|
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 41
3
________________________________________________________________________
Challenges and Barriers
The United States is, in general, a socially and economically resilient nation,
according to some workshop participants, but numerous questions were raised regarding
how to make individual communities more resilient during the course of the workshop.
What has U.S. society done correctly in terms of recovery and maintaining social
cohesion in the face of enormous disasters? Can the characteristics that make the nation
resilient be translated to the local level to make communities resilient? Can collaborations
and community resilience be built using the frameworks of existing collaborative entities,
or are new mechanisms needed? Many workshop participants pointed out that the
government and private sectors are not natural allies and that the United States has
developed legal, cultural, and regulatory barriers that may discourage private-public sector
collaboration. How, then, are these barriers to private-public sector collaboration
overcome?
This chapter explores some of the barriers to building sustainable private-public sector
collaborations and partnerships that have been identified by workshop participants.
Potential research questions and themes are addressed in Chapter 4.
BARRIERS TO BUSINESS SECTOR ENGAGEMENT
During market equilibrium, there is a certain amount of needs and a certain capacity
to fill those needs. Stephen Jordan of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce stated that a critical
problem faced by a community as a whole following a disaster is the existence of both
demand and supply shock to a local economy. A demand shock is created when everyone
in a community needs everything at once. However, the capacity to fill those needs may
not be available, creating a supply shock. Until community needs are met or cease to
exist, equilibrium will not be reestablished. He summarized six key barriers to meeting
those needs and to sustaining business involvement in community disaster resilience
efforts more generally. These barriers are relevant for businesses of all sizes.
1. Natural disasters do not respect political jurisdictions. The nation’s political
jurisdictions are increasingly divorced from its economic, social, and
41
OCR for page 42
42 PRIVATE-PUBLIC SECTOR COLLABORATION FOR COMMUNITY DISASTER RESILIENCE
environmental spaces. Policy is often dictated by legacy issues dating back to
the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries which have no real significance to
society and the economy today.
2. A perception of public sector inefficiencies in disaster response exists. The
private sector may believe that emergency response is conducted on an ad hoc
basis without institutional memory of lessons learned from previous events.
There is a need to systematically codify best practices and remove
inefficiencies.
3. A holistic approach to community resilience building is lacking. There is a
need to link educational, medical, workplace, and transportation systems in
resilience building and disaster response activities.
4. Resource coordination is lacking. There is a need for better understanding and
coordination of public and private resources during disasters. An example was
given of a post-Hurricane Katrina event. The Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) requisitioned oil and gas reserves intended for the Red Cross.
In so doing, the Red Cross did not have the fuel needed to carry out its own
response activities. Better coordination could have prevented this scenario.
5. Disaster response systems are not maintained. Recovery processes can take
years. It is difficult for collaborators to maintain momentum for extended
periods.
6. Discrepancies between public and private sector approaches exist. Public
and private organizations often have very different perspectives and approaches
to disaster management. Additionally chief executive officers (CEOs) may have
diverging views regarding disaster response and recovery among themselves
and may not appreciate public sector approaches. Public sector responses are
often regulated by the Stafford Act.1 The private sector tends to prefer tighter
goals than the public sector, and prefers more discretion in the strategies and
tactics used to achieve them than the public sector is allowed by law.
The issues raised about barriers to sustainable private-public sector partnerships
discussed during the workshop often fit in some way into one or more of these six
categories.
The next sections organize challenges identified by participants.
National and Local Business Engagement
Enlightened altruism is a powerful motivator for both small and large businesses to
engage in community resilience-building collaboration. However, there are many
challenges in effectively integrating the business community into resilience-building
1
See www.fema.gov/about/stafact.shtm (accessed December 1, 2009).
