Available via license: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
6
RESILIENCE HUBS
Shifting Power to Communities
through Action
Kristin Baja
Introduction
Resilience should be holistic and comprehensive; it is not about
“bouncing back” after a disruption to the status quo, but an oppor-
tunity to proactively reimagine systems, center on human everyday
needs, build in redundancy, and increase the capacity to adapt and
thrive amidst changing conditions.
Unfortunately, the way resilience is defined has been controversial for
at least the last decade. An archaic definition developed and supported
by many federal government agencies is that resilience is “the abil-
ity of a community to bounce back after hazardous events” (NOAA,
2020). This definition is not only short-sighted, but also concentrates
resilience on disruptions and hard infrastructure solutions that at-
tempt to control nature rather than on holistic options that work with
nature, center human needs, shifts power into neighborhoods, and
emphasize systems that enhance quality of life (Baja, 2020a).
Communities should be resilient year-round, not just in the event of a
major disturbance but in the face of all stressors, challenges, and dis-
ruptions. However, to create resilient communities, acknowledgment
of power dynamics, systemic racism, and intentional disenfranchise-
ment must be at the core of the work; centering healing, reparative
action, power shifting, and community health and well-being.
This chapter describes a way to operationalize equity in resilience
work and shift power from government to community members and
partners through the development of neighborhood Resilience Hubs.
Communities that have suffered decades of disenfranchisement and
systemic racism have learned to distrust government and institutions
that continue to prioritize economic benefits over human equality of
life. This chapter identifies Resilience Hubs as an actionable solution
to increase community self-determination while working at the inter-
section of climate resilience, greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation, hu-
man health, and emergency management.
D O I : 1 0 . 4 3 2 4 / 9 7 8 1 0 0 3 0 3 0 7 2 0 - 6
90
RESILIENCE HUBS: SHIFTING POWER TO COMMUNITIES
This chapter begins by reframing resilience and utilizing a more com-
prehensive and human-centered approach to increasing community
resilience by introducing the concept of Resilience Hubs. It is then
broken into six sections:
1. What Resilience Hubs are and what they are not;
2. How Resilience Hubs came to be and were co-developed with
community members;
3. The five foundational elements that establish a Hub;
4. How Hubs can be utilized for both short-term shocks and long-
term disruptions including a global pandemic;
5. Potential sources of funding and financing; and
6. Examples of communities actively working to establish a Resil-
ience Hub.
Ideally, Resilience Hubs are neighborhood-determined and managed
sites that enhance community adaptive capacity and ability to thrive,
improve community well-being and connectivity, and reduce risk
year-round.
Reframing Resilience for Hubs
Resilience requires community capacity to plan for, respond to, and
recover from everyday stressors and both short- and long-term dis-
ruptions (Baja, 2019b). Short-term disruptions such as heat waves,
hurricanes, and other extreme weather events—often intensified by
climate change—may seemingly be short-term, but also have long-
term cascading impacts, especially for low-income and communities
in high-risk areas who may be unable to recover from a loss of wages
or damage to property.
Long-term disruptions, such as a global pandemic or an extended
wildfire season, can stretch from months to years and often exacer-
bate everyday stressors and short-term disruptions, and vice versa. At
all times, people and their communities need the ability to anticipate,
accommodate, adapt, and thrive.
However, resilience is not disaster response and recovery; resilience
is not “bouncing back”. A resilient community is a community that is
resilient year-round, not just in the event of a disruption. There is a
critical need to reframe the way we talk about resilience and deter-
mine which approaches and actions to prioritize. Rather than focus-
ing primarily on technical solutions, we need to reframe resilience
holistically and focus on meeting the needs of people year-round.
Many people, especially Black Indigenous and People of Color
(BIPOC), experience a constant struggle to meet their everyday
needs such as putting food on the table, getting from one location to
another safely, and having access to clean water. This is due to cen-
turies of racism and white supremacy that are institutionalized into
91
RESILIENCE HUBS: SHIFTING POWER TO COMMUNITIES
our systems and structures and have led to inequitable stressors for
BIPOC communities.
Stressors refer to the everyday challenges that make people and
communities more vulnerable to disruptions and climate change,
including epidemic drug use, poverty, aging infrastructure, and
unemployment—all of which are exacerbated by disruptions and
make it more difficult to proactively plan, respond, and recover.
Re-centering resilience on community needs and self-determination
can improve social cohesion and strong partnerships while providing
greater access to resources such as food, water, childcare, internet,
and other services. A more resilient community also includes consid-
eration of foundational elements of community quality of life, such as
greater access to jobs, more affordable housing, strengthening infra-
structure, and stronger social support systems.
Prioritizing Marginalized Communities
Government in the United States was designed around a single user
group: white male landowners (Williams-Rajee, 2020). This inten-
tional design was based on extraction from both people and the en-
vironment, and provided resources, access, and power to a subset of
the population while withholding opportunities and power from all
others. As a result, the United States has massive wealth gaps, ineq-
uitable power structures, and unequal access to resources.
BIPOC communities bore and continue to bear the outcome of un-
just systems, but they are also the populations impacted most by a
rapidly changing climate. Climate change is also connected to other
crises, such as the current COVID-19 pandemic. As disaster events
increase in frequency and intensity around the world, humans push
further into habitats primarily inhabited by other species and increase
likelihood of future global pandemics. COVID-19 has already shown
us that “Pacific Islanders, Latino, Black and Indigenous Americans
all have a COVID-19 death rate of double or more that of White and
Asian Americans” (APM, 2021). Therefore, Resilience Hubs should be
prioritized in BIPOC and low-income communities that have been in-
tentionally disregarded for centuries.
