Search Results

ISET-International’s June 2014 newsletter provides key updates on research in Vietnam under the project Sheltering From a Gathering Storm. To view the full text with links case studies and exciting new videos, please click here.

When I called my mother to complain about my flooded basement after the September 2013 floods in Boulder, Colorado, her response was, “Kanmani, this would have been a lot worse had it happened in India.” To a large degree, this is true. After all, Indian cities do have a larger population density and lower economic and resource capacity than Boulder. But are resource and economic capacity alone the primary determinants of resilience? Gorakhpur, a city in eastern India, and Boulder are both prone to climate hazards, particularly floods. In both cities, major flooding events and projections that climate change will increase the likelihood of extreme rainfall events led various organizations and stakeholders to kickstart resilience-building research and activities. Upon comparing the resulting efforts in both cities, it became evident that Boulder and Gorakhpur share ‘non-resilient’ characteristics despite the apparent discrepancy in resource and economic capacity: People do not take precautions if they do not perceive that there is a risk. In Boulder, people were simply not prepared to deal with the floods, largely because they had not experienced major floods—the last major floods occurred in the 1960s. In Gorakhpur, while floods are recurring, major flood events were far and few until the floods of 1998. It is after these floods that people started to build more flood-resilient homes. Flood maps are outdated and inaccurate. In Boulder, the flood maps did not account for the possibility of all 13 drainages flooding during a 100-year flood, which is what happened during the 2013. The maps also did not account for changes in creek paths and sediment deposit. These issues hindered flood response and preparedness, and also allowed people to build in risky areas of the floodplain. In Gorakhpur, existing maps do not account for recent urban development and growth and are, therefore, insufficient for modeling floods and their potential impacts. Increasing urbanization has led to greater development in floodplains. Development in floodplains puts people and infrastructure in harm’s way. In Boulder, creek-side developments were highly impacted during the floods. Boulder City and County officials are debating whether or not these impacted developments should be reconstructed. In Gorakhpur, a rapidly growing city, urbanization has led to the development and encroachment of floodplains and waterways. The Ramgarh Lake, for example, has reduced from 1980 acres to 700 acres in less than 100 years. This limits the drainage of floodwaters and puts urban dwellers at great risk. People are more likely to act at an individual than community level. In Boulder, during the floods, people were pumping water out of their homes and into their neighbor’s property. Currently, many upstream property owners, i.e. in Gregory Creek, are building protective barriers around their homes that will push water downstream and impact residences and public property during future floods. Similarly, in Gorakhpur, the shift towards more flood resilient homes means that water will get diverted into public spaces. In both cities, existing infrastructure is unable to fully handle the water diverted into these spaces. Autonomous action is not inherently bad and cannot be prevented; public infrastructure should be designed with people’s propensity to take autonomous action in mind. Buildings and infrastructure are not flood resilient. In Boulder, the 2013 floods destroyed 345 and damaged 557 houses, and damaged 150 miles of county roads. In addition, high water levels caused sewage to backflow into homes. In Gorakhpur, at least 21% of homes, particularly those in rural and peri-urban areas, and infrastructure are highly susceptible to floods due to poor construction. While there has been a shift to more modern construction techniques post the 1998 flood, disregard of regulations and design considerations mean that houses and infrastructure remain vulnerable. What we can see is that resilience is not only about resource and economic capacity. Although Boulder has higher capacity than Gorakhpur, its flood maps were outdated and inaccurate and many of its houses were not resilient to floods. This suggests that there are social (i.e. perceptions of risk) and institutional barriers (i.e. regulatory processes) that restrict resilience. For poorer cities and countries, this is a good thing—social and institutional changes can be made without great economic input. Such changes are already taking place with the formation of partnerships between stakeholders that allow for collaborative learning and innovation. In Gorakhpur, agencies such as the Gorakhpur Environmental Action Group (GEAG) and ISET-International have worked together with communities to promote climate-resilient housing, protection of water bodies, and better municipal infrastructure. Their efforts have allowed Gorakhpur to join the Asian Cities Climate Change Resilience Network (ACCCRN). For wealthier cities and countries, this serves as a reminder that resource and economic capacity are not everything—money alone cannot prevent a hazard from becoming a disaster. Rather, better planning and regulatory processes are needed. While it may be true that the September 2013 floods would have had more devastating effects in Gorakhpur than in Boulder, it does not change the fact that both cities are vulnerable and need to improve their resilience to floods and other potential hazards.

