CSSP-2013-CD-1120

Building Resilient Communities Workshop Report Prepared by: Ronald R. Bowles Dawn Ursuliak Justice Institute of British Columbia

Scientific Authority: Lynne Genik

DRDC Centre for Security Science

The scientific or technical validity of this Contract Report is entirely the responsibility of the Contractor and the contents do not necessarily have the approval or endorsement of the Department of National Defence of Canada.

Contract Report DRDC-RDDC-2014-C

June 2014

CSSP-2013-CD-1120

CSSP-2013-CD-1120 Building Resilient Communities was supported by the Canadian Safety and Security Program (CSSP) which is led by Defence Research and Development Canada’s Centre for Security Science, in partnership with Public Safety Canada. Partners in the project include Emergency Management British Columbia and Justice Institute of British Columbia. CSSP is a federally-funded program to strengthen Canada’s ability to anticipate, prevent/mitigate, prepare for, respond to, and recover from natural disasters, serious accidents, crime and terrorism through the convergence of science and technology with policy, operations and intelligence.

© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, as represented by the Minister of National Defence, 2014

© Sa Majesté la Reine (en droit du Canada), telle que représentée par le ministre de la Défense nationale, 2014

CSSP-2013-CD-1120 i

Abstract……….…….…….

The Building Resilient Communities Workshop, February 25-26, 2014 was hosted and organized by the Justice Institute of British Columbia (JIBC), with the support of the Emergency Management British Columbia (EMBC) and the Canadian Safety and Security Program (CSSP), Defence Research and Development Canada (DRDC) Centre for Security Science (CSS).

Thirty-four participants from multiple levels of government, senior practitioners, policy makers, academia, community members and a variety of agencies disseminated knowledge and developed concrete strategies and priority actions areas for supporting ongoing and emerging initiatives in community and disaster resilience planning. Participants also heard reports on CRHNet Aboriginal Resiliency Report Update and provided a forum for a Value Based Focus Group for the Community Resilience Community of Practice.

Identified strategies included development of an integrated national strategy and finding ongoing sustainability funding; increasing community engagement through information sharing, giving context specific examples of anticipated outcomes, and demonstrating return on investment; as well as the need to engage and support local champions and embedding disaster resilience within other processes. A key message was that communities should be encouraged to use ANY tool or process, rather than struggling to find the perfect. Any engagement with disaster resilience planning increases community resilience.

Significance for Defence and Security

The workshop contributed to the CSSP Outcome: Strong Communities: Canada’s communities are prepared for and resilient to emergency events and violent extremism through risk and evidence based assessments, new technological capabilities, and sociological analyses. The project brought together experts and stakeholders to seek ways to extend and leverage existing and future disaster resilience planning projects and initiatives.

CSSP-2013-CD-1120 ii

Résumé…Translation will…….…….

Les 25 et 26 février 2014 a eu lieu l’atelier « Bâtir des communautés résilientes ». L’événement était tenu et organisé par la Justice Institute of British Columbia (JIBC) [l’Institut de justice de la Colombie-Britannique] en collaboration avec l’organisme Emergency Management British Columbia (EMBC) [Gestion des urgences Colombie-Britannique], le Programme canadien pour la sûreté et la sécurité (PCSS) et Recherche et développement pour la défense Canada – Centre des sciences pour la sécurité (RDDC CSS). Trente-quatre participants – parmi eux des représentants de différents paliers de gouvernement, des spécialistes, des décideurs, des universitaires, des membres de la communauté et des représentants de diverses agences – se sont rencontrés pour échanger leurs connaissances et établir des stratégies concrètes et cerner les domaines d’action prioritaires afin d’appuyer les initiatives actuelles et nouvelles de planification de la résilience communautaire relativement aux catastrophes. Ils ont également entendu des comptes rendus de la mise à jour du rapport du RCERD sur la résilience des communautés autochtones. L’événement a aussi donné une tribune pour un groupe de discussion axé sur les valeurs pour la communauté de praticiens spécialisés dans la résilience communautaire.

Les participants se sont notamment entendus pour que soit élaborée une stratégie nationale intégrée et pour que l’on cherche à obtenir une source de financement durable. On cherchera à accroître l’engagement communautaire grâce à l’échange d’informations, en donnant des exemples contextuels des résultats anticipés et en démontrant le rendement du capital investi. On fera aussi valoir la nécessité de désigner et d’appuyer des champions locaux, et d’intégrer la résilience relativement aux catastrophes à d’autres processus. L’un des points importants ressortis des discussions est que l’on devrait encourager les communautés à employer tous les outils et les méthodes à leur portée plutôt que de chercher la solution parfaite. Toute mesure de résilience par rapport aux catastrophes concourt au renforcement de la résilience communautaire.

