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.

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:

• 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.

National Thinking About Community Resilience Must Evolve

As we move from an almost completely protection centric view of homeland security to one acknowledging the requirement for a broader paradigm that includes protection, prevention, response and recovery, it is a significantly positive step that the concept of community resilience seems to have forced its way into the new doctrine. Community resilience is at least now a subject of conversation. Unfortunately, the national view of communities and where they fit in the homeland security enterprise remains quite shallow and does not recognize the full potential of community resilience to be the foundation of a resilient nation.

National leader speeches as well as federal web sites and publications now include words on resilient communities in almost every discussion of national needs. But the words always focus on individuals and families very occasionally going further to acknowledge organizations and the private business sector. Communities are certainly about families and individuals. But they are far more than that. Communities are the foundations of our civil society – where individuals live, work, play, raise families and derive their values. Communities are complexes of built and social infrastructure. Most of the built infrastructure is privately owned and operated. Much of the social infrastructure resides in organizations independent of governmental structures. Communities create the wealth of the nation in their small businesses, retail outlets, housing markets and individual investments. Communities educate the nation, care for the nation’s physical and mental health and provide opportunities for faith and spirituality. And communities are inherently resilient.

Nationally, we need to understand and capture that complexity in our thinking about, planning for and encouragement of community resilience. Resilient communities must be the foundation of a national disaster resilience culture.

Disaster resilient communities would have the goal of rapidly returning to normal functioning after a disaster. They would do so using the full resilience continuum of prevent, protect, respond and recover appropriately within the community context. A nation of disaster resilient communities would meet this goal by working to protect, prevent and mitigate appropriate systems with a focus on eventual full recovery. They coordinate response to rapidly achieve recovery of normal community function and capacity and ensure that recovery is rapid, equitable, and leaves the community at least as strong as it was prior to the disaster.

Disaster resilient communities will have realistic expectations of outside assistance following a disaster based on comprehensive vulnerability and capability self-assessments and community developed plans and processes across the full resilience continuum. Nationally, federal systems must help nurture communities in developing resilience; help train them in concepts, tools, practices which develop, support, and enhance disaster resilience, and work with communities and regions in exercising their resilient characteristics. In return, resilient communities enhance the power of national programs by inculcating realistic expectations and by applying local power in an effective and efficient way.

Communities are the powerful, complex, resilient foundations of a resilient nation.

Community Resilience: Long-Term Recovery

FEMA has formed a working group to examine policies and practices for disaster recovery. The effort is welcome and long overdue. As a part of the input to the working group, there is an invitation to the public at large to comment by providing answers to a series of questions. (I have noted in the past that current FEMA leadership seems to be committed to listening. This is another welcome indication.) Thoughtful answers to FEMA’s recovery questions from across America will be helpful in shaping good recovery policies and programs.

A fundamental question is how to define a successful disaster recovery. CARRI believes that successful disaster recovery begins well before a disaster occurs with a deliberate and well thought out plan to achieve community recovery. Successful disaster recovery addresses all domains of community life – economic, social, ecological and physical systems – meeting the needs of the full fabric of the community in a sustainable and inclusive manner. While speed of recovery is important, thoughtful consideration to reduce vulnerabilities for future events is also required. Successful recovery includes adaptation where weaknesses can be identified and corrected as part of the recovery process in order to make the community more resilient to future incidents. Over time, successful disaster recovery should increase community functionality above pre-disaster levels so that recovery after the next disaster is less costly and more rapid. The ideal process for community recovery facilitates and is in harmony with long-term community goals.

We believe that there are three primary characteristics that influence the speed and quality of successful recoveries. First, resilient communities have deliberate plans for recovery in the same way that they have deliberate disaster response and emergency management plans. They plan in detail how the community will achieve a rapid return to normal. Second, successful disaster recoveries involve the full fabric of the community in every phase of their approach to recovery: planning, preparedness, response, and short- and long-term recovery. Third, successful recoveries involve broad-based use of formal and informal (official and unofficial) communication networks to facilitate recovery processes and involvement. These networks are identified and rehearsed before the disaster and thereby extend the reach and impact of formal, official communications. They also include all parts and domains of the community. The informal, unofficial networks are incorporated into official, long-term recovery communication networks.