Resilient communities are ones that thrive every day, during disrup-
tions, and as they recover from disruption. A critical component of
thriving in day-to-day life is having a community that values a per-
son’s life and a government and institutions that are accountable for
supporting that individual’s well-being.
Investing in and supporting Resilience Hubs provides an opportunity
for government to collaborate with communities to dismantle our
unjust systems and shift power to residents and community-based
partners to design and influence decision-making and resource distri-
bution, and self-determine future opportunities.
92
RESILIENCE HUBS: SHIFTING POWER TO COMMUNITIES
They can create both a physical space and also a culture and rela-
tionships that support all residents and work to dismantle inequities
and their root causes. Resilience Hubs reject the “one size fits all” ap-
proach and “one user group” design and prioritize funding, resources,
and community benefits in disenfranchised communities. The de-
velopment process captures the unique characteristics and needs of
each neighborhood, and provides an opportunity to openly acknowl-
edge and repair our broken systems while benefiting community
well-being and enhancing adaptive capacity.
What Is a Resilience Hub?
Resilience Hubs are community-determined and community-serving
facilities enhanced to support residents, provide programming, co-
ordinate communication, distribute resources, connect people to
nature, and reduce carbon pollution while enhancing social cohesive-
ness and quality of life (Baja, 2019a). They provide an opportunity to
effectively work at the nexus of community resilience, emergency
management, human health, climate change mitigation, and social
equity while also offering opportunities for communities to become
more self-determining, socially connected, and successful year-round.
Resilience Hubs use a physical space—a building and its surrounding
infrastructure—to meet numerous physical, ecological, and social
goals. These physical spaces are rooted in place (typically neighbor-
hoods) to ensure reliability, coordination, and accessibility. Some of
the most successful Hubs utilize existing well-trusted spaces such as
community centers, recreation facilities, faith-based buildings, or
multi-family housing common areas where members already gather
and value the site. Often existing buildings require retrofitting to
meet newly identified service and programming needs along with
improving redundancy and reliability of systems. In addition, sites
are intended to act as a focal point for resource distribution, access
to parks and open space, heating, cooling, clean air and water, and
power needs as well as a range of other services. In some cases, new
construction is an option as long as community members are involved
as partners in site determination and co-design (Figure 6.1).
Figure 6.1 Resilience Hub.
93
RESILIENCE HUBS: SHIFTING POWER TO COMMUNITIES
What Resilience Hubs Are Not
Resilience Hubs are not emergency shelters. They are not spaces
opened only in the event of a disruption. They are also not solely build-
ings with backup power systems and generators. Hubs can emerge
in a variety of ways, but they must be centered on a comprehensive
vision of resilience and shifting power to communities to increase
neighborhood self-determination. Therefore, Hubs are not intended
for use only in the event of disruption and emergency and should
not center around hazards for planning. Finally, Resilience Hubs are
community-driven and co-designed. They should not be identified or
selected by government or organizational partners without commu-
nity collaboration and support.
How Was the Concept of a Resilience Hub
Developed?
Resilience Hubs were born out of a series of community preparedness
meetings with residents in Baltimore City. At the time, I was serving
as the Climate Resilience Planner for the City of Baltimore and was
responsible for development and implementation of the city’s Make
a Plan. Build a Kit. Help Each Other and Every Story Counts campaigns
(Peltier 2016). As the city’s resilience lead, I attended over 40 com-
munity meetings in neighborhoods still reeling from the impacts of
redlining, segregation, environmental injustice, and the city’s racist
policies and practices.
At these meetings, I guided community members in learning about
climate change and natural disasters, creating emergency plans,
and building emergency kits. (All materials were provided to par-
ticipants.) However, as part of “help each other element” I focused
on listening and asking questions about people’s lived experiences
(Akerlof, 2016).
In these listening sessions, people voiced a lack of trust in govern-
ment, lack of support in their daily needs being met, and a lack of
resources. While we had reduced resilience to simply setting aside
cans of food and backup water, people’s stories demonstrated that
the need was far greater than a plan or kit. We needed to do better,
to go deeper, and to better understand why community members re-
fused to go to emergency shelters even if they desperately needed
assistance. The need for support was tremendous and yet, so were
the damaging effects of decades of systemic racism.
Based on these early listening sessions and campaigns, I worked with
neighborhood community leaders to revamp the city’s resilience ef-
forts. Instead of using the archaic “one size fits all” structure provided
by both federal and state agencies, we decided to continue with com-
munity member interviews and listening sessions. Through these ses-
sions we heard stories of government neglect and discrimination that
opened my eyes.
94
RESILIENCE HUBS: SHIFTING POWER TO COMMUNITIES
Residents shared that discrimination and racism were alive and thriv-
ing in the city; community members no longer wanted to rely on gov-
ernment support, they wanted autonomy. Together, we conducted
in-depth vulnerability assessments, identified challenges and short-
comings, and ultimately co-developed the community’s preferred
solution: Resilience Hubs.