Importance pour la défense et la sécurité

Cet atelier a contribué à la poursuite de l’objectif du PCSS suivant : Communautés solides : les communautés canadiennes sont préparées aux situations d’urgence et aux actes de violence causés par des extrémistes au moyen d’évaluations fondées sur les risques et les données probantes, de nouvelles capacités technologiques et d’analyses sociologiques. Il a réuni des experts et des intervenants dans le but de chercher des moyens de tirer parti et de développer les initiatives actuelles et futures de planification de la résilience par rapport aux catastrophes.

CSSP-2013-CD-1120 iii

Table of contents

Abstract……….…….……. .............................................................................................................. i Significance for Defence and Security ............................................................................................. i Résumé…Translation will…….……. ............................................................................................. ii Importance pour la défense et la sécurité ........................................................................................ ii Table of contents ............................................................................................................................ iii List of figures .................................................................................................................................. v List of tables ................................................................................................................................... vi Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................... vii 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Workshop Context and Background.............................................................................. 1 1.2 Goal and Objectives ...................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Deliverables ................................................................................................................... 2

2 Workshop structure and activities ............................................................................................. 3 2.1 Agenda ........................................................................................................................... 3 2.2 List of Projects and communities .................................................................................. 4 2.3 Methods ......................................................................................................................... 4

2.3.1 Activity 1: Presentations and identification of enablers and constraints ............. 5 2.3.2 Activity 2: Inductive analysis to develop discussion themes ............................... 6 2.3.3 Activity 3: “Carousel” exercise to analyze implications and develop

strategies .............................................................................................................. 6 2.3.4 Activity 4: “Dotmocracy” to prioritize strategies ................................................ 6 2.3.5 Activity 5: Next steps .......................................................................................... 6

3 Results....................................................................................................................................... 7 3.1 Enablers, constraints, and overarching themes .............................................................. 7

3.1.1 Language and terminology: “What do you mean by that?” ................................. 7 3.1.2 Engagement and buy-in: “Why should we get involved?” .................................. 8 3.1.3 Resources, timing, and money ............................................................................. 8 3.1.4 The Bigger picture and holistic thinking: “How does this fit in with

Emergency Management planning and strategies?” ............................................ 9 3.1.5 Champions and experts ........................................................................................ 9 3.1.6 Developing a common understanding: “What are we getting into?”................. 10 3.1.7 Community context counts: “How would WE use this?” .................................. 10 3.1.8 Sustainability and political will ......................................................................... 10

3.2 Implications and strategies for increasing uptake of disaster resilience planning at the community level .................................................................................................... 11

3.2.1 Terms and language ........................................................................................... 12 3.2.2 Developing a common understanding ............................................................... 12

CSSP-2013-CD-1120 iv

3.2.3 The “Big Picture” .............................................................................................. 12 3.2.4 Community context counts ................................................................................ 13 3.2.5 Engagement ....................................................................................................... 13 3.2.6 Champions and experts ...................................................................................... 14 3.2.7 Resources ........................................................................................................... 14 3.2.8 Sustainability ..................................................................................................... 15

3.3 Prioritized strategies .................................................................................................... 15 3.3.1 Prioritized Strategies Analysis ........................................................................... 16

4 Synthesis ................................................................................................................................. 18 4.1 Factors Limiting Community Uptake of Existing Tools and Processes ...................... 18

4.1.1 Perceived need and political will ....................................................................... 18 4.1.2 Lack of expertise to define problem and make informed choices ..................... 18 4.1.3 Understanding choices and finding a fit ............................................................ 19 4.1.4 Lack of expertise to effectively participate in planning processes .................... 19 4.1.5 Resources ........................................................................................................... 19 4.1.6 Output ................................................................................................................ 19

4.2 Gaps – Moving Beyond the Tools ............................................................................... 20 4.2.1 Integrated Policy on Disaster Resilience Planning ............................................ 20 4.2.2 Funding .............................................................................................................. 20 4.2.3 Metrics and data ................................................................................................. 20 4.2.4 Engagement ....................................................................................................... 21 4.2.5 Uncertainty management ................................................................................... 21

