In a recent posting by Phil Palen, one of the authors the blog HLSWatch, he attached a copy of a Resilience Index for Plaquemines  I found that graphic quite compelling and think it could be considered an interesting way to predict how well t a community is likely to fare during recovery.

This community is unusual — both in terms of its extreme vulnerability as well as the amount of  federal funding and governmental attention it has received in recent years.  Note that the parish has a recovery plan in place, which is both unusual and commendable.

Your comments and observations are invited.

The National Academy of Sciences just released a major report that has been in preparation for at least two years. The lead author, Prof. Susan Cutter, talked about the forthcoming report at the annual hazards conference in Colorado last month, but she could not reveal the recommendations at that time. She assured me this is a major study because it was funded by 9 federal agencies, and the likelihood of them paying attention and implementing the results is greater than usual.

The one page press release, issued  August 1, is here.  The full text report ( 250 pp.) and the Exec. Summary (15 pp.) can be found here.

The Diva has not yet had time to read and reflect on it, but comments may be forthcoming soon.

A new report, (104pp) from the U.N provides a handbook for local government leaders. Down the document here.

Image via Wikipedia

From the Continuity Central website, notice of a new report titled Economic and community resilience: the impacts of natural disasters; Sept. 20.  This is a useful, informative 24 page document, and I recommend you read the full report. From the summary of findings provided by Continuity Central:

A new publication from The Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA) explores the lessons that governments, financial institutions and retailers around the globe can learn from Australia’s experience of the longer-term impact of natural disasters on personal income and the wider economy. [Emphasis added ]

Analysis in the report provides new insight into the short and longer term effects that natural disasters can have on sources of income, salary levels and salary recipients. For example, it shows that it takes from 6 to 18 months for the majority of personal income sources to return to pre-disaster conditions, with very high proportions of people receiving some form of government support to rebuild their lives in the interim.

Other key findings are:

• There are four main factors that shape the pathway to personal income recovery in the disaster affected communities: scale, frequency of disasters, local industry profile and proximity to population hubs;

• Frequent, repeated disasters can hinder personal income recovery. For example, the cumulative effect of flood and cyclone damage is still hurting North Queensland, with key agricultural industries (sugar cane and tropical fruits) having insufficient recovery time between events. As a result, increasing proportions of people are relying on unemployment benefits as their only source of income, with average salary amounts continuing to decline

• Even when people are not directly impacted by natural disasters, they can feel they are – two thirds of Australians believe the recent natural disasters had a negative impact on the national economy;

• Some disasters such as the 2011 Queensland floods are of such magnitude that they impact on the broader economy. However at a macro-economic level, the economic cost of disasters is usually recouped in the subsequent rebuild. For instance, tradespersons engaged in rebuilding activity can look forward to strong employment opportunities;

• Local industries are affected differently by natural disasters. Where agriculture is dominant, what is grown or farmed matters. For example, crops that rely on established trees, like bananas grown in North Queensland, may take multiple seasons to recover, impacting heavily on local employment prospects;

• Proximity to large towns/cities makes a difference to personal economic recovery. For the Victorian bushfire communities, the close proximity to metro-based sources of employment and services helped residents to maintain employment and local residency. Whilst high proportions of bushfire-affected residents migrated in the aftermath of the disaster, the majority moved less than 50 km away;

• Localised disasters have a truly national impact – almost four out of ten Australians say they were impacted by recent natural disasters (affected either directly, or indirectly through family and friends).

Related articles

• PHOTOS: Nations Most Exposed To Natural Disasters (huffingtonpost.com)

Image via Wikipedia

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) recently released the report Overview of the ARkStorm Scenario. The report (201 pp.) is part of the USGS’s Multi Hazards Demonstration Project (MHDP) which “uses hazards science to improve resiliency of communities to natural disasters including earthquakes, tsunamis, wildfires, landslides, floods and coastal erosion.

The project engages emergency planners, businesses, universities, government agencies, and others in preparing for major natural disasters. The project also helps to set research goals and provides decision-making information for loss reduction and improved resiliency. The first public product of the MHDP was the ShakeOut Earthquake Scenario published in May 2008. This detailed depiction of a hypothetical magnitude 7.8 earthquake on the San Andreas Fault in southern California served as the centerpiece of the largest earthquake drill in United States history, involving over 5,000 emergency responders and the participation of over 5.5 million citizens.

This document summarizes the next major public project for MHDP, a winter storm scenario called ARkStorm (for Atmospheric River 1,000). Experts have designed a large, scientifically realistic meteorological event followed by an examination of the secondary hazards (for example, landslides and flooding), physical damages to the built environment, and social and economic consequences. The hypothetical storm depicted here would strike the U.S. West Coast and be similar to the intense California winter storms of 1861 and 1862 that left the central valley of California impassible. The storm is estimated to produce precipitation that in many places exceeds levels only experienced on average once every 500 to 1,000 years.”

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.