Community members wanted support to retrofit existing buildings,
improve services and programming, and increase community self-
sufficiency year-round. With generous support from the Town Creek
Foundation, we were able to collaborate, co-design, and test differ-
ent options in four neighborhoods in Baltimore City. Each had differ-
ent specific needs, but the overall desire was clear: residents wanted
to be more well-resourced, aware, accurately informed, and self-
determined without government oversight or reliance.
These pilot sites brought a number of challenges to light but also
allowed us to experiment with co-developed solutions. The concept
of Resilience Hubs grew in popularity through presentations, infor-
mation sharing sessions, and peer learning opportunities. As interest
grew, I transitioned to a new position with the Urban Sustainability
Directors Network (USDN) which allowed me to work more directly
with cities and counties across North America.
USDN is a network of over 240 local government sustainability, cli-
mate, and racial equity leaders focused on centering racial equity in all
climate and sustainability work. Through a series of network collabo-
ration opportunities and collective action groups with community
members and other city leaders, the Resilience Hub concept became
more refined and structured. I have written several documents includ-
ing a white paper and guidance document along with development of
a public website to ensure materials were (and still are) available to
all interested parties. USDN continues to collaborate with regional
and national partners as well as directly with local community-based
organizations to support the development of Resilience Hubs across
North America.
Location of Hubs
Resilience Hubs tend to be in urban areas or more dense suburban
spaces. Although they can also be utilized in rural areas, rural Hubs
are more likely to serve a response and recovery purpose rather than
year-round gathering location or node for community resources. For
example, Wellington, New Zealand, has a network of Community
Emergency Hubs that activate in the event of a disaster, such as an
earthquake. These local community hubs are managed and supported
by residents; however, they are often not within walking distance and
are only activated in a disruption.
Urban Resilience Hubs are intentionally located in more densely pop-
ulated areas where people have been made more vulnerable due
95
RESILIENCE HUBS: SHIFTING POWER TO COMMUNITIES
to discriminatory zoning, redlining, and intentional citing of non-
desirable uses. These areas are often referred to as sacrifice zones
(Lerner, 2010) which denote low-income and BIPOC communities
that have permanent impacts from pollution and economic disin-
vestment. In addition, these communities often have crumbling in-
frastructure, inadequate housing, lack of access to resources, green
space and transportation, and poor health conditions. They are often
the last neighborhoods to be supported in a disruption and are cer-
tainly the neighborhoods that continue to be overlooked by develop-
ers and decision-makers. Thus, the greatest need for Resilience Hubs
are primarily in lower-income BIPOC neighborhoods that are still
dealing with historic and current inequities and discrimination.
Hubs can also act as safe spaces for undocumented persons, those
experiencing homelessness and other marginalized groups. There
should not be identification or insurance requirements for services
and/or use of a Resilience Hub. Instead, community members can col-
lectively determine the service area (geographical range) for the site
and have resources available for those seeking additional support such
as sheltering or medical services that are not provided at the Hub.
Three Modes for Resilience Hubs
In order to meet community needs year-round, Resilience Hubs
function in three modes or operating conditions: (1) everyday (non-
disruption), (2) response (both short- and long-term disruption), and
(3) recovery (Figure 6.2).
Everyday (non-disruption) mode encompasses everyday stressors
such as access to childcare, healthy food and water, or appropriate
Figure 6.2 Three modes.
96
RESILIENCE HUBS: SHIFTING POWER TO COMMUNITIES
programming for seniors and youth. Essentially, the everyday mode
is when no major disruption influencing the entire neighborhood is
present but services and resources can still be provided through the
Hub. Although individuals may have personal or familial disruptions
such as loss of a job or divorce, those are not disruptions for the entire
community.
In everyday mode, Resilience Hubs act as trusted neighborhood
spaces that provide a range of community-determined services and
programming and access to community spaces such as gardens, rec-
reation, or green spaces. They are also the location to bring in pro-
active planning and preparedness services so the community can
co-design and co-develop culturally appropriate solutions that help
guide and support external partners in response and recovery modes.
Response mode, also referred to as disruption mode, is when a disrup-
tion is present and impacting the majority of the community. Disrup-
tions vary in scale and impact and can be either short- or long-term.
Short-term disruptions like a hurricane, snowstorm, or tornado may
have long-term impacts even when the disruption itself is short-lived.
This is often when communities are experiencing loss of resources,
capacity, assets, and, in some cases, lives. This is also when emer-
gency response and recovery services are necessary and when com-
munity members can actively engage in supporting each other and
ensuring those with less capacity are prioritized.
For short-term disruptions, Resilience Hubs provide a location where
emergency response partners can drop off supplies and provide ad-
ditional resources to those with the most need, channeled through a
space they trust, feel safe, and have a sense of ownership. Hubs also
provide a space to organize community search and rescue, post infor-
mation and updates, and center communications and coordination
efforts.
Long-term disruptions impact the entire community and lead to
changes in access to resources and quality of life such as a pandemic.
Short-term and long-term disruptions can occur simultaneously and
often are threat multipliers. For example, the COVID-19 pandemic
required physical distancing and shutting down of several service
providers. Essential workers such as agricultural, health, and trans-
portation still were necessary for a functioning society, however;
when wildfires started burning along states in the west coast, those
workers were put in harm’s way due to poor air quality and extreme
temperatures. These individuals were more risk to the virus because
they couldn’t afford to lose wages and the threats to their health mul-
tiplied with the wildfires.
