Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 41
3 ________________________________________________________________________ Challenges and Barriers The United States is, in general, a socially and economically resilient nation, according to some workshop participants, but numerous questions were raised regarding how to make individual communities more resilient during the course of the workshop. What has U.S. society done correctly in terms of recovery and maintaining social cohesion in the face of enormous disasters? Can the characteristics that make the nation resilient be translated to the local level to make communities resilient? Can collaborations and community resilience be built using the frameworks of existing collaborative entities, or are new mechanisms needed? Many workshop participants pointed out that the government and private sectors are not natural allies and that the United States has developed legal, cultural, and regulatory barriers that may discourage private-public sector collaboration. How, then, are these barriers to private-public sector collaboration overcome? This chapter explores some of the barriers to building sustainable private-public sector collaborations and partnerships that have been identified by workshop participants. Potential research questions and themes are addressed in Chapter 4. BARRIERS TO BUSINESS SECTOR ENGAGEMENT During market equilibrium, there is a certain amount of needs and a certain capacity to fill those needs. Stephen Jordan of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce stated that a critical problem faced by a community as a whole following a disaster is the existence of both demand and supply shock to a local economy. A demand shock is created when everyone in a community needs everything at once. However, the capacity to fill those needs may not be available, creating a supply shock. Until community needs are met or cease to exist, equilibrium will not be reestablished. He summarized six key barriers to meeting those needs and to sustaining business involvement in community disaster resilience efforts more generally. These barriers are relevant for businesses of all sizes. 1. Natural disasters do not respect political jurisdictions. The nation’s political jurisdictions are increasingly divorced from its economic, social, and 41
OCR for page 42
42 PRIVATE-PUBLIC SECTOR COLLABORATION FOR COMMUNITY DISASTER RESILIENCE environmental spaces. Policy is often dictated by legacy issues dating back to the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries which have no real significance to society and the economy today. 2. A perception of public sector inefficiencies in disaster response exists. The private sector may believe that emergency response is conducted on an ad hoc basis without institutional memory of lessons learned from previous events. There is a need to systematically codify best practices and remove inefficiencies. 3. A holistic approach to community resilience building is lacking. There is a need to link educational, medical, workplace, and transportation systems in resilience building and disaster response activities. 4. Resource coordination is lacking. There is a need for better understanding and coordination of public and private resources during disasters. An example was given of a post-Hurricane Katrina event. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) requisitioned oil and gas reserves intended for the Red Cross. In so doing, the Red Cross did not have the fuel needed to carry out its own response activities. Better coordination could have prevented this scenario. 5. Disaster response systems are not maintained. Recovery processes can take years. It is difficult for collaborators to maintain momentum for extended periods. 6. Discrepancies between public and private sector approaches exist. Public and private organizations often have very different perspectives and approaches to disaster management. Additionally chief executive officers (CEOs) may have diverging views regarding disaster response and recovery among themselves and may not appreciate public sector approaches. Public sector responses are often regulated by the Stafford Act.1 The private sector tends to prefer tighter goals than the public sector, and prefers more discretion in the strategies and tactics used to achieve them than the public sector is allowed by law. The issues raised about barriers to sustainable private-public sector partnerships discussed during the workshop often fit in some way into one or more of these six categories. The next sections organize challenges identified by participants. National and Local Business Engagement Enlightened altruism is a powerful motivator for both small and large businesses to engage in community resilience-building collaboration. However, there are many challenges in effectively integrating the business community into resilience-building 1 See www.fema.gov/about/stafact.shtm (accessed December 1, 2009).
