Good Afternoon:
CARRI has a new blog, you can find it at
http://blog.resilientus.org/
Thanks and hope to see you there!
Monday, March 8, 2010
Monday, March 1, 2010
Cascading Events
The following is offered by Dr. Arthur A. Felts, Research Associate, CARRI and Director, Joseph P. Riley, Jr. Institute for Urban Affairs and Policy Studies.
Most are probably familiar with the old maxim:
“For want of a nail, a shoe was lost. For want of a shoe, a horse was lost. For want of a horse, the rider was lost.” For want of a rider, a battle was lost. For want of a battle, a kingdom was lost.”
The maxim describes quite well what we call ‘cascading events.’ As communities, regions, nations, and even continents have become increasingly interdependent, understanding and factoring cascading events becomes an important part of assessing community resilience.
Think of our growing interdependencies in this way: In 1960 a major disruption in international trade would have meant you might not have bananas to put on your cereal. In short, its effects would have been fairly minimal. Now think what such a disruption could mean in 2010.
Cascading events are easiest to understand in the private sector—with economic consequences. A major disaster in the Pacific Northwest might reduce the ability of industries there to supply the rest of the nation with plywood. This might, in turn, cause other building materials to be substituted and thus reduce long-term market share for the plywood producers. Or, the lack of materials or higher costs might cause a southeast contractor to go out of business.
Complex interdependencies are a major reason that business continuity planning has become increasingly important in the private sector. A large company that outsources a service or production to another nation has to factor what a disaster in that nation would mean for its ability to provide services and/or products. Those dissatisfied with services might seek the other’s products, which then might cause production layoffs.
Some small businesses may be an important link in a complex supply chain and if they are shuttered by a disaster, then the whole supply chain is disrupted unless there are already back up plans that have been thought through in advance.
Within any region that experiences a disaster there are also complex interdependencies. A hospital may rely on one local provider for oxygen. A municipality may have a contract for fuel from one provider. If the provider goes down, the ability to function is impaired and that will inevitably hinder recovery.
If we think outside the business supply chain box, we can see cascading events as affecting disaster recovery in many ways. Whole neighborhoods may go into a protracted decline with the loss of only a portion of housing or a single grocery store. Mutual aid agreements with surrounding communities may not work if those communities are themselves affected by the disaster. A community that does not plan to provide for the needs of families of key workers may lose many of them as New Orleans did its police force which then create personnel issues at the expense of focusing on recovery. An injury to a family breadwinner may cause the family to increase long-term demands on support systems.
An increasingly interdependent world has made the concept of cascading events important in planning for recovery and understanding how events that we do not experience directly can affect us in some very unanticipated ways.
Most are probably familiar with the old maxim:
“For want of a nail, a shoe was lost. For want of a shoe, a horse was lost. For want of a horse, the rider was lost.” For want of a rider, a battle was lost. For want of a battle, a kingdom was lost.”
The maxim describes quite well what we call ‘cascading events.’ As communities, regions, nations, and even continents have become increasingly interdependent, understanding and factoring cascading events becomes an important part of assessing community resilience.
Think of our growing interdependencies in this way: In 1960 a major disruption in international trade would have meant you might not have bananas to put on your cereal. In short, its effects would have been fairly minimal. Now think what such a disruption could mean in 2010.
Cascading events are easiest to understand in the private sector—with economic consequences. A major disaster in the Pacific Northwest might reduce the ability of industries there to supply the rest of the nation with plywood. This might, in turn, cause other building materials to be substituted and thus reduce long-term market share for the plywood producers. Or, the lack of materials or higher costs might cause a southeast contractor to go out of business.
Complex interdependencies are a major reason that business continuity planning has become increasingly important in the private sector. A large company that outsources a service or production to another nation has to factor what a disaster in that nation would mean for its ability to provide services and/or products. Those dissatisfied with services might seek the other’s products, which then might cause production layoffs.
Some small businesses may be an important link in a complex supply chain and if they are shuttered by a disaster, then the whole supply chain is disrupted unless there are already back up plans that have been thought through in advance.
Within any region that experiences a disaster there are also complex interdependencies. A hospital may rely on one local provider for oxygen. A municipality may have a contract for fuel from one provider. If the provider goes down, the ability to function is impaired and that will inevitably hinder recovery.
If we think outside the business supply chain box, we can see cascading events as affecting disaster recovery in many ways. Whole neighborhoods may go into a protracted decline with the loss of only a portion of housing or a single grocery store. Mutual aid agreements with surrounding communities may not work if those communities are themselves affected by the disaster. A community that does not plan to provide for the needs of families of key workers may lose many of them as New Orleans did its police force which then create personnel issues at the expense of focusing on recovery. An injury to a family breadwinner may cause the family to increase long-term demands on support systems.
An increasingly interdependent world has made the concept of cascading events important in planning for recovery and understanding how events that we do not experience directly can affect us in some very unanticipated ways.