Resilience Hubs can help coordinate a variety of services during long-
term disruptions. They are locations to access trusted information;
for community members to receive treatments, access to testing,
and/or vaccines; to connect service providers with those in need for
97
RESILIENCE HUBS: SHIFTING POWER TO COMMUNITIES
resources such as food, water, and supplies; and to translate and dis-
seminate information in culturally respectful ways and in a resident’s
primary language.
Recovery mode can have an extensive timeline that differs based
on individual and community circumstances. It is the period of time
when resources, materials, and support are often available but may
have barriers to access or coordination challenges. Typically, national
and/or regional partners come into communities through federal
programs that have long timelines such as federal buy-out programs
which can take years to come to fruition (Zavar, 2019). Resilience
Hubs provide an opportunity to bring in support services and transla-
tors to assist with arduous processes and better support residents in
need of additional capacity and support.
Five Foundational Areas
Resilience Hubs are unique, just like the neighborhoods they serve,
and there are no two that are exactly alike. However, over the last
seven years of supporting Resilience Hubs it has become clear
that there are five foundational elements that make each of them
successful:
1. Services and Programming;
2. Communications;
3. Building and Landscape;
4. Power Systems; and
5. Operations.
Most Hubs do not and may never have full completion in each of
these areas. However, neighborhoods are encouraged to set ambi-
tious goals for all three resilience modes (everyday, disruption, and
recovery) in the five foundational areas (Figure 6.3).
When identifying community needs and goals in the five foundational
areas, it is important to provide a range of options from baseline to
ideal. That is, what elements a site must have to be considered a
Resilience Hub (baseline); what elements the community would like
to have and strive towards over time (optional); and what the most
idealized version of a Resilience Hub would be.
I have facilitated exercises to identify community needs and goals
over 40 times with communities throughout the United States. This
workshop provides an opportunity for community members and com-
munity partners to identify criteria for their Resilience Hub and then
ground their expectations around funding, capacity, and timeline.
Typically, this workshop is designed to be a collective vision board ex-
ercise. Each of the five foundational areas is listed as headers (or cir-
cles) situated around a community building. Within each box, the three
modes of resilience (everyday, disruption, recovery) are positioned
along the top and the three range of options (baseline, optional, and
98
RESILIENCE HUBS: SHIFTING POWER TO COMMUNITIES
Figure 6.3 Foundational areas.
ideal) are positioned on the left. Using the board, community mem-
bers and partners begin to co-design the community Resilience Hub
and prioritize services, design components, and needs. Beginning
with baseline needs and desires often works best so communities can
be realistic about funding and timelines (Figure 6.4).
Resilient Services and Programming
Community members determine which services are needed to meet
a range of community needs. Site services and programs will differ
from neighborhood to neighborhood based on a range of factors such
as percentage of persons of advanced age, desire for maker spaces
and job training, or need for coordinated childcare. Programs may
include performing and visual arts, senior connection services, cook-
ing classes, horticulture courses, children’s before and/or after school
programs, or proactive Community Emergency Response Team
(CERT) training. Services may include a tool checkout, computer and
Wi-Fi access, access to mental health experts and social workers,
trainings on how to manage finances, meal services, potable water
refill stations, access to showers and restrooms, or other services that
improve community members health and well-being.
Services and programming must be adaptable and fluid. They need
to be able to adjust based on community needs and the way a com-
munity grows over time. For example, if a large number of commu-
nity members are new mothers who desire a space for gathering that
has safe and comfortable spaces for children and that supports their
ability to gather, talk, run their own business, then the site will need
99
RESILIENCE HUBS: SHIFTING POWER TO COMMUNITIES
Figure 6.4 Workshop facilitation.
100
RESILIENCE HUBS: SHIFTING POWER TO COMMUNITIES
structure in the everyday to support their needs. After five years, the
needs may change and community members may seek more educa-
tional programming and services for seniors on a daily basis.
An example is Boyle Heights Arts Conservatory (BHAC) in Los Ange-
les. BHAC provides media, creative arts, and technology program-
ming that is inclusive of members of the community so they can
learn and pursue careers in arts and creative industries. The team at
BHAC prioritizes supporting young people in writing, recording, ed-
iting, songwriting, and much more so they can pursue careers while
also having a place to connect with others and feel supported. The
youth-led radio station is an element of programming that connects
to resilient communication by also ensuring residents have access to
information from trusted sources and in Spanish which is important
since 94% of the population of Boyle Heights is Hispanic or Latino (LA
Times, 2021).
Resilient Communications
Accessible, reliable, and easily understood information is essential to
community cohesion and connectivity in all three resilience modes.
Although communication is often thought of as electronic and printed
materials or scheduled meetings, the core of resilient communication
is trust and relationships.
The Chicago heatwave of 1995 taught us how important social con-
nectivity and cohesiveness is. In an interview with Eric Klinenberg,
author of Heat Wave, he stated that “the death toll was the result of
distinct dangers in Chicago’s social environment: an increased popula-
tion of isolated seniors who live and die alone: the culture of fear that
makes city dwellers reluctant to trust their neighbors…” (Klinenberg,
2002). Essentially, the causes of death in the Chicago heatwave were
isolation, lack of connectivity, and lack of trust because neighbors
didn’t know each other or check in on each other. Thus, enhancing
and supporting opportunities to connect with neighbors and building
stronger relationships is a key to community resilience, and Resilience
Hubs provide a node for interactions, healing and trauma support,
trainings, and continuous relationship-building.