OCR for page 43
CHALLENGES AND BARRIERS 43 processes. Locally owned and operated businesses may not have the resources, including time, to engage in community resilience-building efforts. Although they may have resources necessary to enhance disaster recovery, large businesses managed from outside a community may not be well integrated into the fabric of a local community and may not identify with, understand, or respond to the needs of the community. Large corporations sometimes have liability concerns that become more complex if their businesses operate in multiple states, nationally, or globally Partnership activities by large companies often receive attention following successful recovery from disaster. Although this is important and may provide useful models, the “real job creation engines of this country…[lie] fallow if we can’t bring [small business] into the conversation” according to M. John Plodinec of the Savannah River National Laboratory. Workshop participants noted that many local economies depend on the viability of their small businesses. However, many small businesses are unable to survive a disaster. It is essential to engage small business in the collaborative planning process. A challenge is in determining how best to initiate and sustain that engagement. Building a more resilient community can be considered equivalent to decreasing community risk and uncertainty, according to some workshop participants. Resilience- building collaboration may not decrease the risk of disaster, but may substantially mitigate the impacts of disaster and lead to faster recovery. Some participants questioned whether resilience levels in a community could influence whether a business chooses to establish itself in one community versus another. Others postulated that determining a means of rating or objectively assessing a community’s resilience could factor into influencing private sector investments and facility location decisions, potentially contributing to a community’s economic growth or stability. Gene Matthews of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill said that measuring preparedness and resilience in various categories by state is already done to a limited extent, citing the Trust for America’s Health2 rating of states in select categories. Though some question the methodologies used, ratings in categories such as facility or organizational liability has encouraged some states to address issues associated with business liability protection. Establishing appropriate metrics that ultimately encourage business engagement is a substantial challenge. Concern was raised by some workshop participants that the characteristics of and issues faced by small or large businesses may be generalized when recommendations for overcoming barriers to collaboration are ultimately made. This could limit the usefulness of recommendations. 2 See www.healthyamericans.org/ (accessed December 2, 2009).
OCR for page 44
44 PRIVATE-PUBLIC SECTOR COLLABORATION FOR COMMUNITY DISASTER RESILIENCE Business Engagement in Small and Rural Communities Barriers to business sector collaboration are amplified in some rural communities, according to Adele Lyons of the Knight Foundation in Gulfport, Mississippi, because resources may be more limited, and individuals are isolated by their lack of physical proximity to their neighbors. A “go-it-alone” attitude may prevail in some rural areas, creating additional cultural barriers to collaboration to be overcome. Tools and mechanisms to assist in the development of collaborations often do not take into account the special needs of businesses in small or rural communities. JURISDICTIONAL CHALLENGES The Roles of Federal and Local Jurisdictions Dealing with disaster-related issues that cross political boundaries is challenging. A need was expressed by some workshop participants to reconcile economic, social, environmental, and political roles and jurisdictions so that communities may pursue more effective resilient strategies and better respond to disasters. Many workshop participants noted that the role of governments at different levels is not as clear as would be most useful. New and important issues, such as the spread of the H1N1 virus,3 can quickly overwhelm the reality of limited time and resources, especially at the local community level. This is further compounded by the time necessary to sort the respective roles of governments and organizations. Some workshop participants observed that the federal government may often be more flexible and more proactive in emergent situations than local governments and may provide some forms of assistance. Building trust and improving communication between different levels of government, as well as within different agencies at any given level of government, is essential for clear and sustainable disaster reliance collaboration. Workshop participants noted that the responsibility and burden associated with disaster planning is often legislatively placed at lower levels of government by higher- level governing bodies. Scott McCallum, former governor of Wisconsin, currently with the Aidmatrix Foundation, Inc., described the need to think beyond federal mandates, and think in terms of identifying and proliferating best practices. He also stated that federal agencies such as the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) need to learn how to better coordinate with other federal agencies such as the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Education, and the Department of Commerce in order to determine how to appropriately support the needs of state and local governments. When discussing FEMA’s role in building resilience, Jason McNamara stated that FEMA’s function should not be to enter a community at the time of a disaster and dictate how to operate. Instead, FEMA’s first role should be to help identify problems and issues on a daily basis and to work as a partner toward locally relevant solutions. He stated that FEMA’s second role is to help integrate resilience building into day-to-day emergency management operations. It is important to avoid the “domino theory” of emergency 3 See www.cdc.gov/H1N1FLU/ (accessed December 1, 2009).
