Image by SearchNetMedia via Flickr

In reading an article by a journalist from Phoenix, AZ about the Tucson shootings last week, I  began to have some serious doubts regarding the current thinking and research efforts on resilience to disasters in localities in the U.S.  As initiated by officials at Dept. of Homeland Security and others, the focus of the resilience studies in recent months has been on natural disasters, for the most part, not terrorist events, or industrial accidents, or major shootouts in urban settings. I now think the focus  for the term resilience is too narrow; in my view we need to deal with community development and culture to a much greater extent. The notion that resilience can be uncovered, unleashed, or even created in the short-term seems naive and unlikely to me. furthermore, FEMA’s emphasis on making a plan and packing a “go kit” addresses only individual steps at preparedness and does not foster either neighborhood-wide activities or community-wide actions.

The discussion of  isolation of citizens, legal and otherwise, is not unique to Tucson or even to Arizona.  Many communities in the U.S. share these problems.  And the problem is obvious after major disasters, since it not only affects the response phase but also the recovery phase.  Here is the article that got me thinking about resilience in a new way:  The Tucson shootings and Arizona’s dangerous culture of isolation; Washington Post, January 16, 2011.  Some selected excerpts follow:

And the truth is that few places are as exclusionary as Arizona, where butt-kicking cowboys and Barry Goldwater politics still rule the day, where anyone of Mexican descent better follow the speed limit, or risk getting pulled over and grilled over their right to be here. We are libertarians. Stay out of our big green back yards irrigated with water we can ill afford to use. Don’t even come close. And don’t you dare ask for help.

In a Gallup poll commissioned by a Phoenix think tank called the Center for the Future of Arizona, about half of the state residents surveyed gave their home high marks for beauty and physical surroundings. But just 12 percent gave the same rating when asked “how much people in your community care about each other.”

We’ve got open spaces, but what we don’t have is a decent social welfare system designed to help these folks, let alone help ourselves. The state regularly ranks near the bottom nationally in almost every important indicator – from public education funding to mental health services.

In the hopes of finding an explanation and some insights, I just reread the new article titled A Social Vulnerability Index for Disaster Management in JHSEM. Although it provided some useful information, and has value,  it still does not reach the aspect that concerns me about community character — the ability and willingness to be concerned about and willing to help neighbors and strangers in an emergency or disaster.  I also do not know how to estimate the likelihood of such a positive attitude or measure it when it occurs. One’s attitude and concern for fellow citizens are at the root of the community culture needed for real resilience, and I expect they are relatively rare traits in most urban environments, especially in transient communities.

Your comments are invited.