In addition, Hubs can be utilized as a center for distributing and receiv-
ing information year-round. It is often said that people are unaware of
risk and that education campaigns are a way to increase community
resilience. However, in my experience, there are often a large number
of campaigns happening simultaneously from different government
departments, community organizations, and institutional partners
which leads to community champions and information channels be-
ing overrun.
Resilience Hubs provide a neighborhood node for information shar-
ing where community members can co-develop the type of infor-
mation they would like access to, identify how they would like to be
101
RESILIENCE HUBS: SHIFTING POWER TO COMMUNITIES
supported, and determine what languages the information needs to
be in to make it accessible. This challenges all stakeholders to listen
to community needs, streamline and translate information for ease of
use, translate to multiple learning levels and through different medi-
ums, and to take direction from community members in how to sup-
port dissemination of information.
Proactive relationship building is key; well-organized and coordi-
nated communication pathways based on trust can then be utilized
more effectively in disruption and recovery. This includes hosting
events and providing trainings for community members as well as
proactively setting up connections with the local Emergency Opera-
tions Center (EOC) and other service providers. Additionally, structur-
ing internal communications is important, including role designation,
use of walkie-talkies, monitoring of the radio, and coordinated search
and rescue.
Wellington, New Zealand, community emergency hubs provide an
excellent framework for internal communications in the event of a
disruption. Although their model is based around the disaster rather
than community resilience year-round, they have developed a set of
resources including community emergency hub kits and structure for
how to work as a team onsite.
Increasing the community’s adaptive capacity through proactive
communications and relationship building will help reduce strain on
resources, better support emergency service providers, and increase
community adaptive capacity.
Resilient Building and Landscaping
Resilience Hubs provide architects, landscape architects, and engi-
neers with unique opportunities and significant challenges. Typically,
the most successful Hubs are located in existing buildings that can
range in age, materials, and use. In many cases, the communities
most in need of Hubs are those that have been disenfranchised and
intentionally ignored for decades. In the United States, this tends to
be in BlPOC and low-income neighborhoods impacted by redlining
and sacrifice zones (Lerner, 2010). Hubs work best when located in
already trusted community spaces; most often those spaces are older
buildings with unique layouts and/or sites managed on small budgets
which can make them difficult to retrofit and upgrade.
Despite these challenges, community members should lead the se-
lection of the Resilience Hub site and be active participants in co-
designing new spaces or retrofitting existing spaces (Baja 2019b).
For example, if the community determines that having a food pantry
and community kitchen is the most critical need, the design team will
need to focus on retrofitting the interior space for storage and com-
mercial kitchen use rather than focusing on external landscaping or
upgrading electrical for solar energy systems.
102
RESILIENCE HUBS: SHIFTING POWER TO COMMUNITIES
Ideally, the physical building(s) that acts as the Hub node will have ac-
cess to clean and filtered air, healthy and potable water, nutritious food,
heating and cooling, power for lighting and charging, and sanitation.
Depending on the additional services determined by the community,
the Hub can also include amenities such as shower and locker facilities,
entertainment spaces, and maker spaces which translates to a wide
range of scale and cost. On a basic level, considerations for electric and
plumbing upgrades, roof replacement, weatherization, and security are
often primary considerations. Commonly, designers face challenges
that are related to lack of storage space or battery backup systems.
Similarly, landscape architects may face challenges in retrofitting
outdoor spaces for community uses that help improve resilience
while meeting programming needs. The most common landscaping
alterations include opportunities to grow food such as community
gardens, greenhouses, or aquaculture; increased shade and cool-
ing such as increasing tree canopy or integrating shade structures;
multi-use spaces that capture and release water such as underground
cisterns with above ground raingardens or bioswales; and access to
recreational opportunities such as parks, fields and courts.
Connection to nature and outdoor space has also been found to im-
prove mental health in addition to physical health (White, 2019).
Ideally, Hubs recognize and integrate mental and physical health
considerations and the benefits of nature and green spaces as criti-
cal components. Landscaping can provide space for community con-
nectivity, improve human health, support ecosystem services, and
reduce risk. Based on projected climate impacts, regionally specific
concerns, and specific neighborhood needs, landscape retrofits vary
considerably from site to site.
For example, development of Resilience Hubs in the East Bay of Cal-
ifornia has led to specific programming for a network of “resilient
spaces” that connect to the Hub. These spaces can include commu-
nity gardens, community-supported green infrastructure, tool-banks
in community sheds, or personally owned spaces that are converted
to community use (NorCal Resilience Network, 2021).
Resilient Power Systems
Access to power is critical year-round. With the increased depend-
ence on handheld devices and the internet as sources of information,
connection, and communication, having a community space to utilize
Wi-Fi, computers, and charging stations is important in all resilience
modes. In addition to communications and connectivity, refrigera-
tion, heating, cooling, and lighting are important for human health
and well-being. Each of these services requires electricity and a func-
tioning power system.
Generators rely heavily on proactive maintenance practices and
knowledge of the system. Unfortunately, backup generators not only
103
RESILIENCE HUBS: SHIFTING POWER TO COMMUNITIES
contribute to GHG emissions, they also rely heavily on servicing, right-
sizing, and human intervention, and if neglected, lead to increased
likelihood of failure in emergency situations (Marqusee and Jenket,
2020). For example, several hospitals in New York City had to evac-
uate patients after their backup generators failed during Hurricane
Sandy (CBS, 2012). Even with warnings about the storm and time to
prepare, human error led to putting patients’ lives in danger.
