Community Resilience – An Old Dilemma: Resilience vs. Sustainability

November 4th, 2009 - Warren Edwards

The CARRI colleagues have broached the subject of resilience and its relationship to sustainability several times in the past without achieving any significant consensus. The subject surfaced again a few weeks ago and generated a several day exchange over e-mail. The spark for this exchange was an article in the Charleston, South Carolina Post and Courier reporting that the city of Charleston had just hired a Director of Sustainability, the only new position hired by the city this year.

A lively exchange ensued and on reviewing it, I think it is worthwhile to open the subject in this blog. One of the first thoughts on the relationship between the two terms came from Ann Olsen in Nashville. Ann wrote:

“My own thinking is that how the two connect depends on the breadth of the sustainability vision. When sustainability is conceived very broadly, then it seems to me that resilience may be (a) component of sustainability and enhancements to resilience support sustainability. In essence, resilience is all about sustainability through/beyond disaster. If we drew a Venn diagram, the circle of resilience would fall within the circle of sustainability. In reality, though, most folks looking at sustainability are not much thinking about how to sustain through/beyond disaster, and how to develop this capability, so this leaves resilience an undervalued aspect of the broader concept of sustainability. When the focus is more narrow, e.g., primarily environmental, then perhaps the two simply overlap.”

I believe that this subject of resilience and its relationship to sustainability (or vice versa) is one worthy of discussion. Let me know what you think and if the CARRI colleagues don’t jump in with their comments, I’ll post a few more of the e-mail exchanges later.

Comments (0)

Community Resilience: More Thoughts on What a Community Is

October 28th, 2009 - Warren Edwards

After three weeks bumming around Central Asia, I return to find that the blog has been kept alive through the efforts of my colleagues John Plodinec and Andy Felts. Thank you.

As a follow up to Andy Felts’ October 6 thoughts on what a community is, here is an additional perspective from the CARRI Research Director, Tom Wilbanks. It is extracted from a soon-to-be published CARRI Research Report that summarizes what we know about scale and community resilience.

“The term ‘community’ means different things to different people. To some, a stable, cohesive, socially-interrelated neighborhood is a community. To some, a place of worship is a community. To some, a place of employment can be a community. At the same time, ‘community’ is often used as a social equivalent of a city or town, which is obviously a collection of communities that in some cases may share little more than physical proximity.

“Other uses of the concept are even broader. In this mobile world, connected by modern transportation systems and information technologies, communities can develop that have a strong self-identification but are networks of connections rather than pieces of a mosaic (Wilbanks, 2003). One well-known figure in climate change impact research observed: ‘If I were to die tomorrow, 15 people in my local community would come to my funeral, but 200 people from my professional community worldwide would send a message to my wife.’

“How community size relates to its sustainability is an interesting issue. For instance, a larger size means access to a wider range of resources, but a smaller size means simpler decision-making processes, which can translate into greater agility.”

Comments (0)

Community Resilience: A Resilience Speech

October 1st, 2009 - Warren Edwards

Secretary Napolitano’s speech marking the end of a successful and highly publicized National Preparedness month hit just the right resilience note. While clearly stating that protection of the nation from terrorism remains job one, she then went on to spend most of her address talking about building a resilient nation. She recognized several volunteers who are active in their communities and mentioned numerous other examples of ways to build resilience at the community level. In all it was a very good speech, effectively and robustly delivered. The Secretary clearly indicated that she is serious about national resilience and intends to focus some of the department’s energy there.

It struck me, however, that the discussion of community resilience focused solely on the preparedness of individuals and the participation of community organizations. That, in my opinion, is not nearly enough. It takes the full fabric of the community working together to make a resilient community. That means local governments, local businesses, local associations, local organizations and individuals working in concert over a significant period of time using whatever resources they have available toward a well thought out plan. It’s a lot more than moms and dads and book clubs.