OCR for page 43
CHALLENGES AND BARRIERS 43
processes. Locally owned and operated businesses may not have the resources, including
time, to engage in community resilience-building efforts. Although they may have
resources necessary to enhance disaster recovery, large businesses managed from outside
a community may not be well integrated into the fabric of a local community and may not
identify with, understand, or respond to the needs of the community. Large corporations
sometimes have liability concerns that become more complex if their businesses operate
in multiple states, nationally, or globally
Partnership activities by large companies often receive attention following successful
recovery from disaster. Although this is important and may provide useful models, the
“real job creation engines of this country…[lie] fallow if we can’t bring [small business]
into the conversation” according to M. John Plodinec of the Savannah River National
Laboratory. Workshop participants noted that many local economies depend on the
viability of their small businesses. However, many small businesses are unable to survive
a disaster. It is essential to engage small business in the collaborative planning process. A
challenge is in determining how best to initiate and sustain that engagement.
Building a more resilient community can be considered equivalent to decreasing
community risk and uncertainty, according to some workshop participants. Resilience-
building collaboration may not decrease the risk of disaster, but may substantially
mitigate the impacts of disaster and lead to faster recovery. Some participants questioned
whether resilience levels in a community could influence whether a business chooses to
establish itself in one community versus another. Others postulated that determining a
means of rating or objectively assessing a community’s resilience could factor into
influencing private sector investments and facility location decisions, potentially
contributing to a community’s economic growth or stability. Gene Matthews of the
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill said that measuring preparedness and
resilience in various categories by state is already done to a limited extent, citing the
Trust for America’s Health2 rating of states in select categories. Though some question
the methodologies used, ratings in categories such as facility or organizational liability
has encouraged some states to address issues associated with business liability protection.
Establishing appropriate metrics that ultimately encourage business engagement is a
substantial challenge.
Concern was raised by some workshop participants that the characteristics of and
issues faced by small or large businesses may be generalized when recommendations for
overcoming barriers to collaboration are ultimately made. This could limit the usefulness
of recommendations.
2
See www.healthyamericans.org/ (accessed December 2, 2009).
OCR for page 44
44 PRIVATE-PUBLIC SECTOR COLLABORATION FOR COMMUNITY DISASTER RESILIENCE
Business Engagement in Small and Rural Communities
Barriers to business sector collaboration are amplified in some rural communities,
according to Adele Lyons of the Knight Foundation in Gulfport, Mississippi, because
resources may be more limited, and individuals are isolated by their lack of physical
proximity to their neighbors. A “go-it-alone” attitude may prevail in some rural areas,
creating additional cultural barriers to collaboration to be overcome. Tools and
mechanisms to assist in the development of collaborations often do not take into account
the special needs of businesses in small or rural communities.
JURISDICTIONAL CHALLENGES
The Roles of Federal and Local Jurisdictions
Dealing with disaster-related issues that cross political boundaries is challenging. A
need was expressed by some workshop participants to reconcile economic, social,
environmental, and political roles and jurisdictions so that communities may pursue more
effective resilient strategies and better respond to disasters. Many workshop participants
noted that the role of governments at different levels is not as clear as would be most
useful. New and important issues, such as the spread of the H1N1 virus,3 can quickly
overwhelm the reality of limited time and resources, especially at the local community
level. This is further compounded by the time necessary to sort the respective roles of
governments and organizations. Some workshop participants observed that the federal
government may often be more flexible and more proactive in emergent situations than
local governments and may provide some forms of assistance. Building trust and
improving communication between different levels of government, as well as within
different agencies at any given level of government, is essential for clear and sustainable
disaster reliance collaboration.
Workshop participants noted that the responsibility and burden associated with
disaster planning is often legislatively placed at lower levels of government by higher-
level governing bodies. Scott McCallum, former governor of Wisconsin, currently with
the Aidmatrix Foundation, Inc., described the need to think beyond federal mandates, and
think in terms of identifying and proliferating best practices. He also stated that federal
agencies such as the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) need to learn how to better
coordinate with other federal agencies such as the Department of Health and Human
Services, the Department of Education, and the Department of Commerce in order to
determine how to appropriately support the needs of state and local governments.