As Dr. Marcus Moench, of ISET-International, urges the audience at the Resilience Futures conference in Fortaleza, Brazil to consider regulatory and incentive frameworks that build-off of autonomous adaptation already occurring in local communities around the world, an attendee from India replied by saying that he didn’t “believe local scale adaptation will be a solution to climate change.” Is the traditional planning regime our only answer? Systematic planning changes can take up to 5 to 10 years to influence policy shifts or institutional rearrangements. With increased extreme events and rapid urbanization, are we seeing these impacts too late or at all? If 4 degrees is where we are headed, do we have time to just consider traditional planning processes as the key intervention area for climate adaptation? Households in Gorakhpur, India are already raising their plinths in response to the annual flooding and annual waterlogging that occurs throughout the city. Homeowners in Da Nang, Vietnam have opted for a loan program to build climate resilient shelter with limited government support. Poor communities in Pakistan are painting rooftops white to reflect the sun’s heat, adding Roshan Daans (small windows just below the roof that act as an exhaust and provide daylight), and planting creepers (vegetation) to provide shade and cooling to their houses. These homeowners are making investments on their own with limited or no government assistance. In Pakistan, household incomes range from 15,000 to 25,000 PKR (USD$152–$253) a year, and in summer months heat-related expenses can become 15,000 PKR. These households are using their decision-making power to prevent or reduce expenses and losses related to heat, flooding, and typhoons. The cost of recovery to them is too large to not be prepared. So, why are we continuing to push the traditional planning path as the best option for climate adaptation? Why do we continue to work so hard to integrate climate science models into planning processes in these locations when that information may take 10 years to be felt at a local level? For example, in Gorakhpur, India, a highly recognized engineering firm was hired to develop and run a flood model for the city. Gorakhpur only has a conceptual landuse map for 2020, no current landuse elevation maps, and a topographical map that was last updated in 1970. Needless to say, the flood model comes with a set of assumptions that may uncharacteristically estimate the flooding locations due to the lack of data. So, is it worth spending thousands of dollars for these flood models in locations where the data and information is unavailable to truly provide more accurate results? I would argue that alongside this push for integrating climate information into planning, that it be coupled with the support and integration of what is already happening in our communities. Let us incentivize plinth raised houses that integrate flow for water, add this technology innovation as a key input in our future landuse elevation map, and move forward with planning and implementation together, not one before the other. We do not have 10 years to wait for plans to be in place.