4.3 Next Steps .................................................................................................................... 21 5 Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 23 References/Bibliography.... ........................................................................................................... 24 Appendix A: List of Workshop Participants ................................................................................. 25 Appendix B: Workshop Agenda ................................................................................................... 26 Appendix C: Developer Tools / Projects and Community Presentations ...................................... 28

C.1 Workshop Presentation Case Studies ............................................................................... 29 Appendix D: Enablers and Constraints Identified in Project/Community Presentations .............. 42 Appendix E: Discussion Themes ................................................................................................... 56 Appendix F: Implications and Strategies....................................................................................... 58 Appendix G: Strategic Priorities Voting Results ........................................................................... 67 Appendix H: Next Steps ................................................................................................................ 76 Appendix I: CHRNet Aboriginal Resiliency Report Update ........................................................ 77

CSSP-2013-CD-1120 v

List of figures

Figure 1: Workshop process and activities. .................................................................................... 5

Figure2: Implications and strategies discussion. .......................................................................... 11

CSSP-2013-CD-1120 vi

List of tables

Table 1: Workshop Agenda. ........................................................................................................... 3

Table 2: Workshop presentations. .................................................................................................. 4

CSSP-2013-CD-1120 vii

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Canadian Safety and Security Program (CSSP-2013-CD-1120), which is managed by the Defence Research and Development Canada – Centre for Security Science, Emergency Management BC, and the Justice Institute of British Columbia.

The Project Team for this workshop consisted of:

Colleen Vaughan, Dean, School of Public Safety, Justice Institute of British Columbia Dr. Greg Anderson, Dean, Office of Applied Research & Graduate Studies, Justice

Institute of British Columbia Dr. Ron Bowles, Associate Dean, Centre for Applied Research, Office of Applied

Research & Graduate Studies, Justice Institute of British Columbia Dawn Ursuliak, Project Manager, Centre for Applied Research, Office of Applied

Research & Graduate Studies, Justice Institute of British Columbia Karen Hodson, Administrative Research Assistant, Centre for Applied Research, Office

of Applied Research & Graduate Studies, Justice Institute of British Columbia We would like to acknowledge the support of DRDC Centre for Security Science | RDDC Centre des sciences pour la sécurité, and in particular Paul Chouinard and Lynne Genik. In addition, we would like to acknowledge Cam Filmore and Kelli Kryzanowski from EMBC.

CSSP-2013-CD-1120 1

1 Introduction

1.1 Workshop Context and Background Building disaster resilience across all phases of a disaster from planning, response to recovery is the cornerstone of effective emergency management (Murphy et al, 2014). Resilience allows for increased capacity to absorb a shock to the system (such as a disaster) without disrupting structure and function (Walker and Salt, 2006, xiii), requiring adequate preparation and planning prior to any disturbance. Community resilience is the “existence, development and engagement of community resources by community members to thrive in an environment characterized by change, uncertainty, unpredictability and surprise” (Magis, 2010, p. 401). Community strengths that appear to most contribute to resilience are: strong people-place connections; deep values and beliefs; continuously improving knowledge, skills and learning; extensive social networks; engaged, collaborative governance; a diverse and innovative economy; robust community infrastructure; active leadership; and a positive outlook that embraces readiness for change (Berkes & Ross, 2013). A resilient community is able “to respond to unexpected and unwelcomed events in ways that enable groups and individuals to work together to minimize the adverse consequences of such crises” (Ozawa, 2012, p19). The process of building resilient communities requires the community to work together to identify community capacity (and people associated with strengths), and to foster a collaborative environment where community cohesion is strengthened while working collectively on practical and achievable projects to build on the communities strengths. “Planning for resilience is enhanced when local communities are empowered to be actively involved in the planning process and when broader structures and regulations contribute to, and support, resilience efforts” (Murphy et al., 2014). Through this process people with diverse skills and knowledge can “learn to recognize shared vulnerabilities and entrust each other to compose innovative responses together, using their differences in knowledge and experience as a resource” (Zellner et al., 2012, p. 44). While disaster and community resilience planning is well established as important for maintaining economic viability and critical infrastructure in the face of natural and human-caused disasters, multiple initiatives have been undertaken to build community resilience, including the development of a variety of resources and tools. Despite ongoing activity, uptake is uneven. Stakeholders need to better understand what is available and what is in development with a need to identify potential partnerships, cooperation and synergy between projects.