When discussing FEMA’s role in building resilience, Jason McNamara stated that
FEMA’s function should not be to enter a community at the time of a disaster and dictate
how to operate. Instead, FEMA’s first role should be to help identify problems and issues
on a daily basis and to work as a partner toward locally relevant solutions. He stated that
FEMA’s second role is to help integrate resilience building into day-to-day emergency
management operations. It is important to avoid the “domino theory” of emergency
3
See www.cdc.gov/H1N1FLU/ (accessed December 1, 2009).
OCR for page 45
CHALLENGES AND BARRIERS 45
management—one in which the state government becomes involved only when local
agencies fail, and the federal government becomes involved if failures occur at the state
level. The model of responsibility could be more like concentric circles around an issue
with local government at the center and the federal government supporting local and state
responsibilities. The responsibilities of each level of governmental could be shared in
alignment with their appropriate roles and hence their activities conducted in concert with
one other. FEMA, according to Mr. McNamara, does not make up the team nor is it the
keeper of the resilience-building plans, but FEMA could be considered part of the team
that can help to perpetuate the message of the importance of resilience, collaboration, and
planning. Maria Vorel of FEMA stated that a better role for the federal government could
be to serve local government with technical assistance and support via affirmation rather
than prescriptions and forced compliance.
When a disaster occurs, it is often challenging to coordinate the delivery of resources,
goods, and services across jurisdictional boundaries. Different levels of government are
not always aligned, and different agencies within any single level may not collaborate
well. Several workshop participants observed that federal, state, and local governments
may not share trust and respect for one another, and rivalries may exist, even at local
levels of government, between different emergency management offices. These prevent
efficient communication and response which only damage the community’s ability to
efficiently and effectively respond and recover from a disaster. Participants shared
anecdotes in which the lack of a common communication infrastructure between police
and firefighting organizations, for example, caused problems ranging from minor
inefficiencies to major gaps in emergency response. Getting past these barriers for the sake
of building community resilience is a challenge. Workshop participants stressed the
importance of removing the “silos” that government, nonprofit, and private organizations
into which they are too often placed. Many participants stated that the public sector has
not yet recognized the potentially greater value of all organizations working together
rather than each organization working separately. DHS could lead collaborative
partnerships by example. The concept of resilience building through partnering could be
more tangible if DHS internally systemized and partnered at the agency level.
According to Governor McCallum, some challenges to building community resilience
cannot be solved through FEMA or DHS control, or through organizations such as
Aidmatrix or the American Red Cross. The collaborative effort of all stakeholders, he
stated, is the means to building resilience and is dependent on the ability of all to
communicate, share, and work together to build community at the local level. He and
others suggested that often some type of neutral entity is needed to facilitate
collaboration, create tools, share information, and act as a resource and honest broker
between the private sector, local communities, and different levels of government. The
entity could be an organization or a tool that provides the means of creating mechanisms
for sharing information and best practices. It could also provide the means of creating the
social networks vital for effective communication and systems integration.
Diverse groups participating within a collaborative network do not necessarily have
to like each other or know how to communicate well with each other. An honest broker
serving as a facilitator could help prospective partners overcome these issues, build trust,
and integrate resilience-building efforts. The challenge is identifying the entity or
mechanism appropriate for each community.
OCR for page 46
46 PRIVATE-PUBLIC SECTOR COLLABORATION FOR COMMUNITY DISASTER RESILIENCE
Legislated Resilience
Some workshop participants noted that there is hesitancy in the private sector to
become involved in private-public sector collaboration because of the fear of potential
additional government oversight. Many in the private sector are already overwhelmed by
government programs, regulations, and mandates. Some participants went as far as to say
that programs such as the DHS Voluntary Private Sector Preparedness Accreditation
Program4 may detract focus and energy from where they are needed to create resilient
businesses. They expressed the view that less regulation can be better because
organizations know what they need to function on an ongoing basis. Others at the
workshop countered that guidance from higher levels of government is necessary to
ensure at least some level of disaster preparedness. Mary Wong of the Office Depot
Foundation stated that numerous small and mid-size businesses close after a disaster,
indicating that businesses may not know what they need to do to survive a disaster. Many
companies and other types of organization may need assistance creating preparedness and
continuity plans.