(Above: Pope Francis, source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pope_Francis_Korea_Haemi_Castle_19.jpg) Getting people to not only think about resilience but also advocate for transformative change is extremely difficult. Whether it be long term planning or rapid disaster recovery efforts, resilience thinking is often times a subsidiary notion. Victims of Hurricane Sandy and last year’s tornado in Moore, Oklahoma prioritized a fast-track rebuilding effort over a longer, more strategic recovery. And who can blame them? When communities are flipped upside down, the first thought for most is to rebuild as fast a possible. Families need to get back into their homes and businesses need to reopen so that the economy does not falter. But what happens when the threat of additional disasters is ongoing? Last year was not the first time a tornado hit Moore, and hurricanes will continue to plague the East Coast. Should we continue to rapidly rebuild time after time, or is it in our best interests to think strategically and promote measures that build community resilience? The latter option is likely a more efficient and cost effective approach, however, transformative change involves diverse engagement as well as compromise. While this comes easier for some than it does for others, the process for catalyzing resilience must be done in a way that appeals to the community’s sense of self. And that is the tricky part. People are motivated by a variety of things and what propels change in behavior or thinking in one person may be very different from that of another. But it is possible to catalyze resilience, and it does happen. Just in the past few weeks, several unlikely events unfolded that brought a breath of fresh air to the somewhat stagnant dialogue around climate adaptation and community resilience in America. No, I’m not talking about the study documenting rapid ice melting in Western Antarctica, or the apparent shift in ENSO and the serious impacts this could have globally, or even John Oliver’s hilarious comedy show on the climate change debate. Rather, what I’m referring to involves U.S. military leaders and the Pope himself. Last month, a group of retired U.S. military generals and admirals released an updated report outlining the accelerated risks of climate change and the potential impacts it could have on national security. These sixteen military leaders, who form the CNA’s Military Advisory Board, addressed both global and domestic implications of climate change and urged for collaboration, cooperation, and change. According to the report, they were “dismayed that discussions of climate change have become so polarizing and have receded from the arena of informed public discourse and debate. Political posturing and budgetary woes cannot be allowed to inhibit discussion and debate over what so many believe to be a salient national security concern for our nation.” Also happening last month was the joint workshop held by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and Social Sciences (PAS/PASS) titled, “Sustainable Humanity, Sustainable Nature: Our Responsibility.” Attended by members of the Academies and invited experts, the workshop focused on the roots and history of mankind, the scientific basis for the impacts of development, and the potential risks of human innovations and ensuring long-time sustainability. According to the PAS, the attendees “paid particular attention to indicators of a climate shift due to a number of introduced technological applications, such as the use of coal and fossil oil as sources of energy” as well as measures that “contribute to mitigating the role of a continued anthropogenic climate change.” In the workshop’s closing statement, Pope Francis addressed the crowd by saying “We are Custodians of Creation. But when we exploit Creation we destroy the sign of God’s love for us…Safeguard Creation. Because if we destroy Creation, Creation will destroy us!” So why are these two events important and will they catalyze resilience building? In isolation, probably not. However, what these events accomplish is that they may act as a better avenue for promoting resilience thinking for traditionally conservative groups. Why, you may ask? Well, because they’re rooted in conservative values and, in some cases, even identity, such as religion and the military. Motivating people to think differently and advocate for transformation is only possible when you consider the interests of the people themselves. Honing in on a specific a group’s values, such as national security inputs from top military officials and teachings from religious leaders, may be the best approach to catalyzing resilience on a larger scale.

What is Resilience: A) a buzzword B) a concept of profound importance C) a term of common speech D) a word of multiple meanings in different contexts E) All of the above The answer is, of course, all of the above. In 2012, resilience was highlighted as the buzzword of the year by Time Magazine.[1] Its use has proliferated in everything from national and development policy debates to discussions of personal and community identity. At the same time, the concept of resilience has been actively explored by scientific and academic communities as an attribute of the complex ecological, social, behavioral and psychological systems of which all humans are a part. Understanding the factors that contribute to resilience in systems has profound importance for everything from society’s ability to respond to climate change to post disaster or trauma recovery. Resilience also is a common word of speech that applies to the, often inherent, ability of people or things to withstand and recover from disruption. As with many words in the English language, the meaning is not precise but depends on the context and purpose of use. The purpose of the Resilience Narratives is to explore the notion of resilience, particularly its dual application as a word with common meaning and conceptually as an attribute of complex systems. Why? The growing use of “resilience” as a buzzword undermines the ability to use resilience concepts to diagnose and respond to some of the very real problems global society faces as a result of climate change, rapid urbanization, conflict and a host of other challenges. At the same time, the multiple ways the word is used in common speech tie in strongly to how people understand themselves and describe others and the world around them. These common meanings are as important as the more technical ones in understanding and catalyzing responses across a broad range of society to the same set of challenges. The Resilience Narratives blogs will feature a broad range of short pieces on resilience. Some of these will be stories that tell tangible tales of resilience in individuals, households, urban areas and other “real” contexts. Other pieces will be academic and fully referenced, designed to explore the dynamics of complex systems, the attributes that contribute to resilience, adaptation and transformation within them, and the social consequences that generates. Most pieces will focus on urbanization and climate change – two of the most significant processes shaping our common future. One goal is to create a forum that will highlight both the common meanings of resilience and the manner in which resilience terms can contribute to much more profound understanding of complex system dynamics. Another, equally important, goal is to avoid the term “resilience” becoming a lemming and jumping off the cliff after “sustainability” (and a host of other terms) into a morass of meaninglessness. As a starting point, the blogs will follow the definition of resilience provided by the Resilience Alliance: Resilience is “the ability to absorb disturbances, to be changed and then to re-organise and still have the same identity (retain the same basic structure and ways of functioning).[2]” [1] http://science.time.com/2013/01/08/adapt-or-die-why-the-environmental-buzzword-of-2013-will-be-resilience/ [2] http://www.resalliance.org/index.php/key_concepts accessed June 5, 2014