1.2 Goal and Objectives The overall goal of this workshop was to bring together key stakeholders to disseminate knowledge and develop concrete strategies and action for supporting ongoing and emerging initiatives in community and disaster resilience planning. The objectives were to:

Discuss current and emerging trends affecting the uptake or engagement of Canadian communities in disaster resilience planning;

Identify and provide an update on specific and potential resilience-related projects and initiatives; Identify enablers and constraints of existing and potential projects; Recommend strategies for engaging Canadian urban, rural, and Aboriginal communities in

disaster resilience activities; Build synergy between groups and projects working on community resilience and disaster

resilience.

CSSP-2013-CD-1120 2

1.3 Deliverables The workshop deliverables, included in this report, were:

Summary of selected disaster resilience projects and community experiences; List of enablers and constraints for these projects; List of “gaps” (constraints) on further engagement in disaster resilience planning by Canadian

communities; Prioritized list of strategies for engaging Canadian communities in disaster resilience planning; Gaps and recommendations; and, Next steps.

CSSP-2013-CD-1120 3

2 Workshop structure and activities

The Building Community Resilience Workshop was held February 25-26th, 2014 at the Dr. Donald B. Rix Public Safety, Simulation Building, Justice Institute of British Columbia, New Westminster, BC. Thirty-four participants attended the Workshop from across Canada, many from British Columbia. Stakeholders included those from aboriginal, rural and urban communities, representatives from federal, provincial and regional government, and private industry. Participants attended from multiple levels of government, senior practitioners, policy makers, academia, community members and a variety of agencies. Please refer to Appendix A for complete list of workshop participants. Participants in the Building Resilient Communities Workshop engaged in two days of interactive dialogue. Participants presented on and examined current practices and existing disaster resilience tools and identified enablers and constraints on community participation in disaster resilience planning. Overarching themes from this discussion were used to identify priorities and specific action areas for fostering awareness and encouraging uptake of existing and emerging projects. The results of the Workshop are documented in this report.

2.1 Agenda The workshop was conducted over a two-day period. Please refer to Appendix B for the full workshop agenda.

Table 1: Workshop Agenda.

Agenda – Day One Agenda – Day Two Welcome Orientation and Expected Outcomes Introductions Developer and Community Presentations Distill Discussion Themes Activity Wrap Up Value Based Focus Group for

Community Resilience CoP

Welcome CHRNet Aboriginal Resiliency Report

Update Discussion of Day 1 Themes Implications and Strategies to Increase

Community Uptake Prioritize and Validate Priority Areas Discussion of OUR Next Steps

CSSP-2013-CD-1120 4

2.2 List of Projects and communities The initial activity in the workshop consisted of a series of presentations from developers and communities who were involved in disaster resilience projects. Presentations were given by the following projects and communities:

Table 2: Workshop presentations.

Project and/or Tools Communities Community-Wide Hazard Risk Management Planning

Nanaimo, British Columbia

UN Getting My City Ready

Metchosin, British Columbia

Critical Infrastructure Assessment

Delta, British Columbia

Community Resilience Architectural Framework

Pemberton, British Columbia Squamish Lillooet Regional District, British Columbia

Hazus: A Loss Estimation Method for Disaster Risk Reduction in Canada

North Shore Vancouver, British Columbia District of North Vancouver, British Columbia

Land Use Planning Guide

Rural Disaster Resiliency Project

Lion’s Head, Ontario Whati, North West Territories

Please refer to Appendix C to review case studies based on the presentations.

2.3 Methods The workshop process was designed to guide participants from an analysis of presentations through identification of trends and issues to the development of strategies for increasing community up take of disaster resilience planning. Participants worked in groups to identify enablers and constraints to disaster resilience planning in communities through a series of presentations from disaster resilience researcher and tool developers and community experience. The groups then reviewed, discussed, and distilled the enablers and constraints into a series of discussion themes. Participants next validated these themes, and then engaged in an exercise to identify implications and generate potential strategies for increasing uptake of disaster resilience planning at the community level. Participants prioritized the strategies that they felt would be most effective. The debriefing of this exercise was used to identify trends and themes in the strategies. The final activities were designed to review, validate, and extend the discussions and findings of the workshop. Participants reviewed summaries of the workshop activities and used this to identify next steps in developing a strategy for future activity. The workshop consisted of a series of structured activities:

Identification of Enablers and Constraints to Community Engagement in Disaster Resilience Planning

Distillation of Discussion Themes Exploration of Implications and Strategies

CSSP-2013-CD-1120 5

Strategy Prioritization Identification of Gaps and Articulation of the Next Steps

In addition, participants engaged in supplementary presentations on related topics:

Value Based Focus Group for Community Resilience CoP (Please refer to Appendix I for more information.)