Liability
Maria Vorel of FEMA noted that federal public employees may avoid working with
the private sector because of misinterpreted ethical guidelines for safeguarding against
favoritism toward contractors. The small amount of training that federal employees
receive encourages limited interaction with the private sector. This training and internal
culture could dissuade government employees from collaboratively engaging with the
private sector for the sake of building community resilience.
Chapter 2 described some of the concerns of those in the private sector with respect to
liability. Some participants noted that there is concern and confusion as to whether Good
Samaritan laws are applicable to businesses acting in good faith following a disaster
should injuries occur. But liability is also an issue between local, state, and federal
authorities. Leslie Luke of the San Diego County Office of Emergency Services pointed
out that there is lack of knowledge of whether memoranda of understanding (MOUs)
established between local jurisdictions and private organizations conflict or compete with
state-level MOUs. In such circumstances, there is confusion about how liability is
covered. It is not often understood if local MOUs are superseded by state MOUs, or
whether local liability will be covered under a state umbrella. This confusion presents
real barriers to effective collaboration and coordination and may create disincentives for
the private sector (and government at various levels) to become involved.
Insurance
The Multihazard Mitigation Council report of 2005 was referenced several times by
workshop participants (MMC, 2005). In it, the benefits of physical and process mitigation
against disaster were calculated. The measure of resilience could have implications in
4
See www.fema.gov/privatesector/preparedness/index.htm (accessed December 2, 2009).
OCR for page 47
CHALLENGES AND BARRIERS 47
terms of liability and insurance. Brent Woodworth of the Los Angeles Emergency
Preparedness Foundation described his own experiences developing resiliency programs
that reduced financial losses by over two-thirds per incident over a 10-year span.
However this work was not accompanied by a change in insurance costs.
Within the building industry, groups such as the National Institute of Building
Sciences5 and the American Institute of Architects6 have advocated performance-based
building codes set against performance expectations. Pennie Bingham of the Charleston,
South Carolina Metro Chamber of Commerce described similar efforts by a local
business continuity and planning council representing different size businesses
collaborating for different types of engagement. They advocate legislation encouraging
insurance companies to provide incentives for contingency planning. Workshop
participants discussed, however, that insurance companies have no incentive to lower
their rates. It is less expensive for them to sell more insurance.
The International Center for Enterprise Preparedness at New York University7 has
explored the issue of insurance incentives, according to Debra Ballen of the Institute for
Business and Home Safety. They released a white paper, Insurance Incentives for
Corporate Preparedness, which focused on implementation and measurement capture
(Raisch and Statler, 2006). The paper indicates which American National Standards
Institute (ANSI) and National Fire Protection Association standards may prove to be
useful criteria for companies in developing their emergency preparedness programs, and
for underwriters in assessing the level of preparedness of policy holders.
Leadership
Sometimes even successful disaster resilience collaborations prove not to be
sustainable or resilient. The loss of charismatic leadership can create a leadership
vacuum; or formerly predictable sources of funding may fade away. It has already been
discussed that a catalytic presence is often necessary to make collaboration happen. Many
workshop participants suggested that it is essential, when the collaboration is established,
to infuse the vision of the founding leadership into the collaboration itself.