Monday, February 15, 2010
Unrealistic Expectations
The following is offered by Dr. John Plodinec, Associate Director for Community Resilience Certification at CARRI and Science Advisor, Savannah River National Laboratory.
In the previous posting, I pointed out that the new reality of constrained resources created by the Great Recession makes the need for a community resilience framework more pressing than ever before. In this post, I’ll discuss another major reason a community resilience framework is needed now: the unrealistic expectations that have resulted from recent disasters.
In the aftermath of 9/11, and especially after Hurricane Katrina, a large portion of the populace seems to believe that the federal government should and can be the “White Knight” that charges in after a disaster and returns the community to normalcy. This belief has been reinforced by recent federal bailouts to financial institutions and automakers, and mirrors some of the rhetoric surrounding the health care debate.
Many current plans for emergency response and recovery reflect other facets of the same problem. For example, too many plans expect that the community’s behavior will conform to directives from the community’s leaders. And yet opinion polls in several locales have shown that large portions of the populace in hurricane-prone areas say they won’t leave no matter what they are told.
Further, plans made before the Great Recession most likely reflect the resources available when they were drawn up, not what the community actually has available to it now or in the near future. As I discussed in my last post, financial resources are likely to be limited for several years. But money isn’t the only constrained resource; the human capital needed for recovery is facing a major turnover. Even before the Great Recession, both the public and private sectors were concerned about how they were going to replace the experience of the Baby Boomers when they retired (in fact, almost 60% of the public sector workforce is likely to retire in the next ten years, while “only” 40% of the private workforce will). As an example, in Charleston, SC, we are now seeing the retirement of the generation who helped Charleston recover so rapidly after Hurricane Hugo. While there are highly capable replacements, in many cases they have not had to cope with the unexpected in real time, under extreme duress and stress. Thus, plans that assume a cadre of experienced leaders may need to be rethought.
Thus, our communities must build a new set of expectations – and a new basis for planning – that reflect the new realities of the Great Recession and the passing of the baton from the Baby Boomers to a new generation of leaders. A community resilience framework can help to accomplish this in several ways:
In the previous posting, I pointed out that the new reality of constrained resources created by the Great Recession makes the need for a community resilience framework more pressing than ever before. In this post, I’ll discuss another major reason a community resilience framework is needed now: the unrealistic expectations that have resulted from recent disasters.
In the aftermath of 9/11, and especially after Hurricane Katrina, a large portion of the populace seems to believe that the federal government should and can be the “White Knight” that charges in after a disaster and returns the community to normalcy. This belief has been reinforced by recent federal bailouts to financial institutions and automakers, and mirrors some of the rhetoric surrounding the health care debate.
Many current plans for emergency response and recovery reflect other facets of the same problem. For example, too many plans expect that the community’s behavior will conform to directives from the community’s leaders. And yet opinion polls in several locales have shown that large portions of the populace in hurricane-prone areas say they won’t leave no matter what they are told.
Further, plans made before the Great Recession most likely reflect the resources available when they were drawn up, not what the community actually has available to it now or in the near future. As I discussed in my last post, financial resources are likely to be limited for several years. But money isn’t the only constrained resource; the human capital needed for recovery is facing a major turnover. Even before the Great Recession, both the public and private sectors were concerned about how they were going to replace the experience of the Baby Boomers when they retired (in fact, almost 60% of the public sector workforce is likely to retire in the next ten years, while “only” 40% of the private workforce will). As an example, in Charleston, SC, we are now seeing the retirement of the generation who helped Charleston recover so rapidly after Hurricane Hugo. While there are highly capable replacements, in many cases they have not had to cope with the unexpected in real time, under extreme duress and stress. Thus, plans that assume a cadre of experienced leaders may need to be rethought.
Thus, our communities must build a new set of expectations – and a new basis for planning – that reflect the new realities of the Great Recession and the passing of the baton from the Baby Boomers to a new generation of leaders. A community resilience framework can help to accomplish this in several ways:
- It can help a community’s leaders to identify all of the resources actually available, and thus adjust their expectations. The new reality means that communities will have to mobilize much more of the resources available in their own communities – public, non-governmental, and private.
- It can help a community’s leaders communicate their expectations to the public, and to learn what their public’s expectations are. In some cases, this will lead to significant changes in plans. In others, this use of a community framework will mean that individual citizens will see the need to take more responsibility to limit losses.
- As a corollary, the use of a community resilience framework can increase the likelihood that a community’s plans will be more consistent with those of its citizens and businesses, enabling a more efficient and rapid recovery.
- A framework can help new leaders see the entire breadth of their communities, how their communities are structured, and find their place in communication networks.
Friday, February 5, 2010
Impacts of the Great Recession on Communities
The following is offered by Dr. John Plodinec, Associate Director for Community Resilience Certification at CARRI and Science Advisor, Savannah River National Laboratory.
