的积极响应需要在危机爆发之前做好准备和长期承诺。了解在何种条件下可以促进这种主动途径和控制反应途径是在城市治理和可持续性转型之间推进知识的重要研究议程。