Arthur (Andy) Felts

Cities and Resources

August 24th, 2010 - Arthur (Andy) Felts  

           Another breakout track at the July Hazards Conference in Boulder focused on Environmental Change and Patterns of Vulnerability. I wrote a bit about that in my first blog on the meeting.

            In that blog I mentioned that Dr. Peter Wenger from NSF participated on the panel and talked about Dr. Peter Berke was researching the “new urbanism” and its impact on community resilience.

            The panel, “The Maddening of Crowding: Urban Vulnerability,” was interesting in and of itself. It focused mostly on what were called “megacities,” those with 19 million plus residents. Wenger talked about the most vulnerable being “SINs”—Small Island Nations and the need for a global platform to look at vulnerability. He also referred to cities as having large “concentrations of resources.”

            Dr. William Siembieda from California Polytechnic Institute—San Luis Obispo, echoed that comment. Only he also pointed out that these cities contain large poor populations and both the need to increase income for these as well as form international “insurance pools” where they can ensure the leverage of these resources.

            All of this echoed for me Lawrence J. Vale and Thomas J. Campella’s edited volume, The resilient city: How modern cities recover from disaster (Oxford University Press, 2005). I highly recommend the book. Various authors in that book talk about how major cities are located in important places and there was a commitment to building them in the first place. That suggests that we don’t need to look exclusively at megacities, we could include a whole lot more on the list. New York City of course, Los Angeles, Houston, Chicago, Atlanta and Charlotte all have a lot of resources at their disposal.

            This predisposes (pun intended) most all big cities to be more resilient. While researching for a paper I’m just finishing up, I was quite surprised to discover that Hiroshima’s population returned to pre-atomic bomb levels by 1955. Undoubtedly, this is a good example of resilience, acknowledging that Japan is a small nation and enjoys cultural homogeneity.

            The resilient city is an excellent read. It recounts, among other things, how Berlin was rebuilt after WWII, San Francisco recovered from the 1906 combined fire and earthquake, and Washington, DC after it was nearly destroyed by the British Invasion of 1814.

            In all these cases, and many more, there was a huge will among the cities leadership (public and private) to restore and recover. In fact, Vale suggests it is an axiom of resilience that it is a test of the very legitimacy of those leaders. They have to inspire people and leverage resources to go on.

            It was the fact that these cities had large numbers of differently skilled leaders that were able to leverage the resources they possessed.

            “Large” is a relative number—what was large in 1500 AD might be small now—but I’d opine that in today’s world, most cities with 5 million or more residents possess that inherent resiliency that comes from making themselves unique and creating a sense of place and capitalizing on their economic engines. There are exceptions, of course. Pompeii was in no position to recover after Mount Vesuvius erupted.

            It may come down to simply a large population, poor or otherwise that points to their inherent resilience. I’d say not. One of my favorite quotes from Charleston’s Mayor Joseph P. Riley, Jr. is that city “places”—parks, promenades, cultural venues, sports arenas, boulevards—are places where “memories are made.” People seek to preserve those.

Arthur (Andy) Felts

Resilience – additional feedback from the July 2010 Annual Hazards Workshop

August 13th, 2010 - Arthur (Andy) Felts  

          In my last blog, I commented on the Hazards Workshop in July. There is more news. One of the highlighted track plenary sessions —“Resilience—What’s That?”— featured our own Dr. Tom Wilbanks. It was moderated by, as Tom designated her, “the legendary” Clare Rubin. Clare has been doing recovery studies for longer than anyone I know. Dr. Michael Dunaway from DHS’s Science and Technology Directorate participated as did Dr. Lori Dengler from Humbolt State University.

            The panel was standing room only. The discussion was in keeping with the workshop and there were two practitioner and two more academic discussions. I should tell you here that the panelists don’t get to use PowerPoint and don’t give formal papers. They give a brief presentation and then it goes open the audience, a truly refreshing way to bring academics and practitioners together for discussion.

            Tom did a good job of summarizing what CARRI has been about all along, seeing mitigating, preparing and recovery from disasters as a continuous process that is interlinked. He acknowledged that defining resilience was still a work in progress.