Resilience Hub’s power solution must meet social, operational, finan-
cial, and environmental goals. Although there are many renewable
energy solutions, to date, the majority of resilient power projects
connected to Resilience Hubs are solar and storage solutions and
Hybrid Resilience Systems (HyRS). HyRS is a generation and storage
system that utilizes grid generation, solar photovoltaic generation,
and batteries to meet the Hubs goals in all three modes while remain-
ing fiscally sensible (Oxnam & Baja, 2019).
Putting solar and backup battery storage or a HyRS system on a build-
ing helps to make that building more resilient. The system provides
renewable energy and stores energy for use in the event of grid failure
and/or disruption. However, installing a resilient energy system does
not translate to enhancing community resilience. If community mem-
bers are unaware of the resilient energy system or distrust the build-
ing and/or owner of the site, they won’t go to it. They won’t receive
benefits of the resilient power daily or in the event of a disruption.
Ensuring reliable backup power to a facility while also improving cost-
effectiveness and sustainability of operations in all three resilience
modes is the goal with integrating renewable energy (solar) systems
with storage (battery backup).
Installing resilient power systems on Hubs provides an opportunity
to partner with local solar partners, offer technical skills training to
community members from the neighborhood, and potentially require
local job generation. USDN partners with national level organizations
such as Clean Energy Group (CEG) and American Microgrid Solutions
(AMS) to provide energy audits and solar and storage feasibility as-
sessments and to design preliminary solutions that meet the com-
munity’s specific power needs. These partners then work with local
trainers and organizations to help identify financing solutions, train
local workers, and install the systems.
For example, USDN and the Southeast Sustainability Directors Net-
work (SSDN) collaborated to provide a grant and direct support to
Fulton County, Georgia, for the development of several Resilience
Hubs. USDN brought in CEG and AMS to provide funding and tech-
nical support for feasibility assessments on four potential sites and
then worked with local partners such as Southface Institute and local
energy partners to begin designing actionable solutions.
Beyond reliable and resilient power, Resilience Hubs also provide po-
tential economic benefits. Renewable energy and storage systems can
104
RESILIENCE HUBS: SHIFTING POWER TO COMMUNITIES
reduce power bills, generate revenue for utilities by generating power
onsite, and potentially even provide additional savings if regulations
allow for community solar benefits.
Resilient Operations
Resilience Hubs require a capable team that supports different ele-
ments of the Hub in different operating conditions. The most reliable
Hubs are ones with personnel and processes in place to ensure contin-
ued operations, adaptable services and programming, and ongoing
support. Additionally, the site must be safe and accessible for all peo-
ple within the neighborhood. This requires Americans with Disabili-
ties Act (ADA) compliance, consideration of security measures, and
ongoing maintenance. For example, it may be important to create
spaces exclusively for children and people with children, and to have
those spaces separated from other adult-only spaces to proactively
ensure all parties feel safe and spaces are designed to support differ-
ent uses and/or needs.
Site operations also include elements around trainings, personnel,
and contractor specifications. Resilience Hubs are intended to sup-
port disenfranchised communities but they also have the ability to
help create a more equitable market by prioritizing contracts with
women-owned and BIPOC-owned businesses, hiring local contrac-
tors, and demanding external contractors to consider all five founda-
tional areas and a holistic approach.
Lastly, site operations must proactively consider site activation. How
will community members be continuously involved in both design and
decision-making around the Hub? What differences will there be in
hours of operation and resources in different operating modes? How
will community members who have difficultly leaving their homes be
supported proactively?
USDN is working with partners to develop resources and guidance to
help answer some of these questions such as creating an additional
level to CERT training focused on proactive outreach and support for
those with additional needs. However, each community is unique and
operations considerations must be made with community leaders
and partners.
Networks of Resilience Hubs
As previously mentioned, no two Resilience Hubs are exactly alike.
In my time working on Resilience Hub development in communities
across the country, I have seen a number of different sites utilized or
developed as Hubs.
In some areas, population density or socio-cultural differences gen-
erate a “network of Hubs” approach rather than a focus on one Resil-
ience Hub. A networked approach has the same core considerations
105
RESILIENCE HUBS: SHIFTING POWER TO COMMUNITIES
and foundational areas: “soft elements” such as community cohesive-
ness, adaptive capacity, and connectivity as well as retrofits to “hard
elements” such as buildings, community spaces, and infrastructure.
However, these elements must be considered at a larger scale and
integrated into a larger community resilience vision.
Certain sites may have higher capacity for one foundational area
such as a site with a radio tower and radio station may be a stronger
“communications site” whereas other site may have more space and
storage for community gardens and food growth, thus making them
a “food distribution site”. Although it is ideal for all Resilience Hubs to
have all five foundational areas, networks of Hubs are likely to serve
different niches and coordination will be a critical element for optimal
function. Currently, networks of Resilience Hubs are being considered
in Houston, Hawaii, Oakland, Puerto Rico, and southeast Florida.