These systematic examinations by FEMA of federal policies and programs that will ultimately influence community resilience are very welcome. We should support them fully and thoughtfully.

Resilience at the Top

The President’s weekly radio address on Saturday was dedicated to remembering the anniversary of Hurricane Katrina. It is worth noting that he used the word resilience in his address and called for the nation to be more resilient. He stated, “As we rebuild and recover, we must also learn the lessons of Katrina so that our nation is more protected and resilient in the face of disaster.” The President went on to support a multi-hazards approach to national preparedness giving examples in the natural, medical and man-made disaster areas. As I have noted earlier, the concept of resilience as a national goal seems to be gaining traction at the national level. Clearly, a significant number of senior federal officials are beginning to incorporate resilience to many hazards into their strategic thinking. Getting the President firmly ensconced into a culture of national resilience has to be a top priority.

Empowering Resilient Communities

Just as “all disasters are local,” national disaster resilience can be best developed from the bottom up, starting with communities. Resilient communities must be the foundation of a national disaster resilience culture and another essential goal of a revitalized and effective Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Ultimately, it is a community’s responsibility to prepare for recovery. It must also be the community’s responsibility before an event to:

· understand specifically what constitutes recovery for that community;
· strategize and deliberately plan specific actions to achieve the recovery, and
· set expectations on how that recovery will be achieved and what the “new normal” will be following the disaster.

Disaster resilient communities would have the goal of rapidly returning to normal functioning after a disaster. They would do so using the full resilience continuum of prevent, protect, respond and recover appropriately within their context.

A nation of disaster resilient communities would meet this goal by working to protect, prevent and mitigate appropriate systems with a focus on eventual full recovery. They coordinate response to rapidly achieve recovery of normal community function and capacity and ensure that recovery is rapid, equitable, and leaves the community at least as strong as it was prior to the disaster.

Disaster resilient communities will have realistic expectations of outside assistance following a disaster based on comprehensive vulnerability and capability self-assessments and community developed plans and processes across the full resilience continuum.

Nationally, DHS must help nurture communities in developing their resilience; help train them in concepts, tools, practices which develop, support, and enhance disaster resilience, and work with communities and regions in exercising their resilient characteristics. In return, resilient communities enhance the power of national programs by inculcating realistic expectations and by applying local power in an effective and efficient way. This evolution harmonizes DHS’s roles and allows DHS to change from being solely a federal “control” agent (which it is sometimes seen as doing ineffectively) to become a facilitator of a rapid and effective return to normal community function (a role which 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 increased 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.

An Evolved Disaster Management Paradigm

The traditional emergency management construct (prepare, respond, recover, mitigate) has served the nation well for many years and current Presidential Directives, policy documents, the National Response Framework, NIMS and operational and implementing documents reflect the centrality of this paradigm – we train to it; we exercise it; we fund it -- we are prepared to respond. Underlying this paradigm is the inherent assumption that if we are prepared to respond quickly, efficiently, and effectively, recovery will naturally follow. This paradigm is further undergirded by the unspoken belief that responsibilities and efforts to prepare are “pushed” outwards from the emergency manager at the hub to the various “spokes” of the community. Authorities, responsibilities and resources are centralized and hierarchical.

The lessons and changes of the last decade, however, have led us to recognize the need for an expanded and potentially more powerful organizing principle for both the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the larger “enterprise.” This expands and adapts the traditional emergency management construct from its emphasis on “preparing to respond” to a new paradigm which emphasizes “preparing to recover” -- not just recovering functional power and water supplies, for example, but full recovery of the normal rhythms, functions and capacities of everyday life. This modified paradigm adjusts the mission construct to a more complete continuum -- prevention, protection (including mitigation), response and recovery (both short and long-term) -- and more properly understands preparedness as a foundational necessity of every phase of the continuum. This paradigm envisions community disaster resilience as the outcome of applying this evolved and expanded continuum. Grounding DHS and the homeland security enterprise in this disaster resilience context will focus resources and actions on the appropriate outcome and provide an effective organizing construct, thus taking the first step toward a revitalized and effective department able to serve its mission and meet citizen expectations.