Now I know that the Secretary knows this. What I’d really like to know is that this idea of robust, full-fledged community resilience is penetrating the rest of her organization.

Comments (0)

Community Resilience: A Successful National Preparedness Month

September 28th, 2009 - Warren Edwards

As we come to the end of National Preparedness Month, DHS has announced that Secretary Napolitano will deliver a major speech on national preparedness tomorrow, Tuesday, September 29 at 2pm eastern time. We at CARRI will be listening intently to hear what the Secretary says about resilience, particularly at the local level. The speech will be carried live at http://www.dhs.gov/. For those not able to watch the speech live, it will be posted at http://www.ready.gov/ and http://www.citizencorps.gov/. We heartily recommend that our followers listen to the Secretary. It may give all us a clue on where the Department is headed in the area of resilience.

Comments (0)

Community Resilience: Informing Policy

September 18th, 2009 - Warren Edwards

As I may have stated earlier in this blog, one of the tensions in the Community and Regional Resilience Institute work from the very beginning has been between what I call “getting it right” and “getting it now.” By that I mean that it is critical for the nation that the solutions we adopt to increase our resilience work in practice because they are grounded in knowledge gained from research and from practical experience. That’s getting it right. But we also have to realize that the nation needs solutions now. The next hurricane or tornado or terrorist won’t wait until we get it exactly right.

I’m not sure that this tension is recognized at the national level. I don’t claim to have great insight into or knowledge of all that is going on nationally on the resilience front but from my limited view of current processes and deliberations two things seem apparent. First, there is limited interaction between those scholars and researchers who have studied the various aspects of resilience for years and the policy community that is seeking to frame policies and processes for a more resilient nation. Second, virtually every federal agency is embracing a fairly parochial view of resilience with very little understanding of what other agencies (often in the same department) are doing.

I have been told that the first observation is not surprising. It has taken 25 years for the scientific community to begin to influence and have an actual impact on policy surrounding climate change. It seems to me that we should be trying to accelerate this interaction in the current resilience discussion. read the entire article >

Comments (0)

Community Resilience and Personal Responsibility

September 8th, 2009 - Warren Edwards

In its recently released report, Personal Preparedness in America: Findings from the 2009 Citizen Corps National Survey, FEMA discovered that we as individuals are not as prepared for disaster as we should be. The report (www.citizencorps.gov/ready/2009findings.shtm) provides a detailed look into individual perceptions of disaster readiness and responsibilities as well as interesting evaluations of demographic and contextual insights. I don’t think that anyone should be very surprised by this report.

Since Hurricane Andrew (maybe Hugo), American expectations of outside assistance particularly federal assistance have grown steadily, rapidly and unrealistically. Perhaps most evident in Katrina, our citizens and our communities seem increasingly to believe that FEMA will be on site at almost any level of disaster within 48 hours and will fix the problem. This report reveals, for instance, that more than 60 percent of the respondents plan to rely on emergency responders in the first 72 hours following a disaster despite repeated warnings from governments at all levels to the contrary. As interestingly, even among those who deem themselves prepared for disaster, the survey finds that most do not have adequate family plans and lack even a basic understanding of their community’s plans.

This problem is only a failure of the federal government in that we continue to believe that we can craft national solutions to local problems. At its heart, this is an indication of community failure. Very few communities have coherent, highly coordinated, individual preparedness efforts with a common message across jurisdictions and well thought ways to transmit the message to the full fabric of their societies. I am sure that there are some. In fact I highlighted one in my posting of March 24, 2009, the “I’m Ready Campaign” in Shelby County, Tennessee. The FEMA report, however, says that our communities are not doing enough or are not doing it right. read the entire article >

Comments (0)

Where Does Mitigation Fit?

