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.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
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.
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
A Resilient Building Certification Program
From the very beginning the Community and Regional Resilience Institute has been progressing toward a way for communities to be certified as resilient. That is one of the most significant reasons to establish a sound intellectual construct in the “Common Framework for Community Resilience” that will lay the foundations for an eventual certification program. Because of this, we are always interested in programs that will look at aspects of community resilience certification.
At a recent meeting in Atlanta, an expert panel consisting of representatives from government, academia, insurance, non-profit organizations, and designers, came together to address aspects of what a resilient building certification program should entail. The meeting was hosted by the Resilient Home Program, a partnership between Clemson University, North Carolina State University (NC State), Savannah River National Laboratory and the US Army Corp of Engineers - Construction Engineering Research Lab and funded by the Southeast Region Research Initiative (SERRI).
The meeting was part of the ongoing efforts of the Resilient Home Program, which was established to determine the way in which home owners prepare for, and recover from, natural disasters; to find ways to make new and existing homes more resilient; to educate the public on home resiliency; and to encourage homeowners to take steps to make their homes more resilient.
The program spent twelve months completing a gap analysis on homeowners' preparation and recovery from natural disasters. The analysis involved surveying the stakeholder groups- including builders, homeowners, engineers, government officials, insurers, researchers, architects and organizations involved in disaster response and planning - to better understand their needs.
The gap analysis brought to light four major areas that need to be addressed immediately, according to stakeholders. These areas include the effects of catastrophic mold and materials resistant to it, incentives for building homes more resiliently, the benefits of retrofitting for disaster and additional outreach aimed at target audiences.
Anyone wishing to participate in discussions about a resilient home certification program should contact the program through its Web site at http://home.resilientus.org.
At a recent meeting in Atlanta, an expert panel consisting of representatives from government, academia, insurance, non-profit organizations, and designers, came together to address aspects of what a resilient building certification program should entail. The meeting was hosted by the Resilient Home Program, a partnership between Clemson University, North Carolina State University (NC State), Savannah River National Laboratory and the US Army Corp of Engineers - Construction Engineering Research Lab and funded by the Southeast Region Research Initiative (SERRI).
The meeting was part of the ongoing efforts of the Resilient Home Program, which was established to determine the way in which home owners prepare for, and recover from, natural disasters; to find ways to make new and existing homes more resilient; to educate the public on home resiliency; and to encourage homeowners to take steps to make their homes more resilient.
The program spent twelve months completing a gap analysis on homeowners' preparation and recovery from natural disasters. The analysis involved surveying the stakeholder groups- including builders, homeowners, engineers, government officials, insurers, researchers, architects and organizations involved in disaster response and planning - to better understand their needs.
The gap analysis brought to light four major areas that need to be addressed immediately, according to stakeholders. These areas include the effects of catastrophic mold and materials resistant to it, incentives for building homes more resiliently, the benefits of retrofitting for disaster and additional outreach aimed at target audiences.
Anyone wishing to participate in discussions about a resilient home certification program should contact the program through its Web site at http://home.resilientus.org.
Friday, December 18, 2009
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.
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.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Community Resilience: Ready for the Holidays
Every blog needs a holiday edition. This is mine.
In a workshop last week, someone – I don’t really remember who – stated that the holiday season in general is a great time for families to prepare for disasters. That sounds a bit strange but actually makes good sense. DHS and FEMA through Ready.gov have been continuously pressing families to “get a kit, make a plan and be informed.” The idea expressed at the workshop was that families are together more in the holiday season than they are likely to be any other time in the year. Why not spend a little time this holiday season using this family time to do something really important. Everyone from over-excited children to bored teenagers to grumpy adults can benefit from this family bonding experience.
The FEMA web site even has a page that outlines holiday gifts that increase preparedness. OK, so maybe they are not as great a gift as a pony or a play station, but they could make great supplemental stocking fillers. The site, http://www.fema.gov/news/newsrelease.fema?id=50059, lists gift ideas from weather radios to fire extinguishers. Check it out.
Resilient communities engage all their citizens and prepare across the full spectrum from individuals and families to governments, organizations and businesses. Here is a small way we can all help our community become more resilient this holiday season.
Season’s Greetings!
In a workshop last week, someone – I don’t really remember who – stated that the holiday season in general is a great time for families to prepare for disasters. That sounds a bit strange but actually makes good sense. DHS and FEMA through Ready.gov have been continuously pressing families to “get a kit, make a plan and be informed.” The idea expressed at the workshop was that families are together more in the holiday season than they are likely to be any other time in the year. Why not spend a little time this holiday season using this family time to do something really important. Everyone from over-excited children to bored teenagers to grumpy adults can benefit from this family bonding experience.
The FEMA web site even has a page that outlines holiday gifts that increase preparedness. OK, so maybe they are not as great a gift as a pony or a play station, but they could make great supplemental stocking fillers. The site, http://www.fema.gov/news/newsrelease.fema?id=50059, lists gift ideas from weather radios to fire extinguishers. Check it out.
Resilient communities engage all their citizens and prepare across the full spectrum from individuals and families to governments, organizations and businesses. Here is a small way we can all help our community become more resilient this holiday season.
Season’s Greetings!
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Community Resilience: The Third Roundtable
The Community and Regional Resilience Institute conducted its third invitational Community Resilience Roundtable in Washington on December 1. The purpose of these roundtables has been to assemble a diverse group of resilience stakeholders, let them know what CARRI is doing, obtain their feedback and solicit their advice. This year’s group, by far the most senior and diverse assemblage to date, provided excellent counsel and guidance as CARRI presented an early draft of its work, “Toward a Common Framework for Community Resilience.” CARRI intends that the common framework described in this document will be the starting point for a broader development process that includes practitioners, researchers and a wide variety of other stakeholders.
A “common framework” would provide the nation and its communities with a widely accepted, coherent, measurable way of understanding community resilience and applying that understanding to the community in a meaningful way. In this context, a “framework” is an intellectual construct that is coherent (its parts fit together) and complete (considers the entire subject). A framework for community resilience should assist the community by helping it to discover how the interdependencies within and outside the community impact its resilience in a systematic and consistent manner. The framework should also help the community identify external resources that will aid in recovery and redevelopment after a disaster and provide guidance for pre-crisis investments.
The early draft of CARRI’s “Toward a Common Framework for Community Resilience” has been through an initial review by CARRI’s national research advisor team and their recommendations as well as the outstanding comments from last week’s CARRI Roundtable are currently being incorporated. The resulting revision will be circulated to a wider audience of reviewers and then serve as the starting point for a national dialogue on community resilience.
Those wishing to participate in this second review should contact the Community and Regional Resilience Institute at info@resilientus.org.
A “common framework” would provide the nation and its communities with a widely accepted, coherent, measurable way of understanding community resilience and applying that understanding to the community in a meaningful way. In this context, a “framework” is an intellectual construct that is coherent (its parts fit together) and complete (considers the entire subject). A framework for community resilience should assist the community by helping it to discover how the interdependencies within and outside the community impact its resilience in a systematic and consistent manner. The framework should also help the community identify external resources that will aid in recovery and redevelopment after a disaster and provide guidance for pre-crisis investments.
The early draft of CARRI’s “Toward a Common Framework for Community Resilience” has been through an initial review by CARRI’s national research advisor team and their recommendations as well as the outstanding comments from last week’s CARRI Roundtable are currently being incorporated. The resulting revision will be circulated to a wider audience of reviewers and then serve as the starting point for a national dialogue on community resilience.
Those wishing to participate in this second review should contact the Community and Regional Resilience Institute at info@resilientus.org.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