CHRNet Aboriginal Resiliency Report Update. (Please refer to Appendix J for report executive summary.)

Figure 1: Workshop process and activities.

2.3.1 Activity 1: Presentations and identification of enablers and constraints The goal of this activity was to identify enablers and constraints on community participation in disaster resilience planning activities. Each project represented at the workshop was allotted time for two presentations, one from the developers and one from the communities. Each presentation was based on a set of structured questions:

What is your project? What communities would be most likely to use your tool? What is the status of your project (e.g. in progress, in development, complete)?

CSSP-2013-CD-1120 6

What was supposed to happen? What actually happened? What went well and why? What can be improved and how?

The remaining participants worked in groups to review and analyze the presentations, then identify enablers, constraints, and discussion points. Participants then categorized the enablers and constraints for each project, then, finally, identified cross-cutting themes that emerged over all the presentations they viewed.

2.3.2 Activity 2: Inductive analysis to develop discussion themes The workshop co-investigators then performed an inductive thematic analysis to identify a series of overarching themes that became the starting point for the next activity.

2.3.3 Activity 3: “Carousel” exercise to analyze implications and develop strategies

The workshop facilitator gave an overview and explanation on the series of overarching themes developed in Activity 1. Stations were created for each discussion theme with separate flip charts labelled “key points,” “implications,” and “strategies.” New groups were formed and each group was assigned to start with a particular theme. The groups were asked to have a short discussion about the theme in relationship to increasing community uptake of disaster resilience planning, and then to identify, on the flip charts, any key discussion points, implications of the theme and strategies for increasing community uptake. The groups then rotated to the next theme, reviewed the previous group(s) contributions, and then added their own ideas. The groups continued to “carousel” in rotation through all themes in the activity.

2.3.4 Activity 4: “Dotmocracy” to prioritize strategies The goal of this activity was to identify priorities for future action using a “dotmocracy” exercise. Each participant was given 12 “dots” or coloured stickers. The participants were encouraged to join with two people that they had not previously worked with in the workshop, review and discuss all of the strategies listed. After reviewing the strategies, participants identified the 12 priorities that they felt would have the most value in increasing uptake of community disaster resilience planning.

2.3.5 Activity 5: Next steps The final activities in the workshop involved a large-group debrief of the prioritization activity, identification of gaps or missing discussion points, and next steps. These key concepts from these facilitated discussions were captured by the workshop recorder and analyzed post-workshop.

CSSP-2013-CD-1120 7

3 Results

The workshop generated a substantial amount of data which is summarized below and explored in the Analysis section. Summaries of the activities and their results are presented in this section, followed by definitions, discussion that emerged from these findings, and analysis obtained by relating the findings to the core objectives of the workshop. The goal of this analysis is a better understanding of how we can support the development of disaster resilience in Canadian communities.

Note that activities, and hence the presentation of findings in this workshop were designed to generate ideas and discussion which were then applied in subsequent analysis. The iterative and “building-block” nature of this format leads to some repetition of content and discussion. This repetition, however, both provides context and serves as the starting point for subsequent discussion.

3.1 Enablers, constraints, and overarching themes The initial presentations and subsequent group activity identified lists of enablers and constraints for community engagement with the projects presented in this workshop. The participants then worked in groups to identify common themes across the various projects. The Workshop Co-Investigators then used an inductive process to identify 8 overarching themes from the data. The goal of the first activities in the workshop was to have participants analyze each other’s presentations and projects to identify common enablers and constraints of community-based initiatives. The participants’ data was grouped together and inductively analyzed by the workshop co-investigators. The resulting “overarching themes” form a series of lenses through which to examine what factors encourage or impede communities in engaging in disaster resilience planning. Please refer Appendix D to view specific enablers and constraints identified for each project. The following is the list of Themes that emerged from exploration and discussion across all projects.

Language and terminology: “What do you mean by that?” Engagement and buy-in: “Why should we get involved?” Resources, timing, and money The bigger picture and holistic thinking: “How does this fit in with Emergency Management

planning and strategies?” Champions and experts Developing a common understanding: “What are we getting into?” Community context counts: “How would WE use this?” Sustainability and political will

The following sections explore participants’ discussion of these themes.

3.1.1 Language and terminology: “What do you mean by that?” Community participants across all projects identified language and terminology as a barrier to participation in disaster resilience activities. Participants frequently cited the need for Disaster Resilience personnel to use clear language, to define terms and jargon, and to be consistent in their use of language.