September 4th, 2009 - Warren Edwards

One of our CARRI blog followers in a comment to the August 18 blog expresses the thought that “mitigation” should be in his words, “included as a component of any Sustainable and Resilient Nation.” (See the comment to “Simultaneous or Sequential,” August 18, 2009) He goes on to give several examples of how actions to mitigate would beneficially contribute to limiting the effects of disasters.

The comments have caused me to think about how CARRI is handling the important area of mitigation to disaster. Clear actions to mitigate are important and must be part of any community’s plan to reach a state approaching resilience. Much of the writing about mitigation in disaster management seems to group mitigation actions into two categories – structural (engineered interventions) and non-structural (planning, codes, restrictions, material usage). Mitigation seems, therefore, to deal primarily with the physical environment. While this is clearly critical, it is not sufficient by itself.

CARRI treats mitigation as part of the total resilience mindset – culture – ethos. As we look at our proposed emergency management continuum – prevent, protect, respond and recover – undergirded by preparation, mitigation falls in the “protect” area of the continuum. Mitigation is one of the ways we protect ourselves and our stuff from the effects of natural or man-made disasters. read the entire article >

Comments (0)

Resilience at the Top

September 1st, 2009 - Warren Edwards

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.

Comments (0)

Simultaneous or Sequential?

August 18th, 2009 - Warren Edwards

In a series of meetings in Washington last week (hot and humid and not very many people in town other than tourists), I began to see just how much traction the concept of resilience is gaining. Perhaps as some would suggest, it is just the newest buzzword that will run its course in time. I don’t think so. Those that I spoke with both in government and in the private sector are all very serious about the idea of making a more resilient America and have invested a significant amount of their time and energy thinking about this important subject. They really want to see it succeed.

At the national level this is going to take time. If the goal is to have national resilience as a national priority, Homeland Security Presidential Directives will have to be rewritten. An interagency that focuses on resilience across the departments may have to be created. Speeches and public announcements will have to be coordinated. This is a serious and important issue and will have to be treated as such. Additionally, resilience must compete with other challenges facing the national government that seem much more urgent in the short term – H1N1, national health care policy, energy policy and climate change.

The question for us at the Community and Regional Resilience Institute is whether creating a way for communities to work toward resilience in a systematic, meaningful way must – or can afford to – wait on the national process. Can we work simultaneously and in parallel with the national effort? Of course, I think we can. We need to start this year while there is significant momentum to convene the nation-wide forum necessary to find our way to a common framework for community disaster resilience. As the national policy work matures the two processes can inform each other. Communities will provide their input to help shape national policy and national policy will provide appropriate federal guidance and strong support to the community efforts.

That’s the way it should work.

Comments (1)

Preparedness and Resilience: Are they the Same?

August 4th, 2009 - Warren Edwards

A couple of weeks ago the US Chamber of Commerce convened an informal meeting of people who are actively involved in community resilience-related activities and initiatives at the local, state and federal levels. This resilience-related work is frequently couched in different terms – the most frequent being public/private partnerships – but all of it can be seen to further the ability of communities to withstand and recover from significant disruptions. The individuals present represented the private sector, research programs, government, trade associations and on-the-ground resilience projects. I was privileged to be invited to attend and participate.

One of the areas of agreement reached by this ad hoc group was that there is a critical need for the nation’s leadership to clearly establish resilience as an important national goal. Several, but not all, of the participants referred to this goal as creating a “culture of preparedness” thereby seeming to equate “preparedness” to “resilience.” In fact, at least one participant went so far as to declare that the idea of resilience was nothing new but was simply preparedness under a new title.

In an earlier Blog (June 27, 2009), I argued that preparedness is the necessary foundation upon which an expanded continuum of emergency management must rest and that one of the results of that expanded continuum (and maybe the most significant one) is resilience. One prepares to prevent, protect, respond and recover and success in executing the results of that preparation is evidenced by the resilience demonstrated during recovery. To me this seems to be different than simply equating preparedness with resilience.

Is this just a distinction without a difference or is it a discussion worth having?

Comments (1)