John Plodinec

Community Resilience and Innovation

September 25th, 2012 - John Plodinec  

I just finished an oldie but goodie, Tainter’s The Collapse of Complex Societies. His main thesis is that societies solve problems in ways that make them more complex. Initially, this complexity can have a high rate of return (assuming that the added complexity solves the problem). However, the marginal rate of return decreases and can become negative. In other words, a society’s resources are eventually consumed in simply supporting the complexities it has created. At that point, any stress causes decline or collapse (It is important to note that his operational definition of decline/collapse is shedding complexity.).  Tainter details a wide variety of case studies to develop his thesis, concentrating on the Roman, Mayan and Chacoan cultures. In subsequent work, he much more strongly ties the cost of complexity to energy (I’m biased, but I really like this approach.).

While Tainter casts his argument in terms of “societies,” it seems uncomfortably fitting for modern communities as well. In response to so many of our problems, communities (and our nation) create new bureaucracies to solve them. These bureaucracies take on a life of their own, and may eventually support their own existence more than they do the vitality of the community. As a result, all too often, they communicate less and less with other bureaucracies (protecting their turf), forming fortresses of influence, their communities becoming balkanized bastions of the status quo.

But a community’s complexities may reside elsewhere as well. Many communities are burdened with an aging and interdependent infrastructure that no longer is anything like optimal for current residential and business patterns. Even if there is the recognition and the will to build somewhere – or something – else better, the costs of doing so (e.g., jumping through regulatory hoops, acquisition of land) may well exceed the community’s capacity.

I’ve read an interesting rebuttal to Tainter’s thesis by Samuel Alexander of the Simplicity Institute (who knew there was such a thing!) at the University of Melbourne. Interesting, but sloppily argued (and overly apocalyptic). He argues that voluntary simplification is the answer, even while acknowledging the improbability of that working in the real world. If it was a fight, I’d give the decision to Tainter on points!

However, I think Tainter is vulnerable to attack from a different direction. To draw an analogy, Tainter’s view is thermodynamic (or ontological for the philosophic). What if the decline/collapse of communities is governed by kinetics (phenomenology)? In other words, what if communities collapse because their rate of response is slower than the rate of decline? Or, as Jack Welch once said, “If the rate of change on the outside exceeds the rate of change on the inside, the end is near.” The complexities already within the community make the “energy of activation” for developing solutions to new problems so high that eventually they can’t solve their problems fast enough. In other words, the community is not very resilient and goes into decline.

In chemistry, one way to force a chemical reaction that has a high energy of activation is to use a catalyst. In a community setting, innovation can be the catalyst that makes it easier to solve problems more rapidly. This might be repurposing existing bureaucracies (Governor Cuomo’s regional economic development strategy in NY is an example.). Or breaching bureaucratic walls so that information flows more rapidly (The administrative systems in San Diego and Baltimore force city departments to talk across their boundaries in order to achieve goals that may span the domains of several departments.). Or forming public-private partnerships to build new, or replace existing, infrastructure (As the Port Authority of NY/NJ have done to rebuild the Goethals Bridge.). Or using old technology in new ways to support community development (TVA’s use of its power corridors as a way to enable deployment of wide band internet capacity in rural Mississippi – the MEGAPOP initiative.).

Thus, innovation can play an important role in a community’s resilience. It can act as a catalyst to solve “wicked problems.” It can provide the impetus to change the status quo in a positive way. It can shine a new light into a community’s dark corners, and a new broom to sweep away the cobwebs found. Thus, when resilience is needed, communities should look to do the old in a new way, to speak the truth in a new tongue, and to re-invent themselves anew to solve the problems they face.

John Plodinec

Sustainability and Community Resilience: III. The Evolution of a Community

September 19th, 2012 - John Plodinec  

In previous posts in this series, I’ve tried to look at the relationship between sustainability and resilience, first in terms of time, then looking at how perceived self-interest impacts both. In this post, I’m going to look at what the evolution of a community can tell us about this relationship (Apology – this is a bit longer than normal due to graphics).

As mentioned in the last post, community sustainability means a wise use of resources,

• Discriminating between wants and needs so that needs are met first, and
• Using resources efficiently – the least necessary to meet the maximal amount of needs.

As a sidelight, if a community cannot provide one or more of the services that its members perceive as essential at an acceptable level, it risks loss of those members. Thus, if the community’s capacity is at too low a level, then the community either collapses or reorganizes itself into something different (Lance Gunderson would call this a domain shift.). As I’ve argued in a previous blog, this is what has happened in New Orleans.