In previous postings, I’ve tried to present trends that pointed to the need for a community resilience framework. These trends (growing complexity of communities, the new spectrum of hazards facing communities, and the accelerating rate of change) by themselves make the case for the need for a community resilience framework. In this posting and the next, I’ll examine reasons why we need such a framework NOW – first the impacts of the Great Recession, and then the unrealistic expectations of so many of our citizens.
The Great Recession of the last two+ years has created a new reality for communities. The resources that communities, states, and the federal government have available for disaster recovery may not be there for the next disaster. Across the country, tax revenues are falling. At least 35 states expect to have budget shortfalls this year; last year, 49 out of the 50 actually did. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, that translated to almost 300,000 less workers in government in December, 2009, than a year before – and at least 17 states already have announced they will reduce staff again this year. This year, the National Debt is expected to approach 90% of our national GDP. We just don’t have the money - or the human resources - to repeat the recovery from Katrina (cost $230B and counting), at least not the way we’ve done it before.
And it does not look like the economic picture will significantly improve any time soon. Only the most glowing – and unrealistic – projections of our economy lead to reductions of more than a percent a year in unemployment over the next decade. These rosy assumptions fly in the face of the projections of many economists that we will see another economic dip within the next two years.
Overlaid on this economic bad news (no wonder economics is known as the Dismal Science!) is a ticking time bomb: the retirement of the Baby Boomers. Projections made five years ago were that the Medicare and Medicaid expenses alone would be at least 10 times the national debt (currently $12.3 T). But some nice work done by our colleague Dr. Andy Felts of the College of Charleston suggests that the costs may be even higher. Using data from Charleston County, SC, Andy showed that the per capita cost of providing county services to seniors (those 65 or greater) was rising almost twice as fast as for everyone else. These cost increases are expected to accelerate as the Baby Boomers become so-called “Super Seniors” (75 or older). We’re hearing similar projections across the country.
Thus, national economic recovery will be protracted, with no guarantee of complete success. Resources for recovery are likely to be constrained and harder to obtain. This puts a real premium on community efficiency: more precisely identifying the resources a community will need to recover from future disasters – before disaster strikes – so that the community can rapidly secure them after a disaster.
A community resilience framework can help improve community efficiency in several ways:
In previous postings, I’ve tried to present trends that pointed to the need for a community resilience framework. These trends (growing complexity of communities, the new spectrum of hazards facing communities, and the accelerating rate of change) by themselves make the case for the need for a community resilience framework. In this posting and the next, I’ll examine reasons why we need such a framework NOW – first the impacts of the Great Recession, and then the unrealistic expectations of so many of our citizens.
The Great Recession of the last two+ years has created a new reality for communities. The resources that communities, states, and the federal government have available for disaster recovery may not be there for the next disaster. Across the country, tax revenues are falling. At least 35 states expect to have budget shortfalls this year; last year, 49 out of the 50 actually did. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, that translated to almost 300,000 less workers in government in December, 2009, than a year before – and at least 17 states already have announced they will reduce staff again this year. This year, the National Debt is expected to approach 90% of our national GDP. We just don’t have the money - or the human resources - to repeat the recovery from Katrina (cost $230B and counting), at least not the way we’ve done it before.
And it does not look like the economic picture will significantly improve any time soon. Only the most glowing – and unrealistic – projections of our economy lead to reductions of more than a percent a year in unemployment over the next decade. These rosy assumptions fly in the face of the projections of many economists that we will see another economic dip within the next two years.
Overlaid on this economic bad news (no wonder economics is known as the Dismal Science!) is a ticking time bomb: the retirement of the Baby Boomers. Projections made five years ago were that the Medicare and Medicaid expenses alone would be at least 10 times the national debt (currently $12.3 T). But some nice work done by our colleague Dr. Andy Felts of the College of Charleston suggests that the costs may be even higher. Using data from Charleston County, SC, Andy showed that the per capita cost of providing county services to seniors (those 65 or greater) was rising almost twice as fast as for everyone else. These cost increases are expected to accelerate as the Baby Boomers become so-called “Super Seniors” (75 or older). We’re hearing similar projections across the country.
Thus, national economic recovery will be protracted, with no guarantee of complete success. Resources for recovery are likely to be constrained and harder to obtain. This puts a real premium on community efficiency: more precisely identifying the resources a community will need to recover from future disasters – before disaster strikes – so that the community can rapidly secure them after a disaster.
A community resilience framework can help improve community efficiency in several ways:
- Communities can more accurately predict what will be lost, i.e., what internal resources might not be available, and – of equal importance – what resources ought to be available within the community that can be utilized. For example, separating debris by disposal categories (e.g., separating “green” waste – downed trees, for example – from white wares can lead to big savings to communities in disposal costs. However, it is very expensive to do if all of the waste is aggregated. If the community prepares its citizens to carry out this task after the disaster it can save both segregation and disposal costs.