OCR for page 45
CHALLENGES AND BARRIERS 45 management—one in which the state government becomes involved only when local agencies fail, and the federal government becomes involved if failures occur at the state level. The model of responsibility could be more like concentric circles around an issue with local government at the center and the federal government supporting local and state responsibilities. The responsibilities of each level of governmental could be shared in alignment with their appropriate roles and hence their activities conducted in concert with one other. FEMA, according to Mr. McNamara, does not make up the team nor is it the keeper of the resilience-building plans, but FEMA could be considered part of the team that can help to perpetuate the message of the importance of resilience, collaboration, and planning. Maria Vorel of FEMA stated that a better role for the federal government could be to serve local government with technical assistance and support via affirmation rather than prescriptions and forced compliance. When a disaster occurs, it is often challenging to coordinate the delivery of resources, goods, and services across jurisdictional boundaries. Different levels of government are not always aligned, and different agencies within any single level may not collaborate well. Several workshop participants observed that federal, state, and local governments may not share trust and respect for one another, and rivalries may exist, even at local levels of government, between different emergency management offices. These prevent efficient communication and response which only damage the community’s ability to efficiently and effectively respond and recover from a disaster. Participants shared anecdotes in which the lack of a common communication infrastructure between police and firefighting organizations, for example, caused problems ranging from minor inefficiencies to major gaps in emergency response. Getting past these barriers for the sake of building community resilience is a challenge. Workshop participants stressed the importance of removing the “silos” that government, nonprofit, and private organizations into which they are too often placed. Many participants stated that the public sector has not yet recognized the potentially greater value of all organizations working together rather than each organization working separately. DHS could lead collaborative partnerships by example. The concept of resilience building through partnering could be more tangible if DHS internally systemized and partnered at the agency level. According to Governor McCallum, some challenges to building community resilience cannot be solved through FEMA or DHS control, or through organizations such as Aidmatrix or the American Red Cross. The collaborative effort of all stakeholders, he stated, is the means to building resilience and is dependent on the ability of all to communicate, share, and work together to build community at the local level. He and others suggested that often some type of neutral entity is needed to facilitate collaboration, create tools, share information, and act as a resource and honest broker between the private sector, local communities, and different levels of government. The entity could be an organization or a tool that provides the means of creating mechanisms for sharing information and best practices. It could also provide the means of creating the social networks vital for effective communication and systems integration. Diverse groups participating within a collaborative network do not necessarily have to like each other or know how to communicate well with each other. An honest broker serving as a facilitator could help prospective partners overcome these issues, build trust, and integrate resilience-building efforts. The challenge is identifying the entity or mechanism appropriate for each community.
OCR for page 46
46 PRIVATE-PUBLIC SECTOR COLLABORATION FOR COMMUNITY DISASTER RESILIENCE Legislated Resilience Some workshop participants noted that there is hesitancy in the private sector to become involved in private-public sector collaboration because of the fear of potential additional government oversight. Many in the private sector are already overwhelmed by government programs, regulations, and mandates. Some participants went as far as to say that programs such as the DHS Voluntary Private Sector Preparedness Accreditation Program4 may detract focus and energy from where they are needed to create resilient businesses. They expressed the view that less regulation can be better because organizations know what they need to function on an ongoing basis. Others at the workshop countered that guidance from higher levels of government is necessary to ensure at least some level of disaster preparedness. Mary Wong of the Office Depot Foundation stated that numerous small and mid-size businesses close after a disaster, indicating that businesses may not know what they need to do to survive a disaster. Many companies and other types of organization may need assistance creating preparedness and continuity plans. Liability Maria Vorel of FEMA noted that federal public employees may avoid working with the private sector because of misinterpreted ethical guidelines for safeguarding against favoritism toward contractors. The small amount of training that federal employees receive encourages limited interaction with the private sector. This training and internal culture could dissuade government employees from collaboratively engaging with the private sector for the sake of building community resilience. Chapter 2 described some of the concerns of those in the private sector with respect to liability. Some participants noted that there is concern and confusion as to whether Good Samaritan laws are applicable to businesses acting in good faith following a disaster should injuries occur. But liability is also an issue between local, state, and federal authorities. Leslie Luke of the San Diego County Office of Emergency Services pointed out that there is lack of knowledge of whether memoranda of understanding (MOUs) established between local jurisdictions and private organizations conflict or compete with state-level MOUs. In such circumstances, there is confusion about how liability is covered. It is not often understood if local MOUs are superseded by state MOUs, or whether local liability will be covered under a state umbrella. This confusion presents real barriers to effective collaboration and coordination and may create disincentives for the private sector (and government at various levels) to become involved. Insurance The Multihazard Mitigation Council report of 2005 was referenced several times by workshop participants (MMC, 2005). In it, the benefits of physical and process mitigation against disaster were calculated. The measure of resilience could have implications in 4 See www.fema.gov/privatesector/preparedness/index.htm (accessed December 2, 2009).