Community Trajectory

In a guest blog our colleague, Dr. Andy Felts in Charleston, South Carolina , writes:

One of the observations on community resilience that the CARRI team has agreed on relates to the ‘trajectory’ of a community before a disaster. By this, we mean, broadly, the direction a community is taking pre-disaster. Our working hypothesis is that the trajectory of a community will affect the speed of its recovery or whether it may recover at all.

A simple example will explain:

In terms of housing and construction, Hurricane Katrina could not have hit at a worse time during the two decades prior to 2005. The storm and post-disaster period coincided with the leveling off and major downturn of the housing finance (hence construction) market in the US. Financial institutions were reluctant to lend money to either developers or individuals seeking to rebuild. As a result, recovery in the Gulf has obviously been hampered. A downward trajectory makes recovery much more difficult.

In this case, the trajectory of the Gulf Coast communities affected by Katrina was part of a national trend and mostly beyond their control.

In other cases, the direction a community is taking may be more under its control.

Still using housing as the example:

A community that lacks affordable, workforce housing or has inadequate housing is on a downward trajectory and will have worse housing problems post-disaster. New Orleans may be a good example.

But it is not enough to consider a single dimension or factor. As we move toward developing an assessment tool, it is growing more evident to us that while it may be possible to characterize the overall trajectory of a community, it may be more helpful to see where they are heading with respect to a number of variables. It is possible that as a community works to improve its trajectory in one area, it may actually be degrading another. This is the great benefit of continuing to keep an eye on the mantra that recovery must involve the whole fabric and all sectors of the community.

Let’s stick with housing to illustrate:

Communities could work to provide affordable, workforce housing in remote areas and that helps that situation. However, the community also should examine the burden such development might place on the transportation and other parts of a community’s infrastructure. An upward trajectory for housing may be offset by a downturn in transportation.

A resilient community should strategize to be on upward trajectories along several dimensions. The likelihood of this happening is greatly improved through perspectives such as CARRI’s that emphasize interdependencies. Being aware of the potential trade-offs between different areas of community functioning can prevent a community from sub-optimizing in one sector at the expense of another. This, we believe, will be valuable information as the community plots a path forward toward improving its resilience.

All of this raises one important point. There are good reasons for adopting the CARRI perspective even if a disaster does not occur. It makes for a healthier community and better place to live.

Right or Now?

In numerous conversations lately, I sense that the new administration is struggling with a common problem as it searches for the way it will deal with the theme of resilience particularly in the area of public/private sector coordination and cooperation. The basic issue is one that we at CARRI have recognized and similarly struggled with since we began our resilience work. I usually describe it as, “get it right or get it now?”

Hurricane season will be here in just a few days. All of us want to be better prepared than we were last year with new systems, processes and collaborations in place. The reality of a fast approaching season of recurring, predictable natural disaster provides the imperative to do something visible now. The reality of our system of government is that we will not make productive, large-scale changes to our national systems before this season begins.

Resilience is a complex topic whether at the national, regional or community level. For our governments, it is a new way of looking at the old issues surrounding the response to natural disasters. While there are certainly things that can be done quickly based on lessons learned, we will not build a complete system of resilience quickly. Bringing together workshops of experts for a few days may advance our understanding of what needs to be done; they will not provide the answers necessary to fully inculcate resilience into our systems. Hastily organized and promulgated programs developed in isolation within the Washington beltway may demonstrate that our leaders understand the urgency of the issues; they will not quickly translate into accepted practice and meaningful progress at the local level – particularly if they are not funded.

But the issues are urgent. There is no time for the academic and policy communities to debate the absolute best way to reach national resilience until we reach absolute programmatic certainty. The best way to get resilience right is to get the resilience conversation started now – and then move it along quickly.

