Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) is globally regarded as a suitable alternative to adapt to the effects of Climate Change. Chile, México, and Brazil are developing countries that are highly vulnerable to climate change and have different water management models, thus presenting the strengths and challenges for IWRM compliance. Our analysis aims to compare advances in terms of the achievement of SDG 6.5.1 in these countries, in relation to the degree of implementation of IWRM and their correlation to the OECD principles on Water Governance. We used IWRM Data Portal, UNEP-DHI, including 33 indicators, and we used the proposal of Bertule et al., (2018) to analyze the relationship among IWRM and governance. Our findings indicate that the Chilean model has low social involvement in water management due to a market-based water governance system with weak state regulation and lack of legal instruments to implement watershed management programs. In Mexico and Brazil, there is greater citizen involvement in watershed organizations, and ecosystems and aquifers have been incorporated to aid with water management. These three countries show a low performance of gender indicators, deficient financing, and information in terms of decision-making, and a lack of effective mechanisms for social participation, which are key aspects of governance.

Resilience is a critically important factor to consider for sustainably managing natural resources and social-ecological systems (SESs). Each social system will, collectively, have its own goals for how resources are perceived and the principles that underpin their resilience, and, multiple actors, individually, will approach the question with different perspectives. Here, we represent these plural perspectives in terms of worldviews, using the typologies from cultural theory. We combined the underpinning resilience principles from a previously built SES model to assess the extent to which these worldviews influence the results. Resilience was measured using a prototype Dynamic Resilience Index (DRI) validated in a previous publication. The results show the resilience of our SESs will behave in three different ways depending on each worldview used. Free markets (individualists) start the simulation period with a higher resilience. Strong governance (hierarchy) will take a higher position around 2025 and maintain the best value to the end of the simulation in 2100. The precautionary principle (egalitarians) starts with the lowest values for the DRI but ends closer to the strong governance, and it is the only worldview that increased its resilience throughout the simulation. Each worldview couples better to a particular management approach, and the SES behavior responds accordingly. The relevance for the governance of the SES is great as each worldview brings flawed contributions to resilience and wellbeing. Our research also shows that a possible negotiated solution between these worldviews would locate resilience inside the “solution space,” which is graphically determined and discussed. Adopting each worldview is then discussed in terms of contributions and problems they imply to the system's resilience.

The historical development of the urban realm has brought marvelous benefits to humankind, which has profited from the infrastructure, services, and social networks provided by cities. Nonetheless, considering current and future risks, understanding how cities can absorb impacts and reorganize their structure while keeping their identities is fundamental and timely. In other words, understanding how to promote resilience is crucial. This study developed a comparative urban resilience index (CURI) formed by 29 indicators and applied it to case studies in Europe, China, and the Americas (Malmö, Vienna, Beijing, Shanghai, Baltimore, and São Paulo). An innovative identity dimension was built to embrace the cultural traits of studied cities. Results point to a systemic property of CURI when comparing cities in both timeframes (2000 and 2020). In addition, two groups were formed: Malmö, Beijing, and Baltimore increased their resilience due to higher performance in at least two dimensions; Shanghai, Vienna, and São Paulo decreased their resilience due to lower performance in at least three dimensions. Ranking the data in terms of the benchmark promoted a quick understanding of which city is the “best in class” for each dimension, creating a clear way forward for other cities to follow.