After three weeks bumming around Central Asia, I return to find that the blog has been kept alive through the efforts of my colleagues John Plodinec and Andy Felts. Thank you.
As a follow up to Andy Felts’ October 6 thoughts on what a community is, here is an additional perspective from the CARRI Research Director, Tom Wilbanks. It is extracted from a soon-to-be published CARRI Research Report that summarizes what we know about scale and community resilience.
"The term ‘community’ means different things to different people. To some, a stable, cohesive, socially-interrelated neighborhood is a community. To some, a place of worship is a community. To some, a place of employment can be a community. At the same time, ‘community’ is often used as a social equivalent of a city or town, which is obviously a collection of communities that in some cases may share little more than physical proximity.
"Other uses of the concept are even broader. In this mobile world, connected by modern transportation systems and information technologies, communities can develop that have a strong self-identification but are networks of connections rather than pieces of a mosaic (Wilbanks, 2003). One well-known figure in climate change impact research observed: ‘If I were to die tomorrow, 15 people in my local community would come to my funeral, but 200 people from my professional community worldwide would send a message to my wife.’
"How community size relates to its sustainability is an interesting issue. For instance, a larger size means access to a wider range of resources, but a smaller size means simpler decision-making processes, which can translate into greater agility."
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Communities and Pandemics
The following is offered by Dr. John Plodinec, Associate Director for Community Resilience Certification at CARRI.
Over the past few weeks, a CARRI team has been examining the impacts of pandemics on communities, and how to reduce them. The objective has been to identify actions communities should take before they are crippled by a pandemic to reduce impacts or speed recovery. While there is a tremendous amount of guidance available for specific sectors of a community (e.g., health care); there is very little aimed at the community as a whole.
The high rate of infection associated with a pandemic makes loss of human resources the most important direct impact. This results in a wide variety of indirect impacts – deaths, absenteeism, increased stress on those still working, a generally fearful population, and a variety of cascading effects. Both official and personal constraints on travel may limit the spread of disease but may exacerbate economic impacts.
In keeping with CARRI’s overarching goal to be relevant to any community, the impacts on different kinds of communities (large / small, urban / rural) were considered. While the effort is not yet complete, some interesting policy questions are being raised.
- Who should be immunized first, if the supply of vaccines is limited? While health care workers clearly should be among the first, it appears that there are both moral and practical reasons to also include some of those providing essential services, such as maintaining a community’s water and energy systems or guarding its prisons.
- Should special assistance be available for farmers? If a pandemic hits during either planting or harvest seasons, farmers could lose an entire crop. The resulting cascading impacts through a rural community would be devastating.
- Should private contractors responsible for providing essential community services (e.g., solid waste collection and disposal) be contractually required to have approved plans to continue operations in the face of a pandemic? Without such a requirement, a private contractor might be willing to pay a penalty for not providing service during a pandemic rather than try to maintain operations.
- What special actions should be taken to limit the impacts of a pandemic on prisons? Our nation's prisons are overcrowded, making them ideal candidates for contagion. The lack of trust between inmates and prison staff could easily slip into chaos if either the inmates panicked, or reduced staff led to loss of control.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Social and Professional Networking: Does it affect a community’s resilience?
The following is offered by Dr. Andy Felts, CARRI Research Associate and Director of the Joseph P. Riley, Jr. Institute for Urban Affairs and Policy Studies, College of Charleston, Charleston, South Carolina.
In the previous blog, John Plodinec gives a good definition of ‘community’ that reflects CARRI’s goal of promoting resilience. A community is a group bound by geography and perceived self-interest that carry out common functions.
While this has worked to keep the CARRI Team focused on a common goal, it is worthwhile to point out that it has raised a number of questions relating back to resilience for us as well.
One important question is whether or not new forms of social (and perhaps even professional) networking have an effect on a community’s resilience. While we have long had two-way forms of networking via telecommunication, it is undeniable that an explosion has occurred in the last few years. Text-messaging, instant messaging and Internet chat rooms now create virtual communities that are not constrained by geography. Voice over Internet, accompanied by cameras, now allows visual and voice communication halfway around the world for less than it used to cost to dial an adjacent area code. As these have consumed our time (and resources), do they have a negative, positive, or no effect at all on the building of social capital that once was done through more geographically specific ways such as interacting with others in our neighborhoods, clubs, churches and the workplace? Social capital is an important concept since it refers to the social cohesion that a community needs to carry out its common functions.
What about telecommuting? There are lots of good things to be said about it, including eliminating long hours for some that would be spent alone in a car. But the workplace also was once where ‘bridging social capital’ was created; that is, interaction between socially different groups. As people telecommute, do they lose a common community vision that may have been supported by workplace, face-to-face interaction? Does this affect resilience?
Finally, another question is raised by the sociologist Ray Oldenburg with his advancing of the function a “third place” plays in community building. By that term, he referred to places other than home or work where people go to relax and feel a part of a community. A third place can be a café, bar, neighborhood basketball court, barber or beauty shop, etc. As these have become more geographically less proximate for many because of community design, is community resilience affected?
It is important to note that these are CARRI questions. As such, they demand more research that specifically links them to community resilience before more definitive answers can be given. It will be research worth undertaking.
In the previous blog, John Plodinec gives a good definition of ‘community’ that reflects CARRI’s goal of promoting resilience. A community is a group bound by geography and perceived self-interest that carry out common functions.