In practice, a community may not have all of the resources it needs to fill every need, but may trade resources from one area (usually economic) to “buy” resources in another. As an example, an isolated rural community might not be able to afford its own hospital, or even be able to support a full-time medical professional, but could forge an agreement with a regional medical facility to operate a clinic.

I have tried to represent the thoughts above in a graphic (see Figure 1). For each community service area (e.g., water, health care), the community receives a certain level of service. Taken together at any time, these define the state of the community, let’s call it F(t). Since I’m not a very good artist, I’ve collapsed all of the community service areas into three – infrastructural (including the built and natural environment), economic, and social. Also seen in the figure is a rendering of a 3-dimensional surface, D. This represents the region in community state space in which the level of service provided is no longer acceptable – if the community cannot provide an acceptable level of service (F(t) remains within D), the community will either reorganize or collapse (I think of D as the Dome of Doom.). We do not know the exact shape of D, nor do we know much about where its boundaries lie; however, we can infer its existence from phenomena such as the disappearance of rural American towns.

Figure 1. Evolution of a community

This diagram is also consistent with the idea that a community can “barter” for services that it may otherwise lack, e.g., using economic strength to overcome infrastructural weakness. This is represented as the narrow extensions of the dome along each axis (As a side note for those who get off on things thermodynamic, F(t) is related to the free energy of the community.).

As seen in the figure, the state of the community changes over time: in good times, the community can provide more services, i.e., move away from the origin. However, because of the interdependence among the services, a community rarely moves straight out from the origin. As an example, while the capture of a new airplane manufacturing facility may be a huge economic plus for the community, it will reduce the capacity of the community’s infrastructure because of the new demands for water, electric and transportation services. As discussed in the previous blog in this series, the location of D will also change over time; if the community members prosper, they will want additional services that they may not have had before. Thus, our isolated rural community initially might be satisfied with a clinic, but – at least in more prosperous times – would demand more complete medical services.

Evolution of a Community Service Area

If we look at a single facet of a community (let’s pick water services), we see little change during normal times (see Figure 2). There are changes due to the seasons, but not huge ones. Small events like a line break (the dip in the autumn) may cause a minor disruption in service, but generally the level of service provided is relatively constant over time. It also is greater than that actually needed – after all, we don’t really need our lawns to be green! It is important to note, however, that almost always the level of service provided reflects what the community wants and not necessarily what it needs. In this case, the seasonal changes in water usage reflect the difference between what’s wanted and what’s needed.

Figure 2. Normal water usage

Impact of a disaster

Suppose an earthquake occurs at time t (Figure 3) that causes major disruption to the water system (for this example, I’ll treat the pre-disaster service as a constant). The amount of water provided to the community will fall precipitately and this community is unable to reach the same level of service as before the earthquake. In this case, one could argue that the community’s water usage is now more sustainable than prior to the disaster, since the difference between the amount of water actually needed and that used is less, i.e., the community is meeting its need for water more efficiently. However, one also has to admit that the community wasn’t very resilient to the earthquake.

Figure 3. Impact of a disaster

Thus, a community’s evolution – particularly the impact of a disaster – further illuminates the relationship between sustainability and resilience. Both are related to use of resources to provide service. Sustainability is more about filling needs; resilience is more about providing the services the community wants. Wants can change dramatically over time, needs likely change more slowly. During a disaster, the community will want essential services to resume quickly, at least at the same level as before – efficient use of available resources will be important only if those resources are limited. For the community, speed is of the essence. Conversely, sustainability is all about efficient use of available resources – as long as needs are being met there is no need for additional resources.

In this series I have tried to determine the relationship between sustainability and resilience by answering
• Is a sustainable community resilient?
• Is a resilient community sustainable?
• Are resilience and sustainability at opposite ends of a continuum, or at right angles to each other?”
We’ve looked at the relationship between sustainability and resilience in terms of time, in terms of perceived self-interest, and in terms of the evolution of the community.

The relationship is clearly complex; the concepts are intertwined. As we have just seen, greater sustainability may not mean greater resilience – and the converse is equally true. A community’s sustainability is the integration over time of all of the actions the community takes and reflects the efficiency of its use of resources. A community’s resilience is demonstrated by how well the community continues to meet its citizens’ expectations even in the face of adversity. Sustainability is about maximizing efficiency; resilience is about optimizing the balance between efficiency and redundancy. In this sense, sustainability and resilience are not antipodes, nor at right angles, but complementary concepts both important to community success.

John Plodinec

How can our rural communities become more resilient?