- Communities can identify sources of funding for recovery, and the requirements associated with them. Too many communities have built their plans on the expectation of federal funds only to find that they had to repay the federal government because they hadn’t complied with a particular agency’s rules. As you are reading this, meetings between FEMA and communities in Mississippi and Alabama are being held to decide how much of the Stafford Act funding moved so expeditiously after Katrina must now be paid back because of poor accounting or documentation practices.
- Communities can prioritize the sources of funds they pursue.
- Communities can assess how well they can use the resources, and streamline their systems to remove bottlenecks.
Thus, the Great Recession has created a new reality of constrained resources that communities must face. A community resilience framework can help communities survive and thrive even in this new era of constrained resources.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
The Accelerating Rate of Change
The following is offered by Dr. John Plodinec, Associate Director for Community Resilience Certification at CARRI and Science Advisor, Savannah River National Laboratory.
In my previous post on the need for a national framework for community resilience, I focused on the new spectrum of hazards facing American communities. In this post, I’d like to look at another reason why a national framework is needed – the accelerating rate of change.
As I’ve noted earlier, in early American communities the pace of change was relatively slow – communities usually could adapt to emerging trends and new hazards at their own pace. A person in his prime in 1700 would not be all that uncomfortable in the America of 1800 (unless, of course, he was a violent royalist!). A city dweller in her prime in 1800 might be overwhelmed with all of the new technologies (street lights, streetcars, horseless carriages!) in the world of 1900, but her country cousin would still be able to recognize her world of 1800 in that of 1900. In today’s techno centric world, the accelerating rate of technological change means that those in their prime in 1900 would face a completely unfamiliar – and perhaps terrifying - world.
As noted in an excellent report by Susi Moser and Shanna Ratner (“Community Resilience and Wealth….”), available at the US Endowment for Forestry and Communities, http://www.usendowment.org/communityresilience.html, rural communities are now faced with the need to adapt, or re-invent, themselves every fifteen years. Why is that?
As technologies change, the businesses in a community are faced with a decision of whether to adopt new, or adapt existing technologies to meet their markets’ evolving needs. If they choose to adopt, they face the certainty of increased capital costs and the uncertainty of the value of the new technology. If they choose not to adopt new technologies, they run the risk of imitating the US steel industry after World War II, which was nearly destroyed by a Japan that eagerly embraced new technology.
Businesses making bad choices can start the clock ticking on a time bomb laid at the foundations of a community. We have only to look at how communities in Michigan, Ohio and Indiana are struggling to reinvent themselves in light of the poor choices made by the carmakers. Or how rural communities in the Southeast are struggling to survive in light of the new challenges facing them.
Communities dependent on furniture manufacturing provide an ideal example. Ten years ago, Mississippi produced more wooden furniture than anywhere else in the nation. However, the American furniture industry was very slow to adopt new technologies, for example robots to automate production. Conversely, their competitors in China aggressively pursued these new technologies, and now have captured much of the American market. As a result, many communities in northern Mississippi and Alabama are facing tremendous challenges because of an eroded tax base and a workforce mostly looking for work.
A resilience framework can help a community to successfully adapt to change. First, it should help a community identify its vulnerabilities, whether that is dependence on a single company or industry, or a poorly maintained bridge, or lack of a flexible workforce. The framework should then help the community look at the resources it has and identify actions it can take to reduce those vulnerabilities. A wise community will use these insights to reinvent itself – and reinvest in itself. The result – more resilient communities, better able to respond to change.
In my previous post on the need for a national framework for community resilience, I focused on the new spectrum of hazards facing American communities. In this post, I’d like to look at another reason why a national framework is needed – the accelerating rate of change.
As I’ve noted earlier, in early American communities the pace of change was relatively slow – communities usually could adapt to emerging trends and new hazards at their own pace. A person in his prime in 1700 would not be all that uncomfortable in the America of 1800 (unless, of course, he was a violent royalist!). A city dweller in her prime in 1800 might be overwhelmed with all of the new technologies (street lights, streetcars, horseless carriages!) in the world of 1900, but her country cousin would still be able to recognize her world of 1800 in that of 1900. In today’s techno centric world, the accelerating rate of technological change means that those in their prime in 1900 would face a completely unfamiliar – and perhaps terrifying - world.
As noted in an excellent report by Susi Moser and Shanna Ratner (“Community Resilience and Wealth….”), available at the US Endowment for Forestry and Communities, http://www.usendowment.org/communityresilience.html, rural communities are now faced with the need to adapt, or re-invent, themselves every fifteen years. Why is that?
As technologies change, the businesses in a community are faced with a decision of whether to adopt new, or adapt existing technologies to meet their markets’ evolving needs. If they choose to adopt, they face the certainty of increased capital costs and the uncertainty of the value of the new technology. If they choose not to adopt new technologies, they run the risk of imitating the US steel industry after World War II, which was nearly destroyed by a Japan that eagerly embraced new technology.