            Clare’s approach was interesting and refreshing. Though she has long been recognized for her research in disaster recovery she spoke from her position as an elected official in Virginia. In her standard straightforward fashion she said, more or less, ‘I’m not sure what resilience is, but people are beginning to talk about it and I think means I need to find out more.’

            Dunaway offered some interesting comments, emphasizing resilience and the need to find funding for building our national deterrent capacity to meet the challenges we are facing. He argued we need to change our culture in the face of increasing populations and multiple threats. He saw becoming a more resilient nation as the path to accomplishing that. He concluded with a very nice quote that defined resilience to him—given to him by a private sector friend. Resilience, means finding a way to function normally in abnormal like conditions. As good start for thinking that everything is, in fact, getting back to normal (or a new normal).

            A tsunami researcher, Dengler, echoed Clare’s statement and talked a bit about being in Malaysia after the huge tsunami a few years back.

           One interesting thing she said was that one island tribe used the term “smong” when asked what happened. She actually found out that that meant a lot of things in one word when time was critical. Smong means “when the ground shakes and there’s a lot of things jumbled up and the sea starts to recede and you see gurgling out where the water is, head for the high ground.” So, this one tribe did just that, gathered up the kids, put grandmas in carts and trucked up about 90 meters–exactly where Dengler would have recommended they go–and they all survived. Not only did they do that, but they also had stockpiled critical materials, lumber, food, etc., up out of harm’s way as well. When was the last time a large tsunami hit the village? 1917.

           Another village escaped the tsunami, but evacuated anyway. She asked the chief if they were disappointed to have gone through all the effort of getting everyone to high ground and waiting it out. He replied no, “Each time offers us a chance to practice.”

             Dengler offered that she wasn’t sure, but thought those were two pretty good examples of resilience. I agree.

Arthur (Andy) Felts

New Urbanism and Disaster Resiliency?

July 28th, 2010 - Arthur (Andy) Felts  

          Attending the Annual Hazards Workshop, hosted by the Natural Hazards Center at the University of Colorado has been a privilege I have enjoyed since coming on board with the CARRI team. The conference, unlike most, is not discipline specific, but rather brings together a group of researchers and practitioners who are interested in learning more about hazards, meaning disasters, and how we can deal with them.

            July 2010 was the 35th time the group has met. It would be an interesting exercise to plot their themes/topics over those years, but I was most pleased to see that this year there was a concurrent session on Community Resilience and Recovery. I went to several of these sessions and each was extremely well attended. CARRI’s own Tom Wilbanks was a presenter at one that had standing room only.

            Though I will have more to share about what I learned at the conference, one was actually fortuitous that I learned at a panel that Dr. Philip Berke (UNC-Chapel Hill) moderated in a different track on environmental change and patterns of vulnerability. The panel focused on large-scale urban areas with that idea in mind.

            One of the panel participants, Dr. Peter Wenger of the National Science Foundation revealed that Dr. Berke was engaged in NSF-funded research on what we social scientists call the “new urbanism” and disaster resiliency. From the way the questions where handled, Dr. Berke’s research is in its early stages—but from my perspective, this is terrific news for our understanding of community resilience.

            The new urbanism folks address a pretty consistent theme. They don’t like urban sprawl. They don’t like single-use zoning. They think we can live and would choose to do so in denser communities where we can walk to the grocery store or work. I know more than most about this since I directed the Joseph P. Riley, Jr. Center for Urban Affairs and Mayor Riley is at the forefront of leaders in the new urbanism movement.

            How does this relate to community resilience? I don’t know the details of Dr. Berke’s work for NSF, but it is pretty easy for me to see. People who live closer to where they work—to the point of walking distance—are likely to find recovery from disaster easier.  Ditto for whether schools and places to shop and seek entertainment are as well.

            The new urbanism movement is all about core cities and multi-purpose nodes that, in the end, create not just easy access to employment or retail, but a sense of place as well. They like small parks, places where you can go and walk, talking to your kids or playing fetch with your dog.

            Berke’s is the kind of resilience research that should be pursued—it has the portent to be path-breaking in that it gets us through the multiple layers of community connections that we know entail resilience. It is encouraging to see the NSF funding such efforts. I look forward to the conclusions from this way of scientifically researching community resilience.