OCR for page 47
CHALLENGES AND BARRIERS 47 terms of liability and insurance. Brent Woodworth of the Los Angeles Emergency Preparedness Foundation described his own experiences developing resiliency programs that reduced financial losses by over two-thirds per incident over a 10-year span. However this work was not accompanied by a change in insurance costs. Within the building industry, groups such as the National Institute of Building Sciences5 and the American Institute of Architects6 have advocated performance-based building codes set against performance expectations. Pennie Bingham of the Charleston, South Carolina Metro Chamber of Commerce described similar efforts by a local business continuity and planning council representing different size businesses collaborating for different types of engagement. They advocate legislation encouraging insurance companies to provide incentives for contingency planning. Workshop participants discussed, however, that insurance companies have no incentive to lower their rates. It is less expensive for them to sell more insurance. The International Center for Enterprise Preparedness at New York University7 has explored the issue of insurance incentives, according to Debra Ballen of the Institute for Business and Home Safety. They released a white paper, Insurance Incentives for Corporate Preparedness, which focused on implementation and measurement capture (Raisch and Statler, 2006). The paper indicates which American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and National Fire Protection Association standards may prove to be useful criteria for companies in developing their emergency preparedness programs, and for underwriters in assessing the level of preparedness of policy holders. Leadership Sometimes even successful disaster resilience collaborations prove not to be sustainable or resilient. The loss of charismatic leadership can create a leadership vacuum; or formerly predictable sources of funding may fade away. It has already been discussed that a catalytic presence is often necessary to make collaboration happen. Many workshop participants suggested that it is essential, when the collaboration is established, to infuse the vision of the founding leadership into the collaboration itself. Institutionalizing the collaboration mission is important to ensure the sustainability of the partnership when individual leaders or circumstances change. Determining how to make this happen is a substantial challenge. Research on what leadership is and what it should look like in collaborations, how leaders engender trust and nurture the creation of a vision, and what engenders the confidence to empower others to help achieve the vision will provide information regarding how leadership for future successful and sustainable collaborative efforts can be nurtured. 5 See www.nibs.org (accessed December 2, 2009). 6 See www.aia.org (accessed December 2, 2009). 7 See www.nyu.edu/intercep (accessed December 2, 2009).
OCR for page 48
48 PRIVATE-PUBLIC SECTOR COLLABORATION FOR COMMUNITY DISASTER RESILIENCE LANGUAGE BARRIERS The term “private-public partnerships” has been used for many years in the emergency management community, according to Jim Mullen, and a major challenge has been overcoming the language barriers and different focus among partners. The language used among those in the banking community, for example, is different from that used within the public health community. It is essential to breach language barriers so that effective communication may take place. For example, basic terms such as “resilience,” “risk,” and “community” were defined differently even among workshop participants well versed in topics related to resilience, disaster preparedness, and partnership building. Not defining the terms can be a barrier to effective collaboration, preventing identification of the needs of diverse people in a society. This is true for people from different professional sectors, social classes, and ethnic groups. Many workshop participants stated that resolving issues of semantics is essential so that a purpose and structure for the collaboration may be defined. Some workshop participants observed that different interest groups may have difficulty communicating, even if similar outcomes are desired. Members of the business sector may not communicate effectively with, for example, members of non-profit or faith-based organizations. The public sector may not communicate well with the private sector. There is a need to find a common language that all will understand that will contribute to effective multiple-stakeholder partnerships. Several of those attending the workshop stated that research in this area may be helpful. During conversation at the workshop, many participants noted that the hierarchical, command-and-control style in language and approach with roots in law enforcement and the military in use by DHS may not be conducive to the encouragement of resilience-building collaboration. Monitoring and addressing this could be beneficial so that it complements ground-up collaboration at the community level. Some workshop participants stated that partnerships between public sector organizations at the local level are just as important for community resilience collaboration as they are between sister agencies at the federal level. Claudia Albano of the City of Oakland described how the inability to coordinate between agencies at the local level creates inefficiencies and duplication of efforts and human resources within those agencies. As an example, she described how local police and fire departments may independently work to create separate neighborhood-level programs such as neighborhood crime watch or disaster safety groups. Ultimately they may end up competing for the attention of the same neighborhood residents. Coordination of the programs could result in gaining a wider audience for both efforts. BUILDING TRUST Trust is a fundamental factor essential to the formation of sustainable and effective collaboration. Trusted relationships are the capital that drive collaboration and build resilience. As Ron Carlee of Arlington, Virginia, stated, trust is organic and dynamic, and the nature of trust varies from community to community. Strategy and creativity need to be employed to build trust, and not a single formula or plan will work universally. A
