Successful cities are well-equipped to recover from disasters. The characteristics that helped them grow in the first place are the same characteristics that will help them recover. But some cities are better prepared for recovery than others. Cities that have established a culture of cooperation and collaboration among all elements of the population will recover more quickly and more successfully.
Cities are resilient by nature. Throughout history urban areas have been struck by a horrific menu of disasters including fires, floods, earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes and wars. In the United States alone, within the past 150 years San Francisco and Anchorage have suffered devastating earthquakes; Chicago was nearly destroyed by a disastrous fire; Dayton and Johnstown experienced catastrophic flooding; and Galveston, Charleston, Miami, and New Orleans were ravaged by hurricanes (Galveston twice!). Yet, despite widespread damage and significant loss of life, these cities rebuilt their neighborhoods and economies and resumed their places in the life of the nation. Their recoveries, though inspiring, are not exceptional. Historically, nearly every city that has been felled by disaster has recovered.
But not all cities recover as quickly or as completely as others. San Francisco rebuilt itself and maintained its position as the principal city of the American west. Chicago not only rebuilt itself, but took the opportunity to create a series of lakefront parks that define the city today. In contrast, New Orleans’ recovery remains incomplete and the city may never return to its previous prominence. There are many factors that determine a city’s ability to bounce back from disaster or catastrophe, including the city’s level of economic vitality, the efficiency and effectiveness of its local government, the availability of private or public funding, and the willingness of local leaders to cooperate. Taken together, these factors determine how resilient an urban area is.
The differences in resilience between cities can be significant. The most resilient cities recover more quickly, more completely, and more intelligently than do less-resilient cities. Understanding the factors that make a city resilient can help local officials set the conditions for quicker, more comprehensive recovery from disaster.
The good news for community leaders is that all cities have the basic ingredients of resilience. By their nature urbanized areas are well-equipped to recover from disasters. The characteristics that established them as centers of transportation, trade, manufacturing, education, and culture are the same characteristics that are necessary for recovery. The strength of a city lies in the degree to which it encourages human collaboration and cooperation. Cities prosper and grow when the gatherings of creative and energetic residents, the efficiency of urban infrastructure, and the density, proximity, and closeness of urban areas create physical connections between people which foster mutually beneficial interaction and information exchange. (Glaeser)
In the aftermath of large-scale disaster, successful recovery requires a high degree of collaboration and cooperation. All members of the community must participate. Unity of effort, which respects the authority and expertise of each participating organization while coordinating support of common recovery objectives, is essential. (NDRP)
Urban areas that are experienced and proficient at working together will find it easier to develop focused, community-wide recovery plans and will be better able to establish priorities and share scarce resources.
To increase the resilience of their cities, community leaders must encourage cooperation and collaboration in their daily activities. They must resist the temptation to see other areas of the urban entity as competitors and instead view the entire region as a single economic unit. Building relationships and establishing a successful process of working together to identify and solve community problems are critical. Communities that work well together before a disaster will be well-prepared to work together after disaster. Well-established, pre-disaster partnerships are critical to a successful recovery. (NDRP)
Pre-disaster planning is another critical element of resilient communities. By establishing recovery processes and protocols before disaster strikes, communities can enhance the speed and success of their recovery. The combination of effective, community-based planning and creation of a culture of cooperation and collaboration will result in a resilient community with an improved ability to withstand, respond to and recover from disasters (NRDP).
Recognizing that communities differ in their ability to respond to disaster, researchers at the University of Buffalo developed a method of measuring community resilience. By identifying quantifiable factors which they believe contribute to resilience, researchers were able to calculate the “resilience capacity” of 360 American metropolitan areas.
Key to the process was identifying measurable attributes or factors that contribute to resilience. The researchers identified 12 factors grouped in three broad categories; economic capacity, socio-demographic capacity, and community connectivity.
Economic factors include economic diversity, the level of support for business activity, the affordability of housing, and lower levels of income inequality. Socio-demographic factors include higher levels of education, income, personal health insurance, and lower numbers of person with disabilities. Community connectivity factors include the number of civic organizations and the average length of time residents have lived in their current residence as well as the region’s rates of home ownership and voter participation.
Having identified measurable factors that contribute to resilience, researchers were the able to combine the individual measurements into a consolidated score, which they termed “resilience capacity.” They then ranked 360 American metropolitan areas by their resilience capacity.
Ranking number one – the most resilient city in America – was Rochester, Minnesota. Ranking second and third were Bismarck, ND and Minneapolis, MN. Cleveland ranked 132nd of 360; just below the top third of American metropolitan areas.
The highest ranking Ohio metropolitan area was Akron, at 93rd. Close behind was Cincinnati at 97th, followed by Columbus at 102nd, Sandusky at 103rd, and Youngstown at 121st.