John Plodinec

Wall Street, Main Street and Resilience

July 7th, 2010 - John Plodinec  

Last evening I read a fascinating essay by Michael Lewitt called “The Death of Capital” (based on a recently published book of the same title).  Lewitt shows how our financial system (including the federal government) has become an instrument that does not encourage growth of our economy but rather rewards speculation.  The Wall Street bailouts, and their use to aggrandize a few at the expense of all of the American taxpayers, are an example of how we have privatized gain while socializing loss.  The credibility of the security rating services has been dealt a severe blow as we have seen how they failed in their primary mission – to accurately inform investors about the risk of investments.  As a result, there is widespread mistrust throughout the financial system.

When disaster strikes, businesses can’t rebuild without financial resources; for most that means credit.  The mistrust that has become endemic in our financial system has upped the ante for businesses seeking credit.  More information is needed; more security is needed; but less credit is available.  The burden of proof of creditworthiness has almost gone beyond the reach of many small businesses.

Earlier in the day I had a phone call from a friend in Nashville.  He told me about a vet there who had nearly been swept away twice while trying to save the animals in her care.  As the owner of a small business, she is desperately trying to recover and rebuild after the flooding that occurred (see the photograph below).  She is discovering what too many have found before – there is little help for Main Street when disaster occurs.  There is a smattering of private credit available for recovery.  The federal Small Business Administration offers low interest rate, long-term loans, but the already high burden of proof of creditworthiness becomes almost unreachable for disaster-crippled businesses.  And then there is … nothing else for our small businesses.

In propping up those “Too Big to Fail,” we seem to have forgotten the real engines of our economic growth and vitality – the tens of thousands of small businesses across the country.  As we strive to make our communities and our country more resilient, we need to recognize that our small businesses are a crucial part of our communities and that they deserve special attention.  I don’t have an answer but I do know that without one, our efforts to make our communities more resilient will fail.

John Plodinec

The Art of War on Leadership

June 22nd, 2010 - John Plodinec  

“Leadership is a matter of intelligence, trustworthiness, humaneness, courage, and sternness.” – Sun Tzu

As I discussed in a previous posting, The Art of War – the two millenium old classic Chinese treatise on war – has great relevance to community resilience.  In this post, I’d like to discuss how SunTzu’s observations about leadership can be applied to communities.

According to Sun Tzu, a successful leader must have the five traits listed above.  In the context of a community and its resilience, these traits might be better described as follows.

Intelligence.  Intelligence in leadership means that the leader knows how to clearly identify an objective, communicate it, and then plan to achieve it.  This implies that an intelligent community leader recognizes when the community must adapt to changing circumstances.  The intelligent leader is able to articulate that need and initiate the planning effort needed to affect change. 

Trustworthiness.  A trustworthy leader is recognized by the community as a person of integrity.  Thus, the community believes that a trustworthy leader will carry out promised actions, and will provide support to the rest of the community to implement action plans.  Such a leader is thus able to communicate more effectively to the larger community, because even unpopular messages are more likely to be heard. 

Humaneness.   An effective leader cares about the community, and that caring is manifested in actions.  The community feels that a humane leader “feels their pain,” and therefore are more likely to follow where the leader is going.  This recognized innate humanity of the leader is especially important when trying to reconcile different factions within the community.

Courage.  A leader must have the courage to persevere even when obstacles are encountered.  In essence, the courage needed by an effective leader is born of a certain innate confidence in one’s own integrity – the leader believes the community is on the right course.

Sternness.  By “sternness,” Sun Tzu means a sort of rigorous fairness.  Rewards and punishments are strictly based on actions, and not the person acting.  Ultimately, this sternness is the result of a sort of self-discipline in which the leader may have favorites but does not favor them.

The transformation of Charlotte, NC, from a textiles to a financial center illustrates the importance of several of these leadership traits.  Up until the 1970’s, Charlotte had been one of the leading centers for the textile industry in the country.  The heads of two of the largest banks in North Carolina and the head of Duke Power recognized that the demise of that industry threatened Charlotte’s vitality.  All three were a part of the community, and passionately cared about Charlotte’s future.  Acting largely independently of city and county governments, these three formed an organization aimed at helping Charlotte to adapt to these changing conditions.  As plans were developed, these three spearheaded the transformational effort.  They helped rebuild some of the poorest sections of the city (encountering opposition because many of these were predominately black), making what had been almost slums into desirable neighborhoods.  In spite of criticism and carping, these three eventually transformed Charlotte into what has become the second largest financial center in the country.