CSSP-2013-CD-1120 8

Inconsistent choice of terms and varying definitions across programs was raised as a challenge for communities entering into Disaster Resilience projects. Communities asked that projects use practical, user-friendly terminology and keep concepts and processes as simple and flexible as possible.

3.1.2 Engagement and buy-in: “Why should we get involved?” Community engagement was noted as key to the success of disaster resilience planning projects. This engagement took several forms. Some communities talked about the difficulty in gaining and maintaining interest in a project. Others noted that successful projects were ones in which broad community buy-in were obtained. Other differentiated between the necessity to get buy in from key personnel in a community to initiate a project and the broader public engagement that the projects fostered. Another stream of conversation occurred around identifying and finding ways to identify and engage vulnerable and less visible populations within a community. Successful projects were able to engage local and external stakeholders. Relationship building and the creation of partnerships between the community and various levels of government, project teams, and key stakeholders were identified as key tasks. Another conversation centred on expectation management. Often communities and project teams had very different expectations of the potential outcomes of projects. Project teams noted the importance of exploring community needs and being upfront about what their projects and tools could and could not do for a community. Along with this, several participants noted the importance of being open and addressing the needs and interests of the community - to answer the “what’s in it for me” question as a critical element of engaging and obtaining participation in projects.

3.1.3 Resources, timing, and money The challenges of funding and finding resources were an ongoing thread of conversation throughout the workshop. Communities noted that most disaster resilience processes were complex and took far more time than the community participants had originally anticipated. This was compounded by the challenge of first engaging members of the community or from departments in larger municipalities, and then maintaining their interest and participation for the duration of the project. Several projects noted that community participation often changed during a project and that it was important to build in continuity planning and succession planning within a project. Projects faced the challenge of balancing complexity and comprehensiveness. Several communities used the example of engaging with the 17 hazards and 44 specific hazards listed in the EMBC Hazard, Risk and Vulnerability Analysis Tool Kit as a daunting starting point for planning. Most communities tend to focus on a few hazards, often those that are associated with recent local events or those highlighted in the media. Project teams at the workshop noted the importance of having communities take a broader look at the range of potential hazards, and in particular, to consider low frequency, high impact events that a community may face. Community participants noted that many projects and processes require substantial amounts of information and that community members may lack the knowledge or capability to find and or generate this data. Others noted that rich data is available for many communities, but again the community teams may lack the awareness or ability to obtain the required information. As noted above, many community teams found it difficult to recruit and maintain members and to generate interest in participating from the community at large. One community member cited the “STP phenomenon”: it’s the Same Ten People who are often engaged in a wide range of community initiatives and projects.

CSSP-2013-CD-1120 9

Many communities, particularly smaller and rural communities lack fiscal and infrastructure resources required to effectively engage in disaster resilience planning projects. Community participants noted that there are few requirements or incentives to participate in these activities. In addition, the outputs of many processes are lists of strategies and required activities that require further funding. Few of the projects and initiatives examined in the workshop have sustainability or ongoing funding associated with them. The final resource constraint noted in the discussions involved the need for external subject matter experts (SMEs) to support community efforts. Few communities have personnel (outside community planning and emergency response) that have backgrounds or experience in disaster resilience planning. Project teams noted that, while they were often given the mandate of developing tools and processes that could be run by communities without outside expertise, this was a significant challenge, particularly for processes that also promoted comprehensiveness and adaptability to community context.

3.1.4 The Bigger picture and holistic thinking: “How does this fit in with Emergency Management planning and strategies?”

Several participants noted that communities face two challenges when they decide to engage in disaster resilience planning. Communities noted that the wide range of tools and processes available to choose from are often fragmented and non-complimentary. Project-based participants noted that most of the projects described at the workshop were designed to meet specific needs or address the needs of particular types of communities. Almost all participants noted the need to have a more holistic approach and to situate disaster resilience initiatives within a “bigger picture” of emergency planning. Participants noted that much of the literature and resources available to communities were response oriented and did not address the four Emergency Management (EM) pillars. In addition, the participation of many communities is spurred by emergent issues, such as climate change adaptation or flooding, rather than by more holistic approaches or intent. There was a common call for projects to look for stronger links to existing processes, integrate with existing plans and systems, and develop strategies that included future growth and activity in the communities. Participants again noted the importance of clearly identifying a project’s scope and outcomes and looking for ways to situate work within a broader perspective. Similarly, projects were encouraged to be more multi-jurisdictional, to be multi-disciplinary in their approach, and to look for ways to enhance interoperability and integration with other EM and Disaster Resilience activities.