Businesses making bad choices can start the clock ticking on a time bomb laid at the foundations of a community. We have only to look at how communities in Michigan, Ohio and Indiana are struggling to reinvent themselves in light of the poor choices made by the carmakers. Or how rural communities in the Southeast are struggling to survive in light of the new challenges facing them.
Communities dependent on furniture manufacturing provide an ideal example. Ten years ago, Mississippi produced more wooden furniture than anywhere else in the nation. However, the American furniture industry was very slow to adopt new technologies, for example robots to automate production. Conversely, their competitors in China aggressively pursued these new technologies, and now have captured much of the American market. As a result, many communities in northern Mississippi and Alabama are facing tremendous challenges because of an eroded tax base and a workforce mostly looking for work.
A resilience framework can help a community to successfully adapt to change. First, it should help a community identify its vulnerabilities, whether that is dependence on a single company or industry, or a poorly maintained bridge, or lack of a flexible workforce. The framework should then help the community look at the resources it has and identify actions it can take to reduce those vulnerabilities. A wise community will use these insights to reinvent itself – and reinvest in itself. The result – more resilient communities, better able to respond to change.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Old and New Threats to Communities
The following is offered by Dr. John Plodinec, Associate Director for Community Resilience Certification at CARRI and Science Advisor, Savannah River National Laboratory.
In the first post of this series, I summarized the reasons that a community resilience framework is needed – now. In my last post, I expanded on one of them: the growing complexity of communities. In this post, I want to expand on another of them: the new spectrum of threats facing communities.
American communities have always been at risk from natural hazards and pandemics. However, the evolving and ever more complex nature of communities, and the rise of global terrorism have brought new vulnerabilities. A community resilience framework can help communities identify these vulnerabilities, and take steps to mitigate them.
With the growing affluence after World War II, Americans were able to live wherever they wanted, rather than where they were born and raised. As a result, more and more people have migrated to what they deem to be more attractive locations. In 1900, less than half of our population lived near either the Atlantic or Pacific Oceans. Now, over three fourths of Americans live within 50 miles of one of the coasts, and the proportion is increasing. Smaller communities that were formed as a hub for agricultural activity are disappearing, or are being transformed into bedroom communities for a nearby urban center. Where once almost all communities were self-sufficient, now most communities have complex ties to others in their region or the nation (and, more and more, to the rest of the world), and must depend on others for critical capabilities.
As a result, more and more communities are at risk, in a variety of ways. More communities are faced with major coastal weather-related hazards - hurricanes, floods – than ever before. The threat of a pandemic continues to hang over all of our heads. To these must be added a new litany of hazards – terrorist acts and economic dislocations. We are assaulted nearly every day with news stories about terrorist attacks either here or in foreign countries. Over the last quarter century, the economies of American communities have seen the impacts of the interconnectedness of the global economy, with much less fanfare. For example, downturns in the Asian or Russian economies have led to reduced demand for American agricultural products such as grain and poultry, stressing the communities where they are produced.
Domestically, the web of interdependencies surrounding a community also introduces new and often unrecognized hazards. For example, a major industrial accident in an urban center may have devastating consequences on the bedroom communities around it that depend on the urban center for jobs for their citizens. A decision to close a manufacturing facility made in a corporate headquarters a thousand miles away, may devastate a community whose existence depends on that plant. While hurricanes and floods have always had the potential to isolate smaller communities, that isolation may now mean that the community is cut off from essential services.
Using a community resilience framework, communities can look at the impacts of various scenarios and better identify their spectrum of vulnerabilities. In some cases, the community will be able to take action to reduce the impacts; for example, strengthening a bridge to ensure its integrity during an earthquake. In others, the community may not be able to take action; for example, preventive actions may be too costly, or the triggering event might be something that will occur in another community. In these cases, a community resilience framework can help communities anticipate impacts and develop plans to address them - again, spotlighting the need for a community resilience framework.
A note from CARRI Blog Maintenance: the blog entry posted January 26, 2010 was posted inadvertently; it will be re-posted at a future date. Thank you.
In the first post of this series, I summarized the reasons that a community resilience framework is needed – now. In my last post, I expanded on one of them: the growing complexity of communities. In this post, I want to expand on another of them: the new spectrum of threats facing communities.
American communities have always been at risk from natural hazards and pandemics. However, the evolving and ever more complex nature of communities, and the rise of global terrorism have brought new vulnerabilities. A community resilience framework can help communities identify these vulnerabilities, and take steps to mitigate them.
With the growing affluence after World War II, Americans were able to live wherever they wanted, rather than where they were born and raised. As a result, more and more people have migrated to what they deem to be more attractive locations. In 1900, less than half of our population lived near either the Atlantic or Pacific Oceans. Now, over three fourths of Americans live within 50 miles of one of the coasts, and the proportion is increasing. Smaller communities that were formed as a hub for agricultural activity are disappearing, or are being transformed into bedroom communities for a nearby urban center. Where once almost all communities were self-sufficient, now most communities have complex ties to others in their region or the nation (and, more and more, to the rest of the world), and must depend on others for critical capabilities.