Arthur (Andy) Felts

Symbolism and Resilience

June 10th, 2010 - Arthur (Andy) Felts  

I’ve been busy of late writing a paper for CARRI that explains our ideas about a Community Recovery System (CRS) and a Common Framework (CF) to wider academic and practitioner audiences. As I have done so, I have once again been struck by what a linear process writing is.

We at CARRI see disaster recovery as following a logic, but one that also shows the interconnectedness of a community.  Though post-disaster infrastructure recovery is important early on, even then the gears of a community’s economic and social system are engaging.  It is important to understand this because any recovery plan that does not will not be as effective.

As I was struggling with a way of explaining the need to pay attention to social factors, early on I thought about a community’s social capital.   Social capital is one form of glue that holds a community together during normal functioning.  It literally, to use our CRS and CF terminology, helps create a sense of community.  And it gets stressed, stretched, and challenged during and following a disaster.

I went back and searched for a quote I had highlighted in Lawrence J. Vale and Thomas J. Campanella’s edited volume, The Resilient City: How modern cities recover from disaster, written in 2005. There, Vale wrote:

     “….[R]ecovery occurs network by network, district by district, not just building by building; it is about reconstructing myriad social relationships embedded in schools, workplaces, childcare arrangements, shops, places of worship, and places of play and recreation.”   (Vale, 2005)

My mind immediately seized upon a familiar image—that of the tattered American flag that someone searching amidst the World Trade Center rubble attached to the highest girder sticking in the ground.  Even before the first truckload of debris was carted away, putting up a symbol that the city would use to endure its disaster.  Who can forget the image of sheer compassion on the fireman’s face as he tenderly carried a young child away from the rubble that had once been the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City?  These are the types of symbols that help a community rebuild.

Vale writes about other rituals that matter–the ceremony that was held before the last truck carted the last load of debris from ground zero where the towers once stood.   In his words, “Remembrance drives resilience.”

The significance of this should not be overlooked.  Even in the early stages of disaster recovery, a community should attend to matters of social capital just as it works to repair roads and bridges.  Of course, the primary form this takes is communication from community leaders that clearly understand this is both at stake and an issue.

Social functioning may rest atop adequate infrastructure and a healthy economic system, but that does not make it any less important in the meshing of gears that create community resilience.

John Plodinec

People with challenges and community resilience

June 3rd, 2010 - John Plodinec  

As many of you know, CARRI has embarked on a massive undertaking focused on developing – and then testing – a community resilience system.  Recently, during a meeting of the Community Leaders Working Group, I was asked why we had included “The community works to maximize the value of those with special challenges” as one of our important community functions.  In fact, two of the most in-my-face questioners (both former mayors of sizable cities) actually accused me of being politically correct (If this were true, it would come as a huge shock to the rest of the CARRI team, not to mention my wife!).  By the way, these are my thoughts I share today and not necessarily the voice of CARRI.

 I thought it would be worthwhile to talk about who are the challenged, and why it makes practical sense for communities to treat them as potential assets, not liabilities.

 If we look at our communities today, 5-10 % of the population has some debilitating mental or physical condition.  Last year, one in eight Americans received at least part of their food through food stamps – and one in four of our children.  Officially, about 10% of our population is unemployed; but if we include new college grads, those who’ve stopped looking for work, and those who are underutilized, the rate increases to almost 18% nationwide.  It should also be noted that unemployment among the college-educated is at an all-time high – almost 5%.  In the Rust Belt and parts of the South, the official unemployment rate is over 20%, meaning that the actual unemployment rate approaches 30%.  Thus, in many communities, a large fraction of the population – and sometimes a majority – is facing significant challenges.  

