Community Resilience

Driving Decision Making for Short or Long-Term Solutions”, David Vaughn, Ed Hecker and Doug Bellomo provide a thoughtful, straightforward, practical and locally based approach to developing community by creating resilient economic, social and environmental systems based on years of work with federal, state and local decision-makers. Their approach weaves together such social science theories as Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs with engineering concepts such as the contrast between “value engineering” and resilient design to produce a concept of Practical Community Resilience (PCR), an approach designed to achieve real and achievable “Lifecycle” Disaster Risk Reduction and resilience through thoughtful and achievable local planning and action. The PCR approach is underway in Laurens County, South Carolina, with help from a partnership formed between Clemson University, the US Army Corps of Engineers, and the Natural Hazard Mitigation Association. This approach offers a clear potential to prevent, mitigate and respond to all risks by testing a comprehensive life-cycle approach, that links to and enables a community’s vision for the future by implementing risk management strategies that can help assure the resilience of critical infrastructure, buildings and related public and private sector services during and after disaster events.

The post-disaster environment changes both engineering and construction requirements as well as the framework within which it is undertaken. These changes drive post-disaster program and project managers to address different considerations than those encountered on a more traditional global scale program while simultaneously dealing with the added constraints imposed by an evolving logistical situation. Previously in, "Personal Perspective: Program Management and Events of Scale" (PM World Today; July, 2008) the focus was on programmatic features common in the preparation and planning to resist, respond and recover from so-called events of scale. This paper looks more deeply at how the engineering and construction model changes post disaster and how various logistics affecting activities are modified from those employed on global scale programs undertaken in a non-disaster environment. Types of Disasters Before jumping directly into the post disaster environment it is worth spending a minute to understand the range of disasters that engineering and construction program and project managers are likely to be called to engage in. We have tried to characterize these simply as those with a broader scale (both natural and human caused) and those that are more discrete in nature. The later however may have consequences as severe as the broader scale disasters depending on the facility involved. We have specifically included so called "Natech" disasters or naturally induced technological failures. The most recent example of such a Natech disaster is at Fukashima. Broader Scale Disasters-Human War, civil strife, terrorism 1 Second Editions are previously published papers that have continued relevance in today's project management world, or which were originally published in conference proceedings or in a language other than English.

Events of scale whether they are manmade or natural are becoming increasingly common events in an increasingly complex and networked world. The impact of natural events is further amplified by growing populations in vulnerable areas, prone to earthquake, wind or water driven disasters. Preparing for and addressing these events requires increased levels of engineering and logistical support, often requiring the mobilization and reconfiguration of global supply chains. Anticipating and understanding the nature of this engineering and logistical support and the prerequisites and lead times associated with effectively deploying it are essential to today's disaster response and reconstruction efforts. To assist in better planning for the deployment of engineering and logistical elements post-disaster, a phased event of scale framework is laid out in the following figure. The intent is not to suggest that each of these activities is sequential but rather to define major phases for purposes of delineating precursor activities and required capabilities. Only then can the often-missing event master schedule be created at an early stage. 1 Second Editions are previously published papers that have continued relevance in today's project management world, or which were originally published in conference proceedings or in a language other than English.

Since early 2001, I have observed the impact of a series of high-profile events of scale. These events of scale have encompassed both manmade as well as naturally occurring events and the lessons outlined below are derived from a systems perspective and are to a large degree independent of the initiating event. Much has been written about individual events, the failures and successes in being prepared, the lessons learned in the immediate aftermath and the challenges during recovery. This paper looks more broadly, focusing on programmatic features common in our preparation and planning to resist, respond and recover from these events. Careful consideration may improve our overall infrastructure resiliency and improve outcomes in the future. Table 1 summarizes my perspective in observing each of these events and to the extent possible the lessons learned have been grouped into three phases of resiliency:-Resist phase-Respond phase-Recover phase Clearly the list is not all encompassing but provides a starting point and framework for future development. Where My Involvement Began Maybe it was the high-altitude air and snow-covered mountains of Davos, Switzerland or perhaps the eclectic collection of people from around the world that inspired nobler ideas. But whether from within or without, I came to a crossroads that very much changed how I thought about many things in life. How I perceived the world, or more specifically the infrastructure systems that enabled the day-today functioning of the world we live in, changed in several fundamental ways.