OCR for page 49
CHALLENGES AND BARRIERS 49 vision and commitment are needed to bring people together in trust. Government agencies often spend money on hardware and supplies, but often do not consider trust and other human factors that are essential for the technology to be used to its potential. A lack of understanding of human factors prevent the most effective use of any technologies, methodologies, or strategies applied to building community resilience. Understanding the qualities of trust and how trust is built between collaborating people and organizations was considered important by many workshop participants. Understanding how trust is sustained, especially under stressful conditions, is equally important. RESOURCE CHALLENGES Workshop participants discussed how building community resilience generally enhances the social capital of a community. Better horizontal and vertical connections to those who have resources that can be utilized during a disaster are created. This is beneficial for all members of the community. However, several participants noted that it may be difficult to sell the concept of non-threat-based resilience through partnerships without the perception of threat. Political barriers at all government levels could deter resilience building efforts conducted without a hazard focus. In addition, they noted that funding for resilience-building collaboration is limited. When asked what was needed to make private-public sector collaboration for community resilience building a national priority, Jim Mullen of the Washington State Military Department stated that all fledgling private-public programs across the country struggle with obtaining sustainable funding. Federal funding programs are often short lived, but collaboration and resilience building is a long-term process. Funding for long- term approaches to resilience building is difficult to obtain, in part because thinking in the long term is, in itself, not acknowledged as a critical aspect of program delivery, according to Ms. Vorel. Congress provides funds for the delivery of a successful program, but does not have mechanisms in place to appreciate processes such as collaboration, partnership development, and public education. Benchmarks are not readily available to justify resource requests for these types of expenditures. Jami Haberl of Safeguard Iowa Partnerships also pointed out the challenges imposed by the inflexibility of grants received from public sources. Restrictions on how dollars can be spent do not allow for the creative resource management sometimes needed to build and maintain partnerships. Additionally, administering public grants can be confusing and time-consuming. Small and rural communities are often unable to participate in funding programs that require matching funds from the recipients because matching funds are unavailable, according to Adele Lyons. Some workshop participants said the private sector could be a source for funding, but multiple participants indicated hesitancy on the part of the private sector to provide financial support if the public sector is not doing so as well. Mickie Valente of the Florida Council of 100 suggested that incentivizing the private sector to participate in collaborations could also provide incentives for the private sector to provide financial support. Fundraising on behalf of partnerships can be time-consuming. Those charged with facilitating partnerships may find all their time spent in search of funding rather than on
OCR for page 50
50 PRIVATE-PUBLIC SECTOR COLLABORATION FOR COMMUNITY DISASTER RESILIENCE efforts that strengthen networks or facilitates resilience-building activities. Ms. Haberl also noted the circular nature of the fundraising activities. To gain the financial support of the private sector, outcomes are needed to demonstrate the potential return. However, without the support, no outcomes can be realized. Many workshop participants agreed that more money and resources could alleviate some of the barriers to building resilient communities. Others stated that receiving more money is not likely in the foreseeable future and expressed, as Governor McCallum did, that a challenge exists in getting people to think beyond identifying the need for more money. Many agreed that a major challenge exists in building a culture that encourages creative funding, volunteerism among community members representing the full fabric of the community, and a community that focuses on results rather than mandatory processes. INEFFICIENCIES Topics in the next paragraphs have been discussed in greater detail elsewhere in the report, but are highlighted in this section on inefficiencies because of the extreme challenges they present to creating effective private-public sector collaboration for building community resilience. Lessons Lost Resilience-building systems seem to be event-driven rather than infused into the daily way business is conducted. Learning from experience and retaining knowledge for future applications is a challenge, especially as political administrations change. Lessons learned can be short-lived, and relearning lessons is inefficient. Too Few Measures The nation currently lacks an evidenced-based and politically acceptable nonprescriptive framework that helps communities as they work to build resilience. Workshop participants noted, however, that few measures of resilience exist and so it is therefore difficult to establish objectives and measures of success. Financial planning and resource allocation cannot be most efficiently accomplished without meaningful goals and metrics.