 After a community is hit by a disaster, recovery makes huge demands on the permanent personnel who actually keep the community running.  More people are needed to remove debris.  More people are needed to handle the flood of permits for rebuilding.  People are needed to reconnect families and to help get services to those who need them.  Many communities meet these needs by hiring “outsiders” to provide these services, but if they do so, they lose in at least two ways: 

  • These communities send the resources to pay for these services outside the community.  Since the federal government will pay for many kinds of temporary workers after a disaster, it makes good sense to hire these workers from within the community – to keep as many precious dollars within the community as possible.  The challenged – particularly the employable unemployed – should be the first resource tapped by a community (To their credit, BP has agreed to do just that in southern Louisiana communities affected by the oil spill.).
  • These communities have to spend more of their resources helping the challenged recover from the disaster than they otherwise would. That means much less accomplished with limited resources and possibly a longer recovery period.

In other words, communities who don’t use the challenged to aid in the extraordinary challenges of recovery are turning potential assets into real liabilities.

 Thus, by making use of its members who face significant challenges to meet the extraordinary demands of recovery from a disaster, a community can keep dollars in the community while maintaining a more productive and motivated permanent staff.  This isn’t political correctness but enlightened self-interest.

Susan Kammeraad-Campbell

Flood Resilient Communities: National Flood Insurance Program Saves Money, Property, Lives

May 25th, 2010 - Susan Kammeraad-Campbell  

Note: This is the first of three blog entries on flood resilient communities

Flooding is the one disaster to which every community is vulnerable. And as we have learned from the recent flood devastation in Nashville and New Jersey, property owners considered outside delineated flood zones can have a rude awakening if the rains hit hard and fast. Many residents and business owners outside the 100-year floodplain believed themselves safe from flooding and did not have flood insurance. They had a harsh lesson from which we can all learn.

Since standard insurance policies do not cover flooding, property owners have the opportunity to purchase protection through the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) if their community meets FEMA requirements to adopt and enforce ordinances for reducing flood risks.

While community participation in the NFIP is voluntary, nearly 21,000 communities across the United States and its territories participate. Only in participating communities do homeowners, renters and business owners have access to federally backed flood insurance.

Having and enforcing an adequate floodplain management plan is a mark of a resilient community. Adopting standards that exceed NFIP standards means a community might sustain even less damage and recover more quickly. Translated: floodplain management saves money, property, and lives.

Beyond that, there are costs to a community for not participating in the NFIP. Federal officers or agencies, such as Veterans Affairs or Federal Housing Administration, are prohibited from approving any form of financial assistance related to land located in a Special Flood Hazard Area. If a Presidential disaster is declared, no federal financial aid can be used to repair or reconstruct flood-damaged homes.

Without community oversight of building activities in the floodplain, the best efforts of some to reduce future flood losses can be compromised by the careless practices of others. Likewise, insurance rates will be adversely affected.

After a disaster, non-participating communities can apply to join the NFIP within six months and, if accepted, limitations on federal disaster assistance will be lifted. But after a disaster is not the best time for a community to undertake an application. Neither is it wise for individuals to secure insurance after the flood damages or destroys a home or business, or to wait for the forecast that predicts severe flooding since most insurance programs don’t allow for last minute policies.

There are distinct benefits for living in a flood resilient community. Exceeding the minimum NFIP requirements can mean insurance discounts of between 5 and 45 percent. Further, the program has resulted in insurance reductions of nearly $1 billion annually. According to the NFIP, buildings that meet flood construction standards suffer approximately 80 percent less damage than non-compliant structures.

It’s worth noting that FEMA reports that up to 25 percent of NFIP flood insurance claims are paid on buildings that are outside the mapped Special Flood Hazard Area, those areas where floodplain management regulations must be enforced and where flood insurance is mandatory.

Resilience begins at home. The best way to protect your investment in your home is to have adequate coverage. If you live in a community that is not in the NFIP, private insurance can be purchased. Visit www.floodsmart.gov for a listing of agents by community. You can find out if your community participates in the NFIP by going to www.fema.gov/fema/csb.  If your community is not part of the program, you can petition your local government to participate.

For those not subject to the NRIP regulations requiring flood insurance, it is especially important to self-regulate and purchase insurance and use flood damage-resistant materials and building practices. Stay tuned, this is the subject of the next blog on flood resilient communities.