As a result, more and more communities are at risk, in a variety of ways. More communities are faced with major coastal weather-related hazards - hurricanes, floods – than ever before. The threat of a pandemic continues to hang over all of our heads. To these must be added a new litany of hazards – terrorist acts and economic dislocations. We are assaulted nearly every day with news stories about terrorist attacks either here or in foreign countries. Over the last quarter century, the economies of American communities have seen the impacts of the interconnectedness of the global economy, with much less fanfare. For example, downturns in the Asian or Russian economies have led to reduced demand for American agricultural products such as grain and poultry, stressing the communities where they are produced.
Domestically, the web of interdependencies surrounding a community also introduces new and often unrecognized hazards. For example, a major industrial accident in an urban center may have devastating consequences on the bedroom communities around it that depend on the urban center for jobs for their citizens. A decision to close a manufacturing facility made in a corporate headquarters a thousand miles away, may devastate a community whose existence depends on that plant. While hurricanes and floods have always had the potential to isolate smaller communities, that isolation may now mean that the community is cut off from essential services.
Using a community resilience framework, communities can look at the impacts of various scenarios and better identify their spectrum of vulnerabilities. In some cases, the community will be able to take action to reduce the impacts; for example, strengthening a bridge to ensure its integrity during an earthquake. In others, the community may not be able to take action; for example, preventive actions may be too costly, or the triggering event might be something that will occur in another community. In these cases, a community resilience framework can help communities anticipate impacts and develop plans to address them - again, spotlighting the need for a community resilience framework.
A note from CARRI Blog Maintenance: the blog entry posted January 26, 2010 was posted inadvertently; it will be re-posted at a future date. Thank you.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Community Complexity and Need for a Framework
The following is offered by Dr. John Plodinec, Associate Director for Community Resilience Certification at CARRI and Science Advisor, Savannah River National Laboratory.
Generally, communities in early America were formed based on the perceived self-interest of their members – at convenient points for land or water transportation, or near valuable natural resources, or for mutual defense or for religious reasons. These early communities quickly became hubs of activity for the common good – for defense against hostile intruders, for trade, for education.
In the earliest days, most communities were self-sufficient – the community provided its citizens with the essentials from local farmers, artisans and craftsmen. The community had to be relatively self-sufficient; most communities were rather isolated (for example, it would take two hours to go from Harlem to central Manhattan, even by ferry) and travel farther than a few tens of miles was both difficult and expensive. These early communities were also relatively stable; their reasons for being - whether economic, defensive or religious – changed very slowly. For most communities, this meant that in times of crisis, people almost instinctively knew who they could rely on for support in times of crisis. Timely assistance could only come from their friends and neighbors - people they had known their entire lives - to recover.
With the growth of cities like Philadelphia, Charleston, Boston and New York, the nature of communities began to become more complex. Instead of looking to the entire community in a crisis, people relied on their neighborhood for support. The neighborhood was largely a place where you lived, and citizens had to look to other neighborhoods – and eventually other communities - for some of their needs. Thus, while early American communities were self-sufficient, cities – and especially neighborhoods – became less so.
At the same time, communities became more dynamic. The waves of immigrants from Europe, then Asia, and then from within the US (particularly the Great Migration of African Americans from the South after Reconstruction ended) resulted in huge changes in the ethnic makeup of even single neighborhoods – for example, Harlem, in New York, was successively primarily Dutch (the Roosevelts lived there), Irish, Jewish, Italian, and African American within the span of 100 years. Thus, individual citizens were less likely to know all of their neighbors, and certainly not for all of their lives. In times of crisis, people more and more turned for support either to other types of “communities” – for example, their church – or to some organized and recognized assistance agency, either public or private.
Further, the changing needs of individual citizens within communities led to the growth of a patchwork quilt of infrastructures intended to fill those needs. These infrastructures might be in private hands (e.g., a private electric company), owned and serviced by the public (the road system), or a combination of public and private (private physicians, public and private hospitals, augmented with other services supplied by non-governmental organizations).
If we fast forward to the first decade of the 21st century, we find that these trends have resulted in communities enmeshed in a web of interdependencies. Within the community, the various infrastructures depend on each other, and can interact in complex ways. Virtually no communities are self-sufficient – they rely on others in their region or state, and sometimes foreign countries to provide some of the essentials of existence.
And there is no one model that describes every community. While communities all perform the same functions, they are distinguished by how – and how well – they perform them. Their organizational infrastructure – the mix of public and private organizations that actually carry out a particular community function - can assume a myriad of forms, each with its own advantages and disadvantages. Thus, in times of crisis, a community needs a roadmap telling it how it is connected both within and externally, so that it can identify where resources may be available, and how best to use them.
A community resilience framework can help communities develop that roadmap. A useful framework will provide a community with a means to look at itself and understand how it functions, including how it is interconnected with other communities. It will also enable a community to better anticipate the direct and indirect impacts of a disaster. As a result, the community will be able to identify the resources likely to be available after a disaster, and how to use them with maximum effect.