Institutionalizing the collaboration mission is important to ensure the sustainability of the
partnership when individual leaders or circumstances change. Determining how to make
this happen is a substantial challenge. Research on what leadership is and what it should
look like in collaborations, how leaders engender trust and nurture the creation of a
vision, and what engenders the confidence to empower others to help achieve the vision
will provide information regarding how leadership for future successful and sustainable
collaborative efforts can be nurtured.
5
See www.nibs.org (accessed December 2, 2009).
6
See www.aia.org (accessed December 2, 2009).
7
See www.nyu.edu/intercep (accessed December 2, 2009).
OCR for page 48
48 PRIVATE-PUBLIC SECTOR COLLABORATION FOR COMMUNITY DISASTER RESILIENCE
LANGUAGE BARRIERS
The term “private-public partnerships” has been used for many years in the
emergency management community, according to Jim Mullen, and a major challenge has
been overcoming the language barriers and different focus among partners. The language
used among those in the banking community, for example, is different from that used
within the public health community. It is essential to breach language barriers so that
effective communication may take place. For example, basic terms such as “resilience,”
“risk,” and “community” were defined differently even among workshop participants
well versed in topics related to resilience, disaster preparedness, and partnership building.
Not defining the terms can be a barrier to effective collaboration, preventing
identification of the needs of diverse people in a society. This is true for people from
different professional sectors, social classes, and ethnic groups. Many workshop
participants stated that resolving issues of semantics is essential so that a purpose and
structure for the collaboration may be defined.
Some workshop participants observed that different interest groups may have
difficulty communicating, even if similar outcomes are desired. Members of the business
sector may not communicate effectively with, for example, members of non-profit or
faith-based organizations. The public sector may not communicate well with the private
sector. There is a need to find a common language that all will understand that will
contribute to effective multiple-stakeholder partnerships. Several of those attending the
workshop stated that research in this area may be helpful. During conversation at the
workshop, many participants noted that the hierarchical, command-and-control style in
language and approach with roots in law enforcement and the military in use by DHS
may not be conducive to the encouragement of resilience-building collaboration.
Monitoring and addressing this could be beneficial so that it complements ground-up
collaboration at the community level.
Some workshop participants stated that partnerships between public sector
organizations at the local level are just as important for community resilience
collaboration as they are between sister agencies at the federal level. Claudia Albano of
the City of Oakland described how the inability to coordinate between agencies at the
local level creates inefficiencies and duplication of efforts and human resources within
those agencies. As an example, she described how local police and fire departments may
independently work to create separate neighborhood-level programs such as
neighborhood crime watch or disaster safety groups. Ultimately they may end up
competing for the attention of the same neighborhood residents. Coordination of the
programs could result in gaining a wider audience for both efforts.
BUILDING TRUST
Trust is a fundamental factor essential to the formation of sustainable and effective
collaboration. Trusted relationships are the capital that drive collaboration and build
resilience. As Ron Carlee of Arlington, Virginia, stated, trust is organic and dynamic, and
the nature of trust varies from community to community. Strategy and creativity need to
be employed to build trust, and not a single formula or plan will work universally. A
OCR for page 49
CHALLENGES AND BARRIERS 49
vision and commitment are needed to bring people together in trust. Government
agencies often spend money on hardware and supplies, but often do not consider trust and
other human factors that are essential for the technology to be used to its potential. A lack
of understanding of human factors prevent the most effective use of any technologies,
methodologies, or strategies applied to building community resilience. Understanding the
qualities of trust and how trust is built between collaborating people and organizations
was considered important by many workshop participants. Understanding how trust is
sustained, especially under stressful conditions, is equally important.
RESOURCE CHALLENGES
Workshop participants discussed how building community resilience generally
enhances the social capital of a community. Better horizontal and vertical connections to
those who have resources that can be utilized during a disaster are created. This is
beneficial for all members of the community. However, several participants noted that it
may be difficult to sell the concept of non-threat-based resilience through partnerships
without the perception of threat. Political barriers at all government levels could deter
resilience building efforts conducted without a hazard focus. In addition, they noted that
funding for resilience-building collaboration is limited.