3.1.5 Champions and experts Several project members noted that an explicit goal of their projects was to create processes that could be community-driven with minimal or no external expertise required. However, drawing on the comments above on the complexity and comprehensiveness of the projects along with the challenge of engaging and maintaining community participation, almost all presenters (both developer and community) noted the importance of external facilitators and/or subject matter experts. Many of the tools and processes require specific expertise or require some form of guidance. Community presenters noted that processes are always unfamiliar the first time the team starts to work with them. Thus, to be effective, the processes require either someone who is familiar with the process to facilitate or someone from the community to take the time to become comfortable with it. A related factor is the need for a strong champion or leader to move the process forward. In some cases, champions emerged from the community who also took on leadership and facilitative roles. In other cases, the community teams required external support and champions. The champions not only kept the process moving, but were instrumental in engaging internal and external stakeholders. Participants in the

CSSP-2013-CD-1120 10

workshop also emphasized the champions’ role in identifying and including all populations in the community.

3.1.6 Developing a common understanding: “What are we getting into?” A strong theme in the workshop discussions centered on developing a common understanding of disaster resilience planning in general and the scope and expectations associated with a specific project in particular. As mentioned above, establishing the value proposition (“what’s in it for me/us”) is critical to engaging both communities and individuals. But the follow on question or “what am I getting into?” is almost as important. Several community groups noted that they had no idea of what was going to be expected of them in terms of time, depth of involvement, or breadth of information and data required. There was a common call to ensure that developers and project personnel were up front about what a tool or process could and couldn’t do, and what the outcomes would be. This is particularly important in pilot or research-based projects where outcomes and emergent opportunities (or requirements) may not necessarily be known from the onset. Similarly, communities commented the need to have project members take ownership of their components of the project, both in participating in the process and in taking away the results for implementation. This was echoed in noting the importance for projects to build relationships and partnerships during the project with the goal of facilitating implementation after the project. Finally, presenters noted that there was often a mismatch between the expectations of the community and the developers. Both developers and community presenters noted that individual projects are only one part of an overall disaster resilience process and that no community will ever achieve “complete resilience.” The goal of both individual projects and overall emergency management activity is to have a community’s resilience be better than at the start of the project.

3.1.7 Community context counts: “How would WE use this?” An ongoing challenge for developers is finding the balance between generalizable processes and the need to address the specific needs and context of individual communities. Community context was seen as a critical element in engaging communities. In particular, developers and project teams were encouraged to look to the communities to identify specific needs and considerations and to identify at-risk and vulnerable populations. In addition, each community faces unique blends of hazards, risk, and resilience. Processes that are too generic may not address the individual needs of a community. Yet making a process flexible enough to acknowledge community context limited the overall usability and generalizability of the process without external expertise or facilitation. Developers and project teams were encouraged to engage communities and find their common interests. As noted earlier, communities are often engaged in day-to-day activities and may lack the local awareness and expertise to recognize the need and importance of engaging in disaster resilience planning. As one developer noted: “don’t expect communities to come to us – find a common interest to engage them.”

3.1.8 Sustainability and political will The final theme that emerged from the participant analysis of the presentations focused on sustainability and political will. The earlier discussion on engagement noted the importance and difficulty in getting local officials and the general community to engage in disaster resilience planning. There is often a lack of political will, at multiple levels from the community through provincial/territorial and federal stakeholders to engage in and maintain disaster resilience activities. All levels face resource limitations and, as noted earlier, there are few incentives and requirements for communities to participate in these processes. Indeed, the processes often highlight gaps in community capacity or identify the need to invest further scarce resources to implement recommendations. The cost and complexity of the processes and

CSSP-2013-CD-1120 11

the lack of follow on funding to implement strategies and recommendations from the processes present a significant barrier to both initial engagement and subsequent sustainability of disaster resilience planning efforts. Developers noted the challenge they face through existing funding mechanisms that are project-based. This leads to the development of multiple, fragmented projects that have no mechanism or funding for implementation and sustainability.

3.2 Implications and strategies for increasing uptake of disaster resilience planning at the community level

The overarching themes generated in Activities 1 and 2 formed the basis for Activity 3. The goal of Activity 3 was to identify implications and strategies for increasing community uptake of disaster resilience planning. Participants first identified the implications of the overarching discussion themes on communities’ engagement with disaster resilience activities, and then listed potential strategies related to these implications. Please refer to Appendix F for the complete list of implications and strategies generated for each theme.

Figure2: Implications and strategies discussion.