Generally, communities in early America were formed based on the perceived self-interest of their members – at convenient points for land or water transportation, or near valuable natural resources, or for mutual defense or for religious reasons. These early communities quickly became hubs of activity for the common good – for defense against hostile intruders, for trade, for education.
In the earliest days, most communities were self-sufficient – the community provided its citizens with the essentials from local farmers, artisans and craftsmen. The community had to be relatively self-sufficient; most communities were rather isolated (for example, it would take two hours to go from Harlem to central Manhattan, even by ferry) and travel farther than a few tens of miles was both difficult and expensive. These early communities were also relatively stable; their reasons for being - whether economic, defensive or religious – changed very slowly. For most communities, this meant that in times of crisis, people almost instinctively knew who they could rely on for support in times of crisis. Timely assistance could only come from their friends and neighbors - people they had known their entire lives - to recover.
With the growth of cities like Philadelphia, Charleston, Boston and New York, the nature of communities began to become more complex. Instead of looking to the entire community in a crisis, people relied on their neighborhood for support. The neighborhood was largely a place where you lived, and citizens had to look to other neighborhoods – and eventually other communities - for some of their needs. Thus, while early American communities were self-sufficient, cities – and especially neighborhoods – became less so.
At the same time, communities became more dynamic. The waves of immigrants from Europe, then Asia, and then from within the US (particularly the Great Migration of African Americans from the South after Reconstruction ended) resulted in huge changes in the ethnic makeup of even single neighborhoods – for example, Harlem, in New York, was successively primarily Dutch (the Roosevelts lived there), Irish, Jewish, Italian, and African American within the span of 100 years. Thus, individual citizens were less likely to know all of their neighbors, and certainly not for all of their lives. In times of crisis, people more and more turned for support either to other types of “communities” – for example, their church – or to some organized and recognized assistance agency, either public or private.
Further, the changing needs of individual citizens within communities led to the growth of a patchwork quilt of infrastructures intended to fill those needs. These infrastructures might be in private hands (e.g., a private electric company), owned and serviced by the public (the road system), or a combination of public and private (private physicians, public and private hospitals, augmented with other services supplied by non-governmental organizations).
If we fast forward to the first decade of the 21st century, we find that these trends have resulted in communities enmeshed in a web of interdependencies. Within the community, the various infrastructures depend on each other, and can interact in complex ways. Virtually no communities are self-sufficient – they rely on others in their region or state, and sometimes foreign countries to provide some of the essentials of existence.
And there is no one model that describes every community. While communities all perform the same functions, they are distinguished by how – and how well – they perform them. Their organizational infrastructure – the mix of public and private organizations that actually carry out a particular community function - can assume a myriad of forms, each with its own advantages and disadvantages. Thus, in times of crisis, a community needs a roadmap telling it how it is connected both within and externally, so that it can identify where resources may be available, and how best to use them.
A community resilience framework can help communities develop that roadmap. A useful framework will provide a community with a means to look at itself and understand how it functions, including how it is interconnected with other communities. It will also enable a community to better anticipate the direct and indirect impacts of a disaster. As a result, the community will be able to identify the resources likely to be available after a disaster, and how to use them with maximum effect.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Need for a framework – now!
The following is offered by Dr. John Plodinec, Associate Director for Community Resilience Certification at CARRI and Science Advisor, Savannah River National Laboratory.
Two questions that we are hearing more and more are:
1) Why does the country need a community resilience framework?
2) Why should we work on developing one now?
There are several trends that point to the need for a framework.
THE GROWING COMPLEXITY OF COMMUNITIES. American communities today are much more complex than ever before, and becoming more so. Almost all communities are enmeshed in a complex web of interdependencies, both within the community and with other communities. A framework can help citizens, community leaders and state and federal entities better understand the nature of each community. In times of disaster, this understanding is essential for obtaining resources and maximizing their impact.
THE NEW SPECTRUM OF HAZARDS FACING COMMUNITIES. American communities have always been at risk from natural hazards and pandemics. However, growing community complexity and the rise of global terrorism have brought new vulnerabilities. A framework can help communities to better understand these vulnerabilities, and to take action to limit impacts.
THE ACCELERATING RATE OF CHANGE. In prior times, communities often could adapt to emerging trends and new hazards at their own pace. In today’s techno centric world, the accelerating rate of technological change means that communities are almost continually faced with the need to adapt – or re-invent – themselves. A framework can point out the paths a community can follow to successfully adapt to change.
We believe it is essential to develop a community resilience framework NOW.
IMPACTS OF RECESSION. The global recession has severely limited the resources that communities, states, and the federal government have available to help communities recover from disasters. National economic recovery will be protracted, with no guarantee of complete success. This means that communities must identify the resources they might need to meet future disasters – now, or risk compaction or collapse.