March 19th, 2012 - John Plodinec  

In a recent post (A Tale of Two Towns), I wrote about two rural communities – one undergoing a long slow death, the other desperately trying to come back from a tornado. In that post, I said,

“… we must reach out both to the towns torn by tornadoes and those whose lifeblood is slowly dripping away. We must help them find new purposes, new reasons for being. We must be midwives to their rebirth…”

A little flowery, but certainly heartfelt. However, I didn’t offer any suggestions for how to impregnate rural communities with a new purpose. In order to do so I’m going to channel my inner Brian Dabson (RUPRI); James Clifton (Gallup); and Bruce Katz (Brookings). With their help, here is my prescription for the repurposing of a rural community.

Know thyself. Often, rural communities are painfully aware of the problems they face, but haven’t taken the time to do a dispassionate assessment of themselves as a community. They see the decline, or the danger of decline, but haven’t really looked at their strengths and weaknesses, or any opportunities that may be out there for them. But who knows their communities better than they do? Who else knows who are the suppliers and the customers for local businesses? Who else knows whether there are opportunities to replace “imported” (from outside the community) goods and services with something available inside? Who else knows what makes the community special? Who else knows what about the community needs changing?

Further, most rural communities probably haven’t looked at themselves in their regional setting. Does the community play a role in its regional economy? Is there a regional strategy it can be a part of? Are there resources in the region the community can take advantage of – not only financial or material, but human, for example, to help in planning? Too often, as Dabson says, “Regional collaboration is often regarded as an unnatural act.”

A recent experiment in New York State (and yes, Virginia, most of New York State is quite rural!) points out how effective regional collaboration can be. Initially, the state divided itself into nine regions reflecting existing interdependencies. Governor Cuomo championed an innovative regional approach to economic development based on partnerships across each region – government, business, academia, NGOs. Although there hasn’t been time for great successes to emerge, there is now real hope in small towns across the state, because they are working together, pooling resources, aiming for a more vibrant future.

It’s not innovators but entrepreneurs who hold the keys to the future. A vibrant community is one where people don’t have jobs, they have careers. People often forget that while Apple may have owed its start to the innovations of Steve Wozniak, it owes its present health to the entrepreneurial spirit of Steve Jobs. Is there someone in the community who has a good idea for substituting a local product for something imported? Is there someone in the community who has a good idea for a new product using local resources? Do they know how to market what they have? Do they have the funding? Could they “re-purpose” the community? A key to re-inventing rural communities is to encourage this kind of entrepreneurial thinking.

All solutions are local. If a rural community wants a vibrant future, it can’t look to the federal government or the state for a “guidebook” on how to achieve that. As Clifton says.

“It is wrong thinking to imagine that Washington has solutions.”

The only worthwhile guidance that any of us outside the community can provide is that the community must define its own desired future, one that can be reached from where the community is now. To reach it will require patient and persistent effort on the part of the entire community – not just the leadership, but everyone. And that means that everyone in the community has to buy in to a common vision of the future.

Resources are wherever you find them. Taking action – trying to create a different future for the community – requires “blood, toil, tears, and sweat.” In other words, it takes resources and effort to change the community’s future. Some of those resources can come from within. For example, in the very small town of Sangudo, Alberta (population 400), a group of retirees created an investment co-op. They pooled their funds to support promising business opportunities within their own community, and have given Sangudo a new lease on life.

But that doesn’t mean that the community need only rely on its own resources. For example, since 1977, Coastal Enterprises, Inc., has been helping rural communities improve their economies – first in Maine, and then more regionally. It is estimated that there are at least $5 billion in current investments by regional and local Community Development Investment Funds across the country. And let’s not forget that the needed resources may not be financial, but human. The extension services provided by our nation’s land grant colleges and universities offer a wide range of development support to communities willing to use them. While the community might not have a Small Business Development Center, one might be available regionally, or perhaps at the state level.

Communications play an increasingly important role in finding resources. That implies that rural communities should strive to get as much communications bandwidth as possible. Broadband internet access is an obvious part of that, but fostering connections from the community to the world outside is at least as important. Businesses to state or national associations, churches and other faith-based organizations to regional or national groups, ties to professional societies, and, of course, connections between local government and regional and state governmental bodies all can pay dividends to communities otherwise isolated.

Four ingredients making up a simple prescription, but one that can work to revitalize rural communities; one that can work, that is, if a community has the patience, the will, and – yes – the passion for itself to make it work. Whether it’s capitalizing on their space, their soil, or their proximity to an urban center, there are ways for rural communities to re-purpose themselves and to achieve a more vital future. But they have to believe in themselves and the vision they create, and recognize that it will take time to achieve the future they desire.