Arthur (Andy) Felts

Thinking the Unthinkable

May 12th, 2010 - Arthur (Andy) Felts  

Today I am “thinking out loud” as I watch, read, and listen to what is happening on the Gulf Coast – I am really concerned about what is happening there, and I thank you for listening as I share my thoughts and note these are my thoughts and not necessarily those of the CARRI Team.  A couple of years ago, Time magazine reporter Amanda Ripley published a book titled The Unthinkable: Who survives when disaster strikes and why. The book recounts individual acts of heroism in response to disasters and what bluntly must be described as incredible acts of naïveté at best and stupidity at worst. It is simplistic, but accurate, to say that those who survive disasters think ahead and those who do not, don’t.

Of course it is human nature to resist thinking about disasters, unthinkable or otherwise. We will never know why some people try to carry their luggage off a burning plane, why someone heads for their attic with no way out during a severe flood or why some thought up was the best way to get out of the burning World Trade Center.

CARRI is about encouraging communities to think about known possible threats that have a reasonable possibility of occurring. Addressing these through mitigation, preparation, response and planning to recover makes common sense.

But CARRI is also encouraging communities to think about the unthinkable where the consequences of a disaster can be dramatic in scale. The way we have been doing this is developing a Common Framework that asks communities to look at events, no matter how remote, where the potential loss is enormous. In doing this, they may decide that at least some preparation or mitigation – however modest – might be appropriate.

If we are to believe what we read these days, the unthinkable has occurred in the Gulf of Mexico. The possibilities of an oil rig exploding, collapsing and sinking one mile into the ocean, and leaving an open, gushing stream of oil were so remote and fail-safed enough we were not to worry.

However it appears a perfect storm of events did occur to make that unthinkable a reality. Given that reality, we now realize that the human/ecosystem damage could be so vast that it might have been worthwhile to construct a simple thing like a containment dome and perhaps even another one or two strategies in advance. I’m not privy to the BP boardroom, but I’m betting that they wish they did, given the costs they are facing in retribution and cleanup.

It is ironic that the unthinkable should have been because twenty-one years ago an oil spill in Alaska coated 1,300 miles of Prince William Sound. It was another perfect storm. A tired Captain turned the ship over to a tired crewman with icebergs in the outer shipping lane, forcing the ship to sail an inner lane. Add to that the technology was not operating that would have alerted the crew to the rocks that the Exxon Valdez encountered. 

Ripley writes about this at the individual level. Even though we all know that being a passenger on a crashed plane is extremely remote, those who do survive report that they actually listen to the flight attendant’s instructions and identify the nearest exit. Or those that head to the attic in a flood take an axe with them.

As they become more resilient, communities should move from thinking about the thinkable and the probable to the unthinkable where the loss could be very high.

John Plodinec

Three things I think I think – about resilience

April 19th, 2010 - John Plodinec  

With apologies to Peter King of Sports Illustrated …

I think I think I’m starting to hate resilience.  Not the concept, but the word.  Like sustainability, it has been adopted as a fad by so many, that it is losing its meaning.  In CARRI, we are focused on the concept of being able to bounce back better, but that injects a tincture of resistance into our definition that sometimes confuses people.

I think I think that our ballooning federal deficit is the single greatest threat to the resilience of our communities.  From 2005 to today, the federal government has lost one “Katrina” – the federal government’s payments to service our national debt have increased by slightly more than it cost to recover from Katrina.  Simply put, communities will have to develop creative ways to find and use the resources they will need to recover from a disaster.  This is one area where I hope that CARRI’s Community Resilience System Initiative will have a great impact.

I think I think that we as a nation need to put a spotlight on rural America.  In a very real sense, our rural communities are under siege.  Their ability to respond to disasters is at its lowest ebb since the Depression.  Many are struggling to reinvent themselves because they have lost their original reason for being; others are just holding on trying to stave off their inevitable death.  But if some of the predicted impacts of global warming are real, it is likely to eradicate a large number of rural communities across the country.  Rural citizens most likely will go to coastal areas that will already be coping with their own impacts from climate change.  Ideally, we’d like to see the migration go the other way – away from coastal communities.  We need to figure out how to help rural communities become more resilient – in this case, able to recover quickly from acute disasters and respond to the chronic problem of reinventing themselves in a changing world.

Next Page »