The Accelerating Rate of Change

February 2nd, 2010 - John Plodinec

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? read the entire article >

Comments (0)

Old and New Threats to Communities

January 27th, 2010 - John Plodinec

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. read the entire article >

Comments (0)

Community Complexity and Need for a Framework

January 19th, 2010 - John Plodinec

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. read the entire article >

Comments (0)

Need for a framework – now!

January 13th, 2010 - John Plodinec

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. read the entire article >

Comments (0)

Community Resilience: The Third Roundtable

December 8th, 2009 - Warren Edwards

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.

Comments (0)

Two Brief Thoughts

June 19th, 2009 - Warren Edwards

When CARRI began its investigation into the status of resilience thinking, research and policy development, the idea of resilience was not a concept in good standing at the Department of Homeland Security or in the White House. While there was growing energy among outside groups around the concept of resilience as an alternative to protection (see CARRI’s May 5, 2009 blog posting), the discussions were very limited and frequently somewhat acrimonious. It seems clear, however, that the landscape is shifting rapidly. The President has announced that there will be an office within the Homeland Security Council for resilience. Secretary Napolitano speaks of making the federal government an “engaged facilitator of long-term community recovery.” The designee to be Undersecretary of Homeland Security for Science and Technology, Dr. Tara O’Toole has made community resilience one of her primary goals. Resilience appears to be not just a concept in good standing but is quickly becoming a focus of policy thought. I think this is good.

There is apparently some confusion about what CARRI means by a common framework for community resilience (see CARRI’s May 18, 2009 blog posting). This confusion is generating a healthy internal discussion. In an effort to broaden that discussion, I offer my first draft of a definition.

COMMON FRAMEWORK FOR COMMUNITY DISASTER RESILIENCE: a widely accepted, coherent, measurable, way of understanding community disaster resilience and applying that understanding to a community in a meaningful way. A common framework would include objective, measurable, commonly accepted indicators; a practical assessment methodology to fairly, transparently and accurately assess the ability to return to normal; and processes facilitated by validated tools that allow the results of the assessment to be translated into actions that increase a community’s resilience.

Comments welcome!

Comments (0)

Right or Now?

May 27th, 2009 - Warren Edwards

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. read the entire article >

Comments (0)

Moving Toward a National Community Resilience Framework

May 18th, 2009 - Warren Edwards

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.

Comments (0)

Building an Assessment Framework

May 13th, 2009 - Warren Edwards

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. read the entire article >

Comments (0)