Kathryn Foster, director of the Regional Institute at the University of Buffalo, explained that cities in the Midwest and Northeast did quite well in the resilience capacity rankings. “The reality is that slower-growing regions actually have more capacity to withstand the shock,” she told an interviewer. “It’s counter-intuitive, but they tend to be more stable. They’re often more affordable. There are higher rates of homeownership and they tend to have greater income equality. These are places that tend to have connected residents that live there for a long time, high levels of civic capacity and they may be diversified in terms of their business climate.” (U of Buffalo)
Based on the University of Buffalo’s criertia, Greater Cleveland is fairly well-positioned to recover from potential disaster. Of course, community leaders would like to see a higher rate of economic growth, but the other factors that Dr. Foster cited – affordability, high rates of home ownership, and a thriving sense of community – are elements that make Greater Cleveland a desirable place to live.
But cities are not static entities. They are continually evolving and changing, replacing old buildings with new, creating new centers of activity and new patterns of economic and cultural activity. Resilient cities are cities that are designed to be sustainable, that minimize waste and make the most efficient use of all available resources – human, economic, and natural.
Cleveland and Cuyahoga County are no different. To increase the Cleveland metropolitan area’s resilience, community leaders should ensure that re-development efforts improve the area’s resilience capacity.
The role of community leaders in creating resilient communities cannot be overstated. While many factors are important, including a clear vision, a well-defined plan, broad and diverse funding to finance the recovery, a supportive and involved business community, and effective partnerships at the federal, state, and local, the biggest difference, is effective leadership. (Becker)
For starters, area leaders must agree on a shared vision for what they want this community to become. All communities must recognize their stake in the region’s success. Competition between communities within the region for jobs, grant funding, and other resources is inherently wasteful and counterproductive.
Redevelopment must be designed to mitigate risks and encourage resilience. Techniques that can mitigate risk include conducting a comprehensive risk assessment; developing land use policies that reduce exposure to flooding, landslides, and other risks; enforcing effective building codes; and ensuring that critical lifelines like transportation systems, gas, electric, water, and sewage distribution systems are designed and built to resist damage and to be repaired quickly. (NSTC)
Physically, a more resilient Greater Cleveland would be a denser Greater Cleveland. It would make more efficient use of infrastructure investments and it would be designed to bring greater numbers of people into greater proximity, increasing the number of connections, spurring collaboration, innovation, and creativity. Initiatives that encourage economic diversity would enhance the region’s resilience. Cities thrive – and are resilient – when their economies are diverse and when they are characterized by many small firms and skilled citizens. Policies that encourage innovation, diversification, and education should be encouraged (Glaeser)
Greater Cleveland leaders should look for ways to make government and private industry more efficient – make better use of existing infrastructure, and ensure sufficient investments in infrastructure and education.
There are strong signs that regional leaders understand the importance of cooperation and collaboration among all members of the community. In November of 2010, Northeast Ohio was awarded a $4.25 million federal grant from the US Department of Housing and Urban Development to fund the development of a regional sustainability plan. In order to manage the three-year planning process, the Northeast Ohio Sustainable Communities Consortium (NEOSCC) was established. The NEOSCC will develop a coordinated plan for land use, transportation, economic and workforce development, and infrastructure investments for a 12-county region comprised of Ashtabula, Cuyahoga, Geauga, Lake, Lorain, Mahoning, Medina, Portage, Summit, Stark, Trumbull and Wayne counties. (Vibrant NEO)
The Sustainable Communities Consortium and other initiatives aimed at increasing cooperation and collaboration among all community members can increase Northeastern Ohio’s resilience and help us recovery more quickly and more completely from natural and man-made disasters.
Sources
Glaeser, Edward; Triumph of the City: How Our Greatest Invention Makes Us Richer, Smarter, Greener, Healthier, and Happier; Penguin Press, 2011.
Becker, Christine; Disaster Recovery: a Local Government Responsibility; ICMA Publications website; http://webapps.icma.org/pm/9102/public/cover.cfm?author=christine%20becker&title=disaster%20recovery%3a%20%20a%20local%20government%20responsibility; accessed December 10, 2012
Teaman, Rachel M., ‘Resilience’ of U.S. Metros Measured by Online Index Developed by UB Researchers; University of Buffalo website; http://www.buffalo.edu/news/releases/2011/07/12707.html accessed December 15, 2012.
National Science and Technology Council, Committee on the Environment and Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Natural Disaster Reduction (NSTC). Natural Disaster Reduction: A Plan for the Nation; Washington, DC; U.S. Government Printing Office; December, 1996.
National Disaster Recovery Framework (NDRF); Federal Emergency Management Agency;
Vibrant Northeast Ohio website; http://vibrantneo.org/neoscc/history/ accessed 2/17/13