Originally posted on http://howonearthradio.org Marcus Moench, Institute for Social and Environmental Transition, Boulder LISTEN (20 Minutes) The Institute for Social and Environmental Transition does a lot of work globally regarding flooding and climate and environment protection. Speaking with Jim Pullen, their president, Marcus Moench, says Boulder has fared pretty well, though it faces challenges. “The main flood areas, the infrastructures through Central Boulder has functioned enormously well. The underpasses and things like that. We face, as everyplace does, a huge challenge particularly along minor streams, where it’s impossible to keep the vegetation clear, to keep culverts the size you want. And where there are contrasting interests. For example, if you have a grate in front of a school such as Flatirons school that protects kids from falling into the culverts, but at the same time it becomes the first thing that clogs and floods the street, the minute any flow comes down. “ But Moench says that even in usually arid Boulder, we can learn lessons from wetter climates, such as those in Asia: “All the infrastructures, the water heaters, the sewer, things like this, The water supply stuff is located much higher up. The electricity. We put a lot of that infrastructure into our basements. And as people are mucking out here, that’s one of the largest costs a lot of people will face is replacing that water heater, that dryer, the stuff that’s in the basements. “ For a list of resources for people in our communities dealing with these disasters, check KGNU

Since 2011, CCCO has organised various communications and awareness-raising programs for different communes, levels and sectors. Within the framework of ACCCRN, CCCO collaborated with DOET to organise the painting contest “We paint to act against climate change” at Ngo Quyen primary school on May 5th, 2014. It could be said that this is the first CCCO activity for pupils who are considered as the most vulnerable under climate change impacts. However, the contest left in us many happy and beautiful memories. While directly watching the pupils figuring out ideas and drawing, we think that this contest could help them to enhance their creativity and skills for climate change response. Although the lines and color are not sharp and professional, the pupils perfectly show their ideas through observing the change of climate, weather, the impacts, the temperature increase, change of rainfall, the floods, the droughts, the consequences… and even the solutions to mitigate climate change impacts… Some students event spent one hour figuring out the ideas and what colors would be used to demonstrate perfectly their ideas. Above: The painting winning the First prize For those reasons, it was difficult for the examiner board to choose the winners because most of the pictures were very good at ideas, layout and colors. Finally, the painting of one 4th-grade pupil won the First Prize with the idea “Saving water, our planet is thirsty”. This painting made a deep impression on the audience for its creativity and suitable content. The examiner board also chose 2 Second Prizes and 3 Third Prizes. Above: The winners of the contest This educational activity has created a good playyard for pupils and enhanced their awareness of climate chnge. CCCO will expand this activity to other schools in Danang city. Posted by Kim Thu, CCCO Da Nang Original post by the CCCO Da Nang About Climate Change Coordination Office of Da Nang city (CCCO Da Nang): Director: Mr. Dinh Quang Cuong Address: 42 Bach Dang, Da Nang, Vietnam Tel: 0511.3888508 – Fax: 0511.3825321 Email: danang.ccco@gmail.com – Website: http://ccco.danang.gov.vn/