Resilience Hubs in a Pandemic
Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic it has become increasingly clear
that our systems need to change. It is critical that community mem-
bers have access to trusted information, safe community spaces, and
easily accessible parks and green spaces to support social connec-
tions, mental and physical health support, civic discourse, and emer-
gency response—all keys to resilience.
Resilience Hubs can help coordinate these services; reduce strain on
hospitals and first responders; improve dissemination of resources,
supplies, and critical information; and even serve as sites for test-
ing and vaccinations. Hubs are set up to support communities in the
event of a disruption.
The World Health Organization (WHO) has warned that the COVID-19
global pandemic will not be our last (DW, 2020). Early in the COVID-
19 pandemic, I outlined six ways that Resilience Hubs could help in
responding to the pandemic including acting as:
1. Community-based testing sites;
2. Neighborhood distribution centers;
3. Locations to coordinate childcare and meals;
4. Virtual platform and mutual aid organization;
5. Equity-centered proactive planning sites; and
6. Redundant and reliable systems (Baja, 2020b).
The Hub Funding Puzzle
It is critical for federal, state, and local governments to invest in
neighborhood-based Resilience Hubs and to shift power to the hands
of communities that have been intentionally ignored and diminished
for decades. Investments in Hubs help communities become more
self-determining while also improving coordination and connectivity,
and increasing adaptive capacity.
106
RESILIENCE HUBS: SHIFTING POWER TO COMMUNITIES
From their prior site uses and conditions to their primary goals and
functions, funding Resilience Hubs projects is like putting together a
complex puzzle. Just as houses span from tiny homes to large man-
sions, Resilience Hubs range in size and sophistication. Because Hubs
bring together so many different fields of practice and areas of spe-
cialty, there is no one source of funding for these sites at this time.
Ideally, Resilience Hubs will be classified as critical facilities and critical
neighborhood functions and eventually be fully funded and supported
by federal funding. The United States Federal Emergency Manage-
ment Agency (FEMA), Department of Housing and Urban Develop-
ment (HUD), and Health and Human Services (HHS) all have funding
resources and interest in community resilience and well-being. Hubs
could help reduce barriers among funding sources and also ensure re-
sources were going into community-supported projects.
While USDN and partners are working towards this type of coordina-
tion and support from the federal government, current forms of fund-
ing come from a combination of philanthropic support or one-time pilot
grants. Thus, when seeking out funding for a Resilience Hub it is easiest
to organize sources into two buckets: financial mechanisms and grants.
Financial mechanisms include sources of funding that local govern-
ments can utilize such as revolving loans, bonds, loan programs, or
other debt financing. Examples include public benefit bonds, impact
investing partnerships, and power purchase agreements (PPAs).
USDN has partnered with Climate Resilience Consulting to develop a
funding and financing resource guide for Resilience Hubs. That guide
will be available online1 in mid-2021.
Grants can come from several different sources including philan-
thropy, state or federal government, and utilities. Grants are often
preferred because repayment is not expected. However, they also
tend to be short-term support or for single projects rather than con-
tinuous operations. Grants tend to fall into two categories: proactive
preparedness which supports everyday mode and post-disaster fund-
ing which supports in disruption and recovery mode.
Successful grant applications for Resilience Hubs usually include seeking
grants within the five foundational areas. Because different sectors have
different funders and investors, it is easiest to seek funding for the re-
silient power system separately from ADA retrofits or communications
support. For example, the City of Minneapolis and Little Earth of United
Tribes collectively sought funding to support a Resilience Hub. The City
was able to provide support for peer learning and training and in-home
health assessments through existing programs while also bringing in
funding from philanthropy and USDN partners to support the resilient
power system work. They also brought in partner such as the Center for
Energy and Environment to work on site retrofits to reduce energy and
water use and help save the site money (USDN, 2021).
107
RESILIENCE HUBS: SHIFTING POWER TO COMMUNITIES
Communities Actively Working to Establish
Resilience Hubs
Resilience Hubs provide investors and businesses interested in sup-
porting community resilience, equity, and proactive climate action
with an implementable solution that’s flexible and has social, environ-
mental, and economic benefits over time. Communities throughout
North America are actively working to establish neighborhood Resil-
ience Hubs. Most have started based on community input or commu-
nity demand for neighborhood resilience projects; however, others
have started from initiatives identified in resilience plans or through
disaster risk reduction efforts.
Conclusions
When optimally designed, Resilience Hubs provide services that
strengthen community resilience not simply in the face of disrup-
tion, but on a daily basis. Shifting power and capacity to communities
through the development of Hubs can help reduce stress on systems
and infrastructure such as public safety, hospitals, and transportation
while increasing community adaptive capacity.
Resilience Hubs can become community cornerstones where neigh-
bors come together to better understand one another, cooperate
toward common goals, and bolster the health of their shared com-
munity. They can also help expedite and improve logistics for support
networks and other relief agencies in the event of a disruption by
providing established and well-trusted sites where people can access
relief materials and resources easily and efficiently.
In closing, this chapter highlighted nine key recommendations for en-
hancing community resilience:
1. Redefine resilience. Resilient communities are resilient year-round.
It is critical to acknowledge power dynamics, systemic racism,
and intentional disenfranchisement of BIPOC communities and
to shift to reparative action, power shifting, and centering human
health and well-being.
2. Prioritize marginalized communities. The United States continues
to suffer from white supremacy and systemic racism. Resilience
Hubs must prioritize BIPOC and low-income communities and en-
sure that marginalized people have access to the resources, sup-
port, and power to increase self-determination and community
adaptive capacity.