While this has worked to keep the CARRI Team focused on a common goal, it is worthwhile to point out that it has raised a number of questions relating back to resilience for us as well.
One important question is whether or not new forms of social (and perhaps even professional) networking have an effect on a community’s resilience. While we have long had two-way forms of networking via telecommunication, it is undeniable that an explosion has occurred in the last few years. Text-messaging, instant messaging and Internet chat rooms now create virtual communities that are not constrained by geography. Voice over Internet, accompanied by cameras, now allows visual and voice communication halfway around the world for less than it used to cost to dial an adjacent area code. As these have consumed our time (and resources), do they have a negative, positive, or no effect at all on the building of social capital that once was done through more geographically specific ways such as interacting with others in our neighborhoods, clubs, churches and the workplace? Social capital is an important concept since it refers to the social cohesion that a community needs to carry out its common functions.
What about telecommuting? There are lots of good things to be said about it, including eliminating long hours for some that would be spent alone in a car. But the workplace also was once where ‘bridging social capital’ was created; that is, interaction between socially different groups. As people telecommute, do they lose a common community vision that may have been supported by workplace, face-to-face interaction? Does this affect resilience?
Finally, another question is raised by the sociologist Ray Oldenburg with his advancing of the function a “third place” plays in community building. By that term, he referred to places other than home or work where people go to relax and feel a part of a community. A third place can be a café, bar, neighborhood basketball court, barber or beauty shop, etc. As these have become more geographically less proximate for many because of community design, is community resilience affected?
It is important to note that these are CARRI questions. As such, they demand more research that specifically links them to community resilience before more definitive answers can be given. It will be research worth undertaking.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
What is a community?
The following is offered by Dr. John Plodinec, Associate Director for Community Resilience Certification at CARRI.
When we talk about community resilience, discussion usually gravitates to "What is resilience?" We all think we know what a community is, but we know we're not sure what resilience is. However, defining community may be almost as important as defining resilience. A useful definition that reflects what CARRI is all about is:
"A community is a group of individuals and organizations bound together by geography and perceived self-interest to efficiently carry out common functions needed by the group."
Defining community in this manner is worthwhile because it leads to a valuable corollary: communities collapse when the perception of self-interest withers. This goes far toward explaining why so many rural communities are under duress: their original reason for existence - often, the railroad - no longer is as important. Former members of many rural communities have come to the realization that the benefits of belonging to their rural community no longer match the investment required. And so they leave, placing additional strains on those left behind.
This definition also helps explain why some community partnerships succeed and some fail. Successful partnerships have to be founded on mutual perceived benefit. I won't partner with you if I don't expect to get back more than I invest in the partnership. Even for flourishing partnerships, the partnership is likely to founder if the cost-benefit balance changes for one of the partners.
When we talk about community resilience, discussion usually gravitates to "What is resilience?" We all think we know what a community is, but we know we're not sure what resilience is. However, defining community may be almost as important as defining resilience. A useful definition that reflects what CARRI is all about is:
"A community is a group of individuals and organizations bound together by geography and perceived self-interest to efficiently carry out common functions needed by the group."
Defining community in this manner is worthwhile because it leads to a valuable corollary: communities collapse when the perception of self-interest withers. This goes far toward explaining why so many rural communities are under duress: their original reason for existence - often, the railroad - no longer is as important. Former members of many rural communities have come to the realization that the benefits of belonging to their rural community no longer match the investment required. And so they leave, placing additional strains on those left behind.
This definition also helps explain why some community partnerships succeed and some fail. Successful partnerships have to be founded on mutual perceived benefit. I won't partner with you if I don't expect to get back more than I invest in the partnership. Even for flourishing partnerships, the partnership is likely to founder if the cost-benefit balance changes for one of the partners.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Community Resilience: A Resilience Speech
Secretary Napolitano’s speech marking the end of a successful and highly publicized National Preparedness month hit just the right resilience note. While clearly stating that protection of the nation from terrorism remains job one, she then went on to spend most of her address talking about building a resilient nation. She recognized several volunteers who are active in their communities and mentioned numerous other examples of ways to build resilience at the community level. In all it was a very good speech, effectively and robustly delivered. The Secretary clearly indicated that she is serious about national resilience and intends to focus some of the department’s energy there.
It struck me, however, that the discussion of community resilience focused solely on the preparedness of individuals and the participation of community organizations. That, in my opinion, is not nearly enough. It takes the full fabric of the community working together to make a resilient community. That means local governments, local businesses, local associations, local organizations and individuals working in concert over a significant period of time using whatever resources they have available toward a well thought out plan. It’s a lot more than moms and dads and book clubs.
Now I know that the Secretary knows this. What I’d really like to know is that this idea of robust, full-fledged community resilience is penetrating the rest of her organization.
It struck me, however, that the discussion of community resilience focused solely on the preparedness of individuals and the participation of community organizations. That, in my opinion, is not nearly enough. It takes the full fabric of the community working together to make a resilient community. That means local governments, local businesses, local associations, local organizations and individuals working in concert over a significant period of time using whatever resources they have available toward a well thought out plan. It’s a lot more than moms and dads and book clubs.
Now I know that the Secretary knows this. What I’d really like to know is that this idea of robust, full-fledged community resilience is penetrating the rest of her organization.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