Sponsored by As chairman of Parsons Brinckerhoff Inc., Bob Prieto heads PB's board of directors by overseeing management performance, establishing top-level policies, and ensuring the firm's continued long-term success after nearly 120 years of operation. As director of corporate development, a role he also fills, Mr Prieto oversees the continually expanding marketing and planning needs of a global company with more than 9,200 employees working from more than 200 corporate and project offices on six continents. In this capacity, he is responsible for strategic planning; management of the firm's marketing, sales and corporate communications efforts; and coordination and oversight of all marketing and sales operations, including government affairs activities, mergers and acquisitions, and activities of the business services group, which provides direct support to the firm's marketing and sales professionals across the world. He acts as treasurer of PB's political action committee, and has also served as corporate sponsor or principal-in-charge of several multibillion-dollar programs. Mr Prieto served as co-chair of an infrastructure task force established by New York City Partnership and Chamber of Commerce that provided some of the earliest recommendations for transportation improvements in the aftermath of the September 11 th attack. He is a member of the executive committee of the National Center for Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation, member of the board of directors of the Business Council on International Understanding, chairman of the Engineering and Construction Governors of The World Economic Forum, and member of the Asia Society and several other national and international organizations. He is also a member of the board of trustees of Polytechnic University of New York, and was recently selected as alumni of the year by its New York Chapter. Mr Prieto holds an M.S. in nuclear engineering from Polytechnic University of New York and a B.S. in nuclear engineering from New York University.

Events of scale whether they are manmade or natural are becoming increasingly common events in an increasingly complex and networked world. The impact of natural events is further amplified by growing populations in vulnerable areas, prone to earthquake, wind or water driven disasters. Preparing for and addressing these events requires increased levels of engineering and logistical support, often requiring the mobilization and reconfiguration of global supply chains. Anticipating and understanding the nature of this engineering and logistical support and the prerequisites and lead times associated with effectively deploying it are essential to today's disaster response and reconstruction efforts. To assist in better planning for the deployment of engineering and logistical elements post-disaster, a phased event of scale framework is laid out in the following figure. The intent is not to suggest that each of these activities is sequential but rather to define major phases for purposes of delineating precursor activities and required capabilities. Only then can the often missing event master schedule be created at an early stage.

The post-disaster environment changes both engineering and construction requirements as well as the framework within which it is undertaken. These changes drive post-disaster program and project managers to address different considerations than those encountered on a more traditional global scale program while simultaneously dealing with the added constraints imposed by an evolving logistical situation. Previously in, " Personal Perspective: Program Management and Events of Scale " (PM World Today; July, 2008) the focus was on programmatic features common in the preparation and planning to resist, respond and recover from so-called events of scale. This paper looks more deeply at how the engineering and construction model changes post disaster and how various logistics affecting activities are modified from those employed on global scale programs undertaken in a non disaster environment. Types of Disasters Before jumping directly into the post disaster environment it is worth spending a minute to understand the range of disasters that engineering and construction program and project managers are likely to be called to engage in. We have tried to characterize these simply as those with a broader scale (both natural and human caused) and those that are more discrete in nature. The later however may have consequences as severe as the broader scale disasters depending on the facility involved. We have specifically included so called " Natech " disasters or naturally induced technological failures. The most recent example of such a Natech disaster is at Fukashima.  Broader Scale Disasters

Resilience: Managing the Risk of Natural Disaster considers risk management strategies, risk identification methods, and pre- and post- event activities to minimize risk. Post-event recovery is a more widely understood field, as practitioners have a plethora of lessons learned from completed projects. Pre-event planning as a means of minimizing damage and downtime is a lesser developed field, and this book organizes both literature supported data and the authors’ anecdotal experiences into a framework for disaster management, spanning pre- and post- event.

The cost of disaster response is a rising trend, which is predicted to continue to rise in the coming years. When federal funds are appropriated for recovery, the burden associated with the rebuilding of communities is shared by all Americans. Public and private sector infrastructure owners need to improve brittle 19th and 20th century structures and lifeline infrastructure to be the resilient to withstand current and future disasters. These systems must be thought of as 22nd century resources which are needed for safety, security and economic stability. Recently, the concept of resilience has gained prominence as a movement to mitigate damage before and from disasters, promote sustainable development, and reduce the potential effects and impacts of climate change. A set of practical, implementable procedures and policies will enable communities to strategically plan for and prioritize mitigation of potential impacts to existing infrastructure. Community resilience has become a buzz word in recent years due to the escalating numbers of natural disasters and exponential cost being experienced from natural disasters. Many have started to realize that the current approaches in use across the US are not adequate and new approaches will need to be developed. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) developed a Six‑Step Guide to Planning for Community Resilience, this methodology is very logical and useful for communities but needs further development. The aims of this document are to enlighten the community of Laurens, which would allow policymakers and residents to make the best decisions with the information provided herein. This document also attempts to display hazards in a graphic form to better communicate the associated risks. Finally, PCR intends to make pragmatic recommendations to help mitigate effects of the discussed hazards, fostering resiliency within the community.