The current conversation is fragmented. It is fragmented by agencies in governments. It is fragmented between levels of government. It is fragmented between the public and private sectors. And it is fragmented among the private sectors. In our system of government the best progress is made fastest when we get everyone involved in the conversation and make everyone an owner of the solution. That is why CARRI has called for a federally supported, grass-roots, bottoms-up conversation to create a common framework for community resilience. Resilient communities make resilient regions and a resilient nation. We can do that now and by putting all the knowledge and creativity of the nation together, we can get it right.

Moving Toward a National Community Resilience Framework

There is no commonly accepted national framework for identifying resilient communities or for assisting communities to self-assess and then work toward a state of resilience in a methodical, systematic approach assisted by accepted tools and processes so as to reap the economic and social benefits of becoming resilient. Understanding what a common framework would entail and creating a solid starting point for a national discussion has been a goal of CARRI from its inception. Establishing such a common framework is best done, in partnership, at the local, grass-roots level and in a broad-based manner that is inclusive of all elements of the community fabric – governmental, private business, associational, non-profit and faith-based – rather than top-driven by the federal government.

In many communities and regions across the United States there are initiatives, policies, plans, and technologies under development at the local and regional level that are realistic, practical, and focused on community needs. These labors have been started by business groups, local or state government officials, research institutions, economic development associations or non-profits but have not yet been coordinated to achieve a broad-based, grass-roots driven, commonly accepted result. It is time to bring all these efforts together in a national effort to establish the framework that can guide communities as they work systematically to become more resilient.

CARRI strongly supports the establishment of a National Commission on Regional and Community Resilience composed of elected governors, elected mayors, appropriate representatives of national organizations and associations and representatives of private business to supervise the creation of common framework for community and regional resilience that meets the needs of our citizens, businesses and governments, and voluntary and faith-based organizations; provides an understanding of and agreed upon terminology for community and regional resilience; examines how communities and regions can collaborate to achieve and sustain cost-effective resilience; and recommends to governments at all levels policies that are required to foster resilient communities.

Building an Assessment Framework

From the beginning of CARRI, we have worked to combine the knowledge we have gained from prominent disaster researchers enlisted in the national research team assembled by Tom Wilbanks at Oak Ridge National Laboratory with that of the ‘on-the-ground’ research done in the Gulfport/Gulf Coast Area, the Memphis Urban Area, and the Charleston Low Country Area. The goal is to develop an assessment framework that any community can use to assess its resilience. The framework will combine a statistical snapshot of the community based on readily available data sources, with a self-assessment that provides a lens for the community to examine its assets at risk, its resources, and its planning, leadership and communication.

The national research team has provided valuable information as we work toward developing the assessment framework.

Craig Colten, from Louisiana State University, R.W. Cates, and S.B. Laska, from the University of New Orleans, overviewed the lessons from Hurricane Katrina that relate to disaster recovery and community resilience. Susan Cutter, from the University of South Carolina, provided valuable insights into how the concept of resilience can be understood from the perspective of hazards, disasters and emergency management—pointing out that research in these areas has always been done with an eye on practical policy. Lance Gunderson, from Emory University, researched how resilience, as it has been applied to ecological systems, can inform work on human communities. Betty Hearn Morrow, from Florida International University, examined how socially vulnerable populations are affected by policy decisions and the implications for community resilience. Susanne Moser examined how research on global climate change can inform our thinking about community resilience.

These researchers have all, from different perspectives, kept us aware of the existing bodies of research that can directly inform the CARRI concept of community resilience. Because these are researchers who have always had their eye on the policy implications of their work, I have not been surprised to find a great deal of resonance between their work and what we have heard from community leaders as they have raised issues and concerns about resilience. Certainly most everyone—disaster researchers and policy makers—have been mindful of what seemed to work and not work after Katrina. All have realized that the initial response was only part of the story and that the rest is still being written as recovery efforts continue. As we have talked to those involved in emergency management, they have come to understand that response is not recovery, but it is intimately connected to it. It is becoming understood that just as we are planning our responses to disasters, we also need to plan to our recovery. The interaction and connectedness between ecological and human community systems is recognized as a two-way street with respect to recovery. Certainly there is acceptance from the leaders that socially vulnerable population need consideration in a variety of ways in both emergency response and recovery and the reality of climate change has finally penetrated into local policy-making.