OCR for page 51
CHALLENGES AND BARRIERS 51 Poor Horizontal Communication Inefficiencies may occur as a result of the command and control systems currently the norm in emergency management since 9/11. According to Ms. Vorel of FEMA, such systems are not supportive of collaboration and horizontal networking across public and private organizations. Communication using law enforcement or military vernacular, for example, is not conducive to collaboration, especially with respect to mitigation, but also for a broad range of emergency management activities. INCLUDING THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY Impoverished Communities Workshop participants indicated a need to avoid focusing resilience-building efforts on a “generic” population of a community (e.g., middle-class, educated suburban dwellers). It is essential to consider and attend to the needs of all populations. Current governing systems at any level, for example, generally do not have plans to deal with communities in perpetual states of disaster due to poverty, crime, and violence. Building a nation of resilience requires moving communities beyond these perpetual disaster states. Members and organizations within these impoverished communities are a part of the full fabric of the community and need to be integral to collaborative efforts. Survivors within these communities can be important resources for the larger community when considering resilience because of their experiences living with disaster on a daily basis. By representing all members of the community in collaborative efforts, all members become empowered to be a part of decision making to create change. All members of the community could accrue the benefits of resilience-building efforts. Community- and Faith-Based Organizations The work of community- and faith-based organizations following a disaster was repeatedly called to attention. These groups often provide food, shelter, medical, hygiene, and other support services before emergency responders are even able to get into a stricken area. They often identify needs and fill the gaps in services otherwise not provided (Homeland Security Institute, 2006). These groups are often underrepresented in private-public sector collaborations, in many cases because they do not readily fit into the silos filled by other types of organizations. Determining how to most effectively engage and include community- and faith-based organizations in resilience-building efforts is a great organizational challenge.
OCR for page 52
52 PRIVATE-PUBLIC SECTOR COLLABORATION FOR COMMUNITY DISASTER RESILIENCE CREATING VERSUS CONTROLLING THE ENVIRONMENT FOR CHANGE Prescriptive mandates from the federal government are often not conducive to grassroots community-level collaboration. Workshop participants indicated that it is not federal control that is needed to create change, but a national movement supported by the federal government that can create the environment that instills more responsibility for resilience building at the community level. Culture change is possible and there are case studies of communities that are building resilience through culture change. Brent Woodworth described activities in Tulsa, Oklahoma where grassroots collaborative efforts encouraged builders to include safe rooms as a showcase in new homes being built in one of the highest tornado-prone regions in the country. Over time, many consumers came to expect that they would only buy in the area if the home included a safe room. This change in cultural environment came without prescriptive mandates from government. However, Ann Patton of Tulsa Partners, Inc. (retired), did clarify that safe rooms will likely not be found in “low-end” housing, or that the need for safe rooms will be recognized for long if the community is not continually reminded in meaningful ways of the risks associated with tornadoes. Comprehensive community planning should incorporate disaster preparedness planning as part of its overall efforts. Ms. Valente described post-disaster redevelopment plans in Florida that are now being included as part of comprehensive land-use planning. These plans are being encouraged by the business community and Florida legislature for the state’s coastal communities. This is being done in the same way that good business plans are encouraged to include contingency plans. The plans include not only land-use considerations and issues associated with built infrastructure, but also planning associated with environmental, communications, and other factors. These are umbrella plans in which all other local mitigation strategy plans can fit. Ms. Valente admitted, however, that the tools and analyses are not available to deal with the economic component of the plan. Such community planning could promote connectivity among community members, according to Ron Carlee of Arlington County, Virginia. Land-use planning done in such a way as to build physical communities that are resilient and sustainable could result. Governor McCallum warned, however, of the need for careful planning. Solving some problems, such as bringing people closer to public transportation, may increase the likelihood of other problems, such as pandemic spread of illness. A social environment conducive to building community resilience from the ground up needs to support organic growth, flexibility, and the needs of all community stakeholders. The environment would allow relationships to be built on trust. As collaborative structures are established, there is a need to determine how to make them sustainable. The most effective solutions developed within these structures are scalable to the different needs of the community. To achieve essential resilience, networks need to take advantage of social revolutions such as social networking that occurs among the younger generations. Collaborations and their members are challenged to be flexible enough to recognize and absorb changes experienced through evolution or driven by events.