A disaster assessment system is presented. The disaster assessment system generates one or more impact reports detailing the nature of how a disaster has impacted a building site based on sensor data associated with the building site that is collected after the disaster. According to one aspect of the inventive subject matter, the disaster assessment system includes a sensor platform, a pre-disaster database, a historic disaster database, and an impact assessment engine. The sensor platform obtains sensor data reflecting a building site before, during, and/or after an event. The impact assessment engine derives a pre-event 3D model based on sensor data collected by the sensor platform before the event, and derives a post-event 3D model based on sensor data collected by the sensor platform after the event. The impact assessment engine then generates the impact reports based on a difference between the pre-event 3D model and the post-event 3D model.

Presidential Policy Directive 8 (PPD-8) was signed by the President of the United States on March 30, 2011. It deals with the subject of developing a National Preparedness System for security and resiliency for businesses to endure a disaster or catastrophe. These disasters can be caused by anything from natural disasters to terrorism. The overall purpose of this directive is for the Dept. of Homeland Security to help administer a program within the U.S. to analyze, mitigate, and recover from a disaster. Any downtime to a major petrochemical plant or refinery can have an enormous impact on the national economy. Recommendations are provided on how to perform risk assessments in general, how to perform a risk assessment of a petrochemical industry power system, how to develop an effective preventative program, and how to recover quickly from a disaster. Benefits to being well prepared are also addressed in this paper.

Presidential Policy Directive 8 (PPD-8) was signed by U.S. President Barack Obama on 30 March 2011. This directive deals with the subject of developing a national preparedness system for security and resiliency for businesses to endure a disaster or catastrophe, which can be caused by anything from natural disasters to terrorism. The overall purpose of the directive is for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to help administer a program within the United States to analyze, mitigate, and recover from a disaster. Any downtime at a major petrochemical plant or refinery can have an enormous impact on the national economy. This article provides recommendations on how to perform risk assessments in general, how to perform a risk assessment of a petrochemical industry power system, how to develop an effective preventative program, and how to recover quickly from a disaster. The benefits of being well prepared are also addressed.

Resilience: An Engineering & Construction Perspective reflects my continued research and work on the challenges of large scale engineering & construction programs. At one level, this book considers a special type of such a program, namely the recovery following what I have termed an “event of scale” reflecting the fact that these events may be both manmade as well as natural in origin. At a deeper level, it reflects my observations from witnessing the good, bad and ugly of large scale disaster response and recovery efforts from an engineering & construction perspective. This second perspective was initially built not by design, but rather by happenstance and circumstance, but continues to intersect my professional life to this date.

The Infrastructure Security Partnership (TISP) has embarked on a campaign over the last two years to improve the disaster resilience and economic stability of communities and the critical infrastructure and supply chains they depend upon. Our plan will employ current best practice methodologies, using all-hazards and economic development approaches to inventory, assess, manage, and reduce long-term risk. (Note: For purposes of this discussion, the community is divided into the following four sectors: public sector, private sector, citizens, and the insurance industry.) The purpose of this effort is to counteract the rising costs of responding to disasters, and the burden of rebuilding communities that is shared by all Americans when federal funds are appropriated for recovery. Public and private sector infrastructure owners need to improve the resiliency of brittle 19 th and 20 th century structures and lifeline infrastructure to 21 st Century hazards, and communities need to address resources needed for assuring lifecycle safety, security and economic stability through reducing the risk associated with these hazards. A set of practical, implementable procedures and policies will enable communities to strategically plan for and prioritize mitigation of impacts to existing infrastructure. Those same procedures and policies will drive requirements for building new infrastructure, utilizing resilience and sustainability practices to ensure that resources are available when they are needed. Within a couple of decades we should see a savings in disaster recovery spending and a stronger national economy. The federal government between years 2009 and 2012, provided an average of $80 billion annually to assist communities recovering from natural disasters. In spite of this dramatic spending, it is the general practice in the United States not to improve its infrastructure, but to rebuild damaged and destroyed roads, buildings, and utilities to its original state. Over the past few decades, data indicates that there are more natural hazard events and that there are higher economic impacts from these events. Research suggests that the increase in frequency and magnitude of weather-related events is tied to climate change (whether it be a natural cycle or human caused). " In Building Safer Cities " , Torben Juul Andersen notes that in the past 30 years, the frequency of disaster events has quadrupled, economic losses have increased by a factor of 2,000 to 3,000, and insurance losses have increased by a factor of 1,000. The economic losses have far outweighed economic growth figures for the same period, suggesting that factors beyond the increase in number of events have impacted loss figures. In " Catastrophe Modeling: A New Approach to Managing Risk " , the author Grossi notes that losses from individual disasters during the past 15 years (as of 2005) are an order of magnitude above what they were over the previous 35 years. Further emphasized throughout this book, Grossi states, " Residential and commercial development along coastlines and areas with high seismic hazard indicate that the potential for large insured losses in the future is substantial. The increasing trend for catastrophe losses over the last two decades provides compelling evidence for the need to manage risks both on a national, as well as on a global scale. "