Mobile Edition
Print
Get the Mag
Weekly Updates[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]
In recent years, disaster preparedness has become increasingly important for local government officials. Most disaster preparedness efforts have emphasized reacting to a disaster quickly and effectively in order to minimize losses. However, recognition is growing that this is not enough. Rather than planning a response to failures of current infrastructure or systems, governments have begun to realize the importance of resiliency, that is, the capacity of infrastructure and operations to respond to and recover from emergencies. Resilient systems "reduce the probabilities of failure, the consequences of failure (such as deaths and injuries, physical damage, and negative economic and social effects); and the time for recovery." (1) Hence, resiliency makes the consequences of an extreme event less severe from the outset and reduces the time required to get back to normalcy,
The resiliency concept is best illustrated by the "resiliency triangle," shown in Exhibit 1. (2) The triangle represents an asset's capacity and the time required to resume full functionality after an extreme event. The objective of resiliency-building efforts is to minimize the size of the triangle for critical assets. For example, a fire station that is constructed using techniques and materials that go beyond normal standards could better withstand a hurricane than another fire station built to current standards. This would reduce the loss of functionality from high-wind damage. Consequently, the size of the triangle along the vertical axis of Exhibit 1 would be reduced. As another example, a government that maintains off-site backup of its critical information systems would be able to restore full functionality much more quickly, even if the original system was totally destroyed. This type of resiliency planning would reduce the resiliency triangle along the horizontal axis.
[GRAPHIC OMITTED]
Transportation systems, public utilities, and public safety installations are essential to disaster mitigation, response, and recovery and are therefore high priorities when planning for the resiliency of public assets. As providers of these assets, local governments have a crucial part to play in building a more resilient nation. Building resiliency will not be easy, and the capital improvement planning process is the focal point for the careful preparation and investment required. The purpose of this article is to identify ways in which local governments might revise their capital planning processes to explicitly incorporate resiliency concepts.
THE RESILIENCY PLANNING PROCESS
Exhibit 2 summarizes capital planning for resiliency, The process has three phases: identifying needs, prioritizing needs, and funding. The rectangles depict the core activities in the process, while the gray, rounded boxes indicate critical supporting tools and techniques. The following sections describe each of the three segments in more detail.
IDENTIFYING RESILIENCY NEEDS
A comprehensive asset inventory is the basis for assessing and bolstering resiliency, It identifies the government's assets and the condition they are in. This allows a government to determine what systems are in place, what new systems may be needed, and where asset condition may need to be improved in order to reduce the resiliency triangle's size.
An asset inventory that focuses on resiliency must be conducted using a cross-functional approach. An inventory is typically performed by public works personnel, with support from the finance function. Public safety experts also need to be involved, however, to assess the "criticality" and "vulnerability" of assets. While a resiliency triangle can be developed for any asset, the size of the triangle is more critical for some assets than for others. As a simple example, a water tower is more critical than a swimming pool. Naturally, most distinctions will be less clear. This is where a public safety expert's trained eye is indispensable. Public safety expertise also is needed to assess vulnerability. For example, a 911 call center is clearly critical. It may be extremely well maintained yet still be vulnerable. Perhaps it was not built to withstand the increasingly violent force of hurricanes that a costal community finds itself subject to, or maybe it is too accessible to vehicular traffic, making it vulnerable to a car-borne bombing attack or similar act. By distinguishing critical assets and recognizing and addressing vulnerabilities, resiliency efforts can be planned.
[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]
Asset inventory systems often incorporate a formal condition assessment or score. The asset inventory could also subjective scores for criticality and vulnerability. (See an example in Exhibit 3.) Ideally, a scoring system should be anchored or backed by criteria or principles that support the rating system's validity and reliability, i.e., that the rating system will produce results useful for decision making and that it will produce similar results even when the ratings are made by different individuals.
[ILLUSTRATIONS OMITTED]
Disaster preparedness plans are the basis for assessing the relative criticality of assets. The plans should identify assets that would be most important in responding to events that pose the greatest threat to the community. Plans should be supported by table-top and live exercises and simulations. These help identify weaknesses to extreme events and where new or improved assets could reduce those weaknesses. Those assets deemed to be most critical would be held to a stricter standard when evaluating vulnerability.
While a formal rating system provides the basis for helping the finance officer formulate and fund a plan to make the community's assets more resilient, it cannot totally supplant on-the-ground experience. Therefore, the finance officer should be a major participant in disaster preparedness rehearsals so that she can better understand budgetary requirements related to making assets more resilient. For example, in the City of Cambridge, Massachusetts, the finance director participates in disaster response exercises to prepare him to better direct resources during an actual event, but also to gain a greater appreciation of capacity improvements the city may need to plan and budget for.
An important feature of resiliency building is its resonance with the community. Governments should engage the public to get a broader perspective on resiliency needs. Existing relationships are a good place to start. For example, economic development business retention visits by community and economic development officials could be used to identify business continuity threats that firms perceive from potential community-wide disasters. More particular relationships between local businesses and public safety officials also can be established. For example, the City of Cambridge is home to a thriving biotechnology sector. The city's fire chief maintains close relations with these firms due to their specialized needs for emergency response support.
The general public can be engaged using public involvement tools like surveys and focus groups. Such activities will provide government officials with a unique perspective and will help to generate interest in the issue--an important consideration when additional funding from the community may be required. Existing forums can be used to discuss resiliency. The City of Savannah, Georgia, for instance, worked with neighborhood associations to review potential disaster scenarios in order to ascertain how the public would react. Who would they call? What would be their main sources of information? Where would they go if they could not stay in their homes? These discussions can not only suggest vulnerabilities in government systems (e.g., inadequate call intake capacity, lack of community shelters in the right locations), but can also provide the opportunity to educate the public on preferred behaviors in times of emergency and to build public trust in their government's ability to respond to a disaster.
New community engagement modes can also be considered. For instance, individuals with specialist roles that are out in the community every day and that are knowledgeable about land uses may be sought out for input. These individuals may be on the government's own staff, work for other governments, or work in the private sector (e.g., private utilities, construction contractors).
SETTING RESILIENCY PRIORITIES
Upon completing the assessment, there will almost certainly be more needs than there are funds available. A good resiliency rating system, with a tie to disaster planning, is key to prioritizing investments. A framework similar to that described for assessing asset condition can be used to prioritize resiliency improvements. Proposals for new assets should be assessed based on how critical they are in helping the community withstand extreme events it has the greatest exposure to. For example, in south Florida, an improvement designed to protect against hurricanes is far more critical than one designed for earthquakes. Disaster plans and exercises should help identify the most critical types of investments.
The bigger question may be how to prioritize resiliency against other community needs and desires. Resiliency is only one of many competing considerations in the capital planning process. How can governments establish resiliency as a priority compared, for example, to economic development, community quality of life, or day-to-day service needs? The first step is to raise the visibility of resiliency as an issue so that it can be given fair consideration. Recent events ranging from 9/11, to Katrina, to the 1-35 bridge collapse in Minneapolis have highlighted the importance of resilient assets. Local conditions such as hurricane or earthquake vulnerability or a local industry that works with highly hazardous materials also can be used to illustrate the need for resilient assets. Simulation exercises and after-action reports can highlight the specific needs of a community Resiliency concepts also can be woven into strategic planning, financial planning, and disaster planning to raise awareness among elected officials.
FEED