When asked what was needed to make private-public sector collaboration for
community resilience building a national priority, Jim Mullen of the Washington State
Military Department stated that all fledgling private-public programs across the country
struggle with obtaining sustainable funding. Federal funding programs are often short
lived, but collaboration and resilience building is a long-term process. Funding for long-
term approaches to resilience building is difficult to obtain, in part because thinking in
the long term is, in itself, not acknowledged as a critical aspect of program delivery,
according to Ms. Vorel. Congress provides funds for the delivery of a successful
program, but does not have mechanisms in place to appreciate processes such as
collaboration, partnership development, and public education. Benchmarks are not
readily available to justify resource requests for these types of expenditures. Jami Haberl
of Safeguard Iowa Partnerships also pointed out the challenges imposed by the
inflexibility of grants received from public sources. Restrictions on how dollars can be
spent do not allow for the creative resource management sometimes needed to build and
maintain partnerships. Additionally, administering public grants can be confusing and
time-consuming.
Small and rural communities are often unable to participate in funding programs that
require matching funds from the recipients because matching funds are unavailable,
according to Adele Lyons. Some workshop participants said the private sector could be a
source for funding, but multiple participants indicated hesitancy on the part of the private
sector to provide financial support if the public sector is not doing so as well. Mickie
Valente of the Florida Council of 100 suggested that incentivizing the private sector to
participate in collaborations could also provide incentives for the private sector to provide
financial support.
Fundraising on behalf of partnerships can be time-consuming. Those charged with
facilitating partnerships may find all their time spent in search of funding rather than on
OCR for page 50
50 PRIVATE-PUBLIC SECTOR COLLABORATION FOR COMMUNITY DISASTER RESILIENCE
efforts that strengthen networks or facilitates resilience-building activities. Ms. Haberl
also noted the circular nature of the fundraising activities. To gain the financial support of
the private sector, outcomes are needed to demonstrate the potential return. However,
without the support, no outcomes can be realized.
Many workshop participants agreed that more money and resources could alleviate
some of the barriers to building resilient communities. Others stated that receiving more
money is not likely in the foreseeable future and expressed, as Governor McCallum did,
that a challenge exists in getting people to think beyond identifying the need for more
money. Many agreed that a major challenge exists in building a culture that encourages
creative funding, volunteerism among community members representing the full fabric of
the community, and a community that focuses on results rather than mandatory processes.
INEFFICIENCIES
Topics in the next paragraphs have been discussed in greater detail elsewhere in the
report, but are highlighted in this section on inefficiencies because of the extreme
challenges they present to creating effective private-public sector collaboration for
building community resilience.
Lessons Lost
Resilience-building systems seem to be event-driven rather than infused into the daily
way business is conducted. Learning from experience and retaining knowledge for future
applications is a challenge, especially as political administrations change. Lessons
learned can be short-lived, and relearning lessons is inefficient.
Too Few Measures
The nation currently lacks an evidenced-based and politically acceptable
nonprescriptive framework that helps communities as they work to build resilience.
Workshop participants noted, however, that few measures of resilience exist and so it is
therefore difficult to establish objectives and measures of success. Financial planning and
resource allocation cannot be most efficiently accomplished without meaningful goals
and metrics.
OCR for page 51
CHALLENGES AND BARRIERS 51
Poor Horizontal Communication
Inefficiencies may occur as a result of the command and control systems currently the
norm in emergency management since 9/11. According to Ms. Vorel of FEMA, such
systems are not supportive of collaboration and horizontal networking across public and
private organizations. Communication using law enforcement or military vernacular, for
example, is not conducive to collaboration, especially with respect to mitigation, but also
for a broad range of emergency management activities.