Given the severity of the recent floods in Boulder, current conversation at the city and county levels is centered on flood mitigation. However, Boulder is subject to multiple climate hazards, including droughts, winds, and severe snow storms[1]. This broad spectrum of hazards has always been addressed in disaster planning and continues to be discussed post-flood, particularly by those thinking about broader resiliency. A recent and particularly severe disaster was the Fourmile Fire in 2010. Between September 6 and September 16, the fire burned 6,200 acres of land and destroyed 169 homes[2] in the foothills above the city. After the fire, disaster mitigation and recovery policies and processes, particularly the Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan, were reviewed by the Office of Emergency Management[3] (OEM). Floods were an important part of these discussions; loss of vegetation in a burn area greatly exacerbates the chances of erosion, landslide, and flash flooding in the event of heavy rains. Above: Fourmile Fire in the Foothills of Boulder on September 2010. (Photo: Bo Insogna) Following the Fourmile Fire, a group of mountain community leaders came together and formed the Inter Mountain Alliance (IMA) as a platform to discuss the lessons learned, promote wildfire mitigation among residents, and encourage public participation in improving local disaster plans[4]. The following lessons learned were incorporated into the response and recovery process for the recent floods. Lesson 1 – Spend time listening to communities to figure out what their needs are. In more traditional models of response and recovery, the needs of affected communities are assumed. After the fire, Boulder County staff spent time speaking to each community to determine what their needs were. Based on this experience, after the floods County staff and the Boulder County Long-Term Flood Recovery Group took the time to meet with community leaders to identify needs and how existing policies could be changed to meet needs. Lesson 2 – Provide a single point of contact for those affected by disasters. In the aftermath of disasters, affected people need access to information and services that are provided by different departments. After the fire, Boulder County set up a Disaster Assistance Center within days as a one-stop shop for information. When the floods hit, this experience allowed City and County staff to set up flood Disaster Assistance Centers quickly, drawing in local non-profit organizations and FEMA – FEMA normally has to set these centers up on their own. The City of Boulder and Boulder County’s cooperation in this initiative has helped make these centers highly successful. Similar centers were set-up recently to help people with issues surrounding longer-term disaster recovery. Lesson 3 – Form good relationships across departments, with police, sheriff, and local municipalities. Collaboration and partnerships are vital during disaster response and recovery as they build trust, promote learning and mainstream action. After the Fourmile Fire, the Office of Emergency Management and Boulder County realized that the 23 fire districts were too disparate and therefore worked to establish and solidify relationships with and between the fire districts. These districts worked together to produce a flood plan and have met regularly since to update it. Their collaboration during the floods, primarily search and rescue missions in the mountains, made overall flood response much more effective. Above: Fourmile Canyon fire crew practicing a rescue mission during a flood training exercise. (Photo: Jeremy Papasso/Daily Camera) Another salient collaboration is that of the IMA with Boulder County Amateur Radio Emergency Services (BCARES), http://bouldercountyares.org/, and the Office of Emergency Management (OEM) ,http://boulderoem.com/, to create the Mountain Emergency Radio Network (M.E.R.N), http://bouldermountainresources.org/mern/. M.E.R.N. is an amateur radio service that can be used to communicate with mountain residents during emergencies. Their partnership, alongside the Office of Emergency Management’s partnership with the National Weather Service, allowed for streamlined and rapid dissemination of early warning and safety information to mountain communities. Rumors and confusion were minimized. Lesson 4 – Encourage innovation. The reverse-911 emergency phone-call system in use at the time of the Fourmile Fire was only able to send out messages in concentric circles. This was not appropriate given the geography of the mountain communities, which are laid out along canyons. After the Fourmile Fire, IMA, M.E.R.N. and the Office of Emergency Management worked together to adapt the 911 emergency phone-call system to the unique terrain of the canyons. What is evident here is that disaster response and recovery systems that were implemented as a result of the Fourmile Fire were highly beneficial during the floods, and are likely to be beneficial in the event of future disasters, whether they are natural, social, or technological. Building resilience is not about adapting to floods or fires specifically; it is about adapting to hazards, change, and variability in general. Key to resilience is the ability to learn, so that communities do not repeat mistakes, but instead build back better each time. 1st Picture: Fourmile Fire in the Foothills of Boulder on September 2010. (Photo:Bo Insogna) https://www.flickr.com/photos/thelightningman/4968418101/in/photolist-8z3rB4-8yXhox-8zU4Fv-8zvy1j-acmLLe-8z1GEj-8z7ZRt-8yXDTM-8yXCQZ-8yXERM-8z1GPy-8z819k-8z1KpY- 8yXAk2-8yXD6F-8z7ZZc-8z1LTW-8z1KL1-8yXBwH-8z1LwC-8z1L7b-8yXEFM-8z1Ln9-8yXB5D-8yXC2c-8yXDzc-8z1Gw5-8yRD8b-8z1U5p-8BnnTX-8BqobJ-8BqomE-8z4n2i-8BngA4-8Bqo2A-8BngvT-8Bqo7w-8z4iR4-8Bbbc9-8z8eP3-8AfZtC-8zsnse-8yN17U-8z4j6P-acpATb-8z1q7s-8yXeXz-8zimWk-8zijBx-8zmvf9 2nd Picture: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-fQPPwO-Cg3s/UuRCN95WktI/AAAAAAAABGs/X3wMMa_azT8/s1600/InterMountain+Alliance.jpg 3rd Picture: Fourmile Canyon fire crew practicing a rescue mission during a flood training exercise. (Photo: Jeremy Papasso/Daily Camera) http://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/media/site21/2011/0416/20110416__17dcaflow~1_500.jpg [1] (http://boulderoem.com/files/Boulder_MHMP_Draft_for_Social_Media.pdf [2] (http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_21449075/boulder-county-passes-lessons-fourmile-fire) [3] (http://boulderoem.com/files/Boulder_MHMP_Draft_for_Social_Media.pdf [4] http://bouldermountainresources.org/intermountainalliance-group/