3. Focus at the intersection of climate resilience, GHG mitigation,
human health, and emergency management. Resilience Hubs pro-
vide an opportunity to work at the intersection of many fields of
practice while improving social, ecological, and technological sys-
tems holistically.
108
RESILIENCE HUBS: SHIFTING POWER TO COMMUNITIES
4. Resilience Hubs should be community identified, designed, and
supported. Hubs work best when located in already trusted com-
munity spaces. Community members should lead site selection,
participate in design, and identify community needs to be served
in all resilience modes.
5. Resilience Hubs must support community in all three resilience
modes. Hubs serve the community year-round: daily, during short-
term disruptions and long-term disruptions, and throughout
recovery.
6. Communities should identify Hub criteria for baseline, optional,
and ideal situations. An important part of establishing a Hub is vi-
sioning and developing criteria for what a site must have, what
elements it should have in the near future, and what the most ide-
alized version would be.
7. Resilience Hubs should include all five foundational areas. To be a
Resilience Hub, sites must have community services and program-
ming, resilient power systems, building(s) and landscape, proac-
tive communications, and strong operations.
8. Federal and state government agencies and programs should sup-
port the development of Resilience Hubs. Existing agencies have
funding and initiatives aimed at enhancing community resilience,
improving human health, reducing risk to climate impacts, and
curbing GHG emissions. Hubs are an opportunity for funding and
resources to be put into action.
9. Resilience Hubs should be designated as critical facilities. Neighbor-
hood resilience should come from the bottom-up, not the top-
down. Hubs as critical facilities would provide reliable funding and
resources to local governments and communities, and increase
neighborhood resilience.
References
Akerlof, K. (2016). Perceptions of Community Resilience: A Maryland Commu-
nity Pilot Study, 2016. Fairfax, VA: Center for Climate Change Communica-
tion, George Mason University.
American Public Media Research Lab. (2021). Accessed online 1/22/21 from
https:// www.apmresearchlab.org/covid/deaths-by-race.
Baja, K. (2020a). Climate Resilience: Centering Racial Equity and Shifting Power.
Keynote Speaker, CannonDesign. Vir tual Presentation, October 16, 2020.
Baja, Kristin. (2020b). How Resilience Hubs in Cities Could Help Coronavi-
rus Response. Reuters, March 27, 2021. https://news.trust.org/item/
20200327105242-opnw2.
Baja, Kristin. (2019a). Resilience Hubs. Shifting Power to Communities and
Increasing Community Adaptive Capacity. Urban Sustainability Directors
Network.
Baja, Kristin. (2019b). Guide to Developing Resilience Hubs. Urban Sustainabil-
ity Directors Network.
CBS (2012). What Caused Generators to Fail at NYC Hospitals? CBS News.
Retrieved 12/27/20 from https://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-caused-
generators-to-fail-at-nyc-hospitals/.
109
RESILIENCE HUBS: SHIFTING POWER TO COMMUNITIES
DW. 2020. COVID-19 Will Not Be the Last Pandemic: WHO. DW News.
Retrieved 1/2/2021 from https://www.dw.com/en/covid-19-will-not-be-
last-pandemic-who/a-56065483.
Klinenberg, Eric. 2002. Dying Alone. An Interview with Eric Klinenberg Author
of Heat Wave: A Social Autopsy of Disaster in Chicago. University of Chicago
Press. Retrieved 1/12/21 from: https://press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/
443213in.html.
Lerner, Steve. 2010. Sacrifice Zones: The Front Lines of Toxic Chemical Exposure
in the United States. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Los Angeles Times. Mapping LA > Rankings > Ethnicity by Neighborhood.
Accessed online 1/20/21 from: http://maps.latimes.com/neighborhoods/
ethnicity/latino/neighborhood/list/.
Marqusee, J effery a nd Jenket, Don. 2020 . Reliability of Emergency and Standby
Diesel Generators: Impact on Energy Resiliency Solutions. Applied Energy,
268, 114918. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.114918.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). (2021). Retrieved
on 12/24/20 from: https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/ecosystems/resilience/.
NorCal Resilience Network. 2021. Resilient Spaces. Retrieved 1/12/20 from:
https://norcalresilience.org/resilient-hub-initiative/.
Oxnam, G. and Baja, K. (2019). Powering Community Resilience: A Framework
for Optimizing Resi lience Hub Power Systems. Urban Sustainability Directors
Network.
Peltier, L. (2016). Baltimore’s Kristin Baja Honored by the White House for
Climate Leadership. Baltimore Fishbowl. July 14. Retrieved at: https://
baltimorefishbowl.com/stories/baltimores-kristin-baja-honored-white-
house-climate-leadership/.
USDN Progress Reports. (2021). Minneapolis Resilience Hub Progress Report.
http://resilience-hub.org/.
White, M.P., Alcock, I., Grellier, J. et al. (2019) Spending at least 120 minutes
a week in nature is associated with good health and wellbeing. Scientific
Reports, 9, 7730. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-44097-3.
Williams-Rajee, D. (2020). Equity and Climate Theory of Change. Kapwa Con-
sulting (K. Baja, Inter viewer)
Zavar, E. (2019, May 28). After Disaster: Why Home Buyout Programs Fizzle
Out. Gov1, pp. 1–3.