All of this work provides a backstop to the development of an assessment framework. Without it, we could not be successful.

The CARRI Community Forum

On April 28, 2009, CARRI brought together its three partner communities for a one-day conference in Charleston, South Carolina focusing on five topics – Executive Leadership and Community Resilience; The Private Sector and Community Resilience; Enhancing Community Resilience through Coordination; Building Local Resilience Capacity; and Local Government Leading the Way. The goal of the conference was to bring together each partner community to share lessons learned and create a series of white papers in each area of focus. These papers are intended to showcase successful resilience strategies in the partner communities so that other communities across the country can apply them in their own planning and resiliency efforts.


The CARRI Research Director, Dr. Tom Wilbanks, provided a quick summary of his observations of the conference to a group of CARRI affiliated scholars from across the nation. I thought it would be useful to share Tom’s observations via this blog. In the next few weeks, I will share other observations from the forum.


Tom wrote: On April 28, … I attended a “CARRI Partner Community Forum” in Charleston, SC. In essence, this event represented a handoff of community resilience responsibilities from the CARRI community teams to local community leaders. It included four mayors (Charleston and North Charleston, Memphis/Shelby County, and Gulfport), three city administrators, and local people representing private sector roles, cross-institutional local coordination, and local capacity development outside traditional government, e.g., in NGOs and faith-based institutions.


We were there simply to listen to what the community representatives had to say about community resilience, both to learn from their perspectives and to compare them with what has been emerging from the research component. Here is a summary of the messages that we heard:


(1) Community resilience means all-hazards planning – and also links with other community issues, such as poverty. In order to sustain itself, resilience has to show that coordination offers value-added in daily operations, not just in the event of an emergency.


(2) A key step on the way to resilience is tracing out a host of interdependencies: what depends on what – infrastructures, resources, information, authorizations, etc., etc.


(3) Resilience means that, in a community, people who need to respond together in an emergency know each other ahead of time. From Mayor Wharton: “A community that prepares together is going to stay together when something happens.” In fact, the benefits from broader acquaintanceships in a community extend well beyond the immediate purpose of preparedness.


(4) Timely communication structures that bridge community diversity are critical: especially non-traditional structures as normal structures fail to operate during an emergency. NGOs and faith-based organizations are often adaptable gap-fillers if they are included in the resilient community network ahead of time.


(5) Communities can do a lot on their own, and in fact resilience means taking responsibility for one’s own future rather than accepting dependence on others; but resilience also means linking local resources with resources (and rules) beyond community boundaries (e.g., FEMA rules on what costs that will be reimbursed…).


(6) It is critically important to care about the lives of the responders and their families – which requires advance preparation because this can get lost in the pressure of immediate response situations.


(7) It is also critically important to know one’s own community in great detail, especially regarding special needs. Again, NGOs and FBOs can help with this, because they often work with the least advantaged among the population.


(8) A key to response and recovery is getting businesses and schools up and operating quickly. Mayor Warr got everybody’s attention with his story of assuring that Gulfport’s local Walmart, Home Depot, etc. were very quickly in a position to sell the materials and commodities needed for response and recovery –- which meant that the sales taxes from response purchases went back into the community itself rather than elsewhere.

Our feeling was that these lessons from community experience – being offered by community people who are not generally very familiar with the research literatures – are in fact very consistent with the messages coming out of our summaries of resilience-related research. This is encouraging on both ends of the process. Rather than being a situation where research needs to be used to correct mistaken community impressions, or where community experiences need to be used to correct misguided research, the substantial overlap between lessons from experience and lessons from research needs to be highlighted as a very welcome emergent finding from the CARRI adventure.