INCLUDING THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY
Impoverished Communities
Workshop participants indicated a need to avoid focusing resilience-building efforts
on a “generic” population of a community (e.g., middle-class, educated suburban
dwellers). It is essential to consider and attend to the needs of all populations. Current
governing systems at any level, for example, generally do not have plans to deal with
communities in perpetual states of disaster due to poverty, crime, and violence. Building
a nation of resilience requires moving communities beyond these perpetual disaster
states. Members and organizations within these impoverished communities are a part of
the full fabric of the community and need to be integral to collaborative efforts. Survivors
within these communities can be important resources for the larger community when
considering resilience because of their experiences living with disaster on a daily basis.
By representing all members of the community in collaborative efforts, all members
become empowered to be a part of decision making to create change. All members of the
community could accrue the benefits of resilience-building efforts.
Community- and Faith-Based Organizations
The work of community- and faith-based organizations following a disaster was
repeatedly called to attention. These groups often provide food, shelter, medical, hygiene,
and other support services before emergency responders are even able to get into a
stricken area. They often identify needs and fill the gaps in services otherwise not
provided (Homeland Security Institute, 2006). These groups are often underrepresented
in private-public sector collaborations, in many cases because they do not readily fit into
the silos filled by other types of organizations. Determining how to most effectively
engage and include community- and faith-based organizations in resilience-building
efforts is a great organizational challenge.
OCR for page 52
52 PRIVATE-PUBLIC SECTOR COLLABORATION FOR COMMUNITY DISASTER RESILIENCE
CREATING VERSUS CONTROLLING THE ENVIRONMENT FOR
CHANGE
Prescriptive mandates from the federal government are often not conducive to
grassroots community-level collaboration. Workshop participants indicated that it is not
federal control that is needed to create change, but a national movement supported by the
federal government that can create the environment that instills more responsibility for
resilience building at the community level.
Culture change is possible and there are case studies of communities that are building
resilience through culture change. Brent Woodworth described activities in Tulsa,
Oklahoma where grassroots collaborative efforts encouraged builders to include safe
rooms as a showcase in new homes being built in one of the highest tornado-prone
regions in the country. Over time, many consumers came to expect that they would only
buy in the area if the home included a safe room. This change in cultural environment
came without prescriptive mandates from government. However, Ann Patton of Tulsa
Partners, Inc. (retired), did clarify that safe rooms will likely not be found in “low-end”
housing, or that the need for safe rooms will be recognized for long if the community is
not continually reminded in meaningful ways of the risks associated with tornadoes.
Comprehensive community planning should incorporate disaster preparedness
planning as part of its overall efforts. Ms. Valente described post-disaster redevelopment
plans in Florida that are now being included as part of comprehensive land-use planning.
These plans are being encouraged by the business community and Florida legislature for
the state’s coastal communities. This is being done in the same way that good business
plans are encouraged to include contingency plans. The plans include not only land-use
considerations and issues associated with built infrastructure, but also planning associated
with environmental, communications, and other factors. These are umbrella plans in
which all other local mitigation strategy plans can fit. Ms. Valente admitted, however,
that the tools and analyses are not available to deal with the economic component of the
plan. Such community planning could promote connectivity among community members,
according to Ron Carlee of Arlington County, Virginia. Land-use planning done in such a
way as to build physical communities that are resilient and sustainable could result.
Governor McCallum warned, however, of the need for careful planning. Solving some
problems, such as bringing people closer to public transportation, may increase the
likelihood of other problems, such as pandemic spread of illness.
A social environment conducive to building community resilience from the ground up
needs to support organic growth, flexibility, and the needs of all community stakeholders.
The environment would allow relationships to be built on trust. As collaborative
structures are established, there is a need to determine how to make them sustainable. The
most effective solutions developed within these structures are scalable to the different
needs of the community. To achieve essential resilience, networks need to take advantage
of social revolutions such as social networking that occurs among the younger
generations. Collaborations and their members are challenged to be flexible enough to
recognize and absorb changes experienced through evolution or driven by events.