Please view the full text of our current newsletter, in which we share the news about our most recent publication, Floods in Boulder: A Study of Resilience.

We are pleased to share our most recent publication Floods in Boulder: A Study of Resilience. The focus of this study is our hometown Boulder, Colorado. This case study provides concrete examples of what makes a city “resilient” through the analysis of built infrastructure, human systems, and legal and cultural norms. This study diagnoses why the county came through unscathed in some areas while encountering massive damages in others. Selected findings of the case study include: Built Infrastructure: Six of the seven roads into the mountains failed because they were all next to rivers; systems are not redundant if they have the same point of failure. Human Systems: Lessons and response from previous disasters directly improved the flood response of the county. Legal and cultural norms: The western culture of individuality gave staff the freedom to take independent action and innovate. This allowed systems to be operated effectively under a wider range of conditions than what they were initially designed for. A recovery process should include county-wide understanding of what is needed to make Boulder County more resilient. Boulder County held up well to the floods in certain ways, but in others the floods exposed gaps in our disaster preparedness. This study looks at what made Boulder County resilient, and where we need to improve,” said Chris Allan, ISET-International Senior Research Associate and co-author of the report. “We hope the study will be of use in ongoing discussions across the county in bouncing forward, and for the City of Boulder in their resilience building process which starts this week with the kick off of the 100 Resilient Cities event. About ISET-International www.i-s-e-t.org ISET-International was one of the original members of the Asian Cities Climate Change Resilience Network (ACCCRN), a program funded by the Rockefeller Foundation from 2008–present. Through our engagement with ACCCRN, we have developed and refined the Climate Resilience Framework (CRF), a systems-based approach to building resilience to climate change. The Boulder Flood’s case study was modeled off of our approach which has been piloted and tested in cities across Asia (Vietnam, Thailand, India, Pakistan, Nepal, and Vietnam).

Above: A family residence in the outskirts of Da Nang, Vietnam On November 1st, 2013 the city of Da Nang, Vietnam adopted a new policy that will require all new housing construction in the city to adopt key resilience principles such as storm-resistant construction techniques in their post-typhoon recovery support programs for damaged households. This success stems directly from The Storm and Flood-Resistant Credit and Housing Scheme in Da Nang City, a microcredit and technical assistance program aimed at developing storm resistant shelters in vulnerable districts of Da Nang. Read more about the project details here. With approvals from Mayor of the Da Nang People’s Committee, The Department of Construction is instructed to use storm-resistant techniques in considering house construction permit to households. The Da Nang Climate Change Coordination Office has also been asked to support the Women’s Union in organizing events promoting storm-resistant housing techniques in each of the wards involved in the project.