UNREALISTIC EXPECTATIONS. In the aftermath of 9/11, and especially after Hurricane Katrina, a large portion of the populace seems to believe that the federal government should and can be the “White Knight” that charges in after a disaster and returns the community to normalcy. Quite simply, the federal government doesn’t have the resources to repeat Katrina (currently $230 B and counting). In order to fully recover from future disasters, communities and their citizens must be ready to take charge of their own recovery. They must identify all of the resources that will be available for recovery – those within the community and outside, and prepare to use them if disaster strikes.
In the next few postings, I’ll expand on each of these.
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Community Resilience – What Federal Government Can Do
In a 2009 paper by the British Think Tank, Demos, titled, “Resilient Nation,” author Charlie Edwards suggests that for the UK, the role of central government in community resilience should be limited and mainly supportive of local and regional efforts. He recommends a central government role based on four “Es” – Engagement, Education, Empowerment and Encouragement. Although written for the UK, the paper has great relevance for the US and is well worth reading. The full paper can be found on the Demos web site at http://www.demos.co.uk/. These four Es may be useful in thinking about how DHS relates to other partners in the homeland security enterprise in the area of disaster preparedness and recovery.
The federal government (largely through the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency) plays two significant roles in community disaster resilience. In the first role, DHS is the leader of the federal response to incidents of national significance – the nation’s first responder at the federal level. As such, DHS acts in a top-down manner as a cabinet-level department within the federal government. In the second role, DHS is the leader of the nation’s “homeland security enterprise” and must coordinate many different types of efforts including disaster preparedness and recovery. In the past, DHS has fulfilled this role by acting as the approver of state and local plans, providing funding for preparedness planning and coordinating federal efforts to prepare for recovery.
DHS has steadily improved its ability to carry out the first role. But while the National Response Framework lays out an operational framework for response, the framework has not been fully effective in helping DHS carry out its second role – coordinating preparedness and recovery efforts across the Homeland Security Enterprise. In fact, the lessons of the past decade demonstrate inherent tensions in these two roles that produce expectations that often cannot be met within the constraints of traditional emergency management.
In our view, nationally DHS must help nurture communities in developing their inherent resilience; help train them in concepts, tools, and practices that develop, support and enhance disaster resilience; and provide incentives to communities that demonstrably increase their disaster resilience. The returns to the nation for this federal effort are communities that enhance the power of national programs by inculcating realistic expectations and by applying local power in an effective and efficient way. This approach harmonizes the two roles of DHS and allows DHS to change from being solely a federal “control” agent (which it is sometimes seen as doing ineffectively) to becoming a facilitator of rapid and effective return to normal community functions (a role that will properly and successfully leverage the federal resources and might).
A number of surveys and studies reveal that the current federal hierarchical, response-centric approach has elevated the public’s expectations of federal responsibility and capability well beyond the nation’s needs —and the Federal government’s ability to deliver – particularly in light of longer term trends such as the projected increase in climate variability. The nation would be better served to engage communities in a way that sets more realistic expectations and increases the incentives to become resilient at the local and regional level.
The federal government (largely through the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency) plays two significant roles in community disaster resilience. In the first role, DHS is the leader of the federal response to incidents of national significance – the nation’s first responder at the federal level. As such, DHS acts in a top-down manner as a cabinet-level department within the federal government. In the second role, DHS is the leader of the nation’s “homeland security enterprise” and must coordinate many different types of efforts including disaster preparedness and recovery. In the past, DHS has fulfilled this role by acting as the approver of state and local plans, providing funding for preparedness planning and coordinating federal efforts to prepare for recovery.
DHS has steadily improved its ability to carry out the first role. But while the National Response Framework lays out an operational framework for response, the framework has not been fully effective in helping DHS carry out its second role – coordinating preparedness and recovery efforts across the Homeland Security Enterprise. In fact, the lessons of the past decade demonstrate inherent tensions in these two roles that produce expectations that often cannot be met within the constraints of traditional emergency management.
In our view, nationally DHS must help nurture communities in developing their inherent resilience; help train them in concepts, tools, and practices that develop, support and enhance disaster resilience; and provide incentives to communities that demonstrably increase their disaster resilience. The returns to the nation for this federal effort are communities that enhance the power of national programs by inculcating realistic expectations and by applying local power in an effective and efficient way. This approach harmonizes the two roles of DHS and allows DHS to change from being solely a federal “control” agent (which it is sometimes seen as doing ineffectively) to becoming a facilitator of rapid and effective return to normal community functions (a role that will properly and successfully leverage the federal resources and might).
A number of surveys and studies reveal that the current federal hierarchical, response-centric approach has elevated the public’s expectations of federal responsibility and capability well beyond the nation’s needs —and the Federal government’s ability to deliver – particularly in light of longer term trends such as the projected increase in climate variability. The nation would be better served to engage communities in a way that sets more realistic expectations and increases the incentives to become resilient at the local and regional level.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