Throughout the workshop, the results of one activity became the “seed” or starting point for the next activity. The list of discussion themes presented in section 3.1 emerged from analysis of the participants’ initial review of the project and community presentations. In this section, the discussion themes are organized chronologically from the perspective of a community becoming engaged in a disaster resilience planning process or project. The intent of organizing the discussion, and the presentation of the analysis in this section, was to encourage participants to build links between the individual topics and the overall experience of a community engaging in disaster resilience planning. The ensuing discussion had a holistic or integrative quality that built from initial engagement of a community with disaster resilience language (the first discussion at the base of the triangle in Figure 2) though participating in a project and identifying gaps and next steps in overall disaster resilience planning (the concluding discussions at the top of Figure 2). This integrative aspect of the discussion can be seen in the overlap between topics in the presentation below.

CSSP-2013-CD-1120 12

3.2.1 Terms and language Participants noted that development teams must establish a common understanding and define a set of core terms and concepts at the start of each project. While a common “global” glossary will be useful, the participants noted that local context and language will often take precedence over external terminology. What’s important is to translate “jargon” and technical language into the language of the users. As important, teams must articulate and record their discussions and definitions. There should be a key project document that states: “for the purposes of THIS project, we will use the term xxxx to mean…”. Teams must also revisit these terms and concepts as the project unfolds to ensure that meaning does not change or that if the meaning has changed, to ensure that documentation is modified to adapt the new understandings. Participants also noted that this works well for a project, but still leaves the question of how to reconcile terminology and conceptual understanding across projects and communities. They suggested the creation of a process to develop common operational definitions and a process to keep these current. The intent is to have a common source that can be used to inform community/project discussions. (Note the DHS Target Capabilities list is intended to accomplish this in the USA).

3.2.2 Developing a common understanding Participants next discussed the importance of establishing a clear vision and well-articulated scope for the project. One discussion theme was that disaster resilience planning, projects, and communities are all complex systems. It’s important to understand that different activities will impact various groups and activities throughout a project. It is important to get the right people in the room at the beginning of a project – this both helps to build common understanding but also ensures that as key stakeholders and vulnerable/less visible groups are not left out of the process. Participants also emphasized that there will never be perfect solutions and complete agreement. Groups can get lost in defining and discussing a project – in defining problems rather than finding solutions. Teams have to figure out when to say “enough,” and just get on with it. Sometimes, “being in the same book” is more important than “getting on the same page.” This process must involve managing expectations and recognizing the limitations on resources that are available. Teams should give concrete examples of anticipated outcomes to ensure that communities know what they are going to get out of a project. Teams should inform communities of what other communities have done and achieved to help crystalize the group’s common vision. It’s also important to ensure that there is lots of discussion and feedback and that one – or even a few – voices do not dominate the conversation.

3.2.3 The “Big Picture” A key element of finding a common understanding is seeing the Big Picture. Projects can get too focused on their own process and outputs and lose sight of how the project fits within community and larger (e.g. regional/provincial) processes. The Big Picture can be a really big picture – teams need to help communities understand how to break down to the key indicators that define the big picture. Participants also warned to keep thing manageable – you don’t have to measure everything; identify the risks and measure what defines the risk. The goal is to be, overall, more resilient, and thus projects should integrate and connect to the community’s goals (e.g. Value Focused Metrics). In defining a project and determining how things fit, it’s important to realize that there are multiple perspectives, and that “facts” can be seen differently by different people or from groups that have different values or goals. There has to be more than one person’s “big picture,” and communication and

CSSP-2013-CD-1120 13

collaboration are key. Most communities can reach a common understanding of the big picture fairly quickly; several communities noted that it was easier to find consensus than they anticipated. But it’s also necessary to balance the big picture with the scope of “this” project. Teams must determine which piece of the overall picture will be the focus of each project and clearly articulate this. Some participants suggested the use of mind maps or other visual tools help to frame and position a project within the broader scope of a community’s overall disaster resilience and other planning. A final thread of discussion noted that there are multiple “big pictures.” While it’s important to situate a particular project within a community’s overall disaster resilience and emergency planning processes, these processes are also embedded within the community’s overall life, and that community is also part of larger systems.

3.2.4 Community context counts Community context is critical to disaster resilience planning. The discussion on this topic focused around two aspects: buy in and support. Participants noted that projects must actively acknowledge and adapt to the community. Without tying a project to the community’s background and needs, there is no relevance. Without relevance, there is no buy in from the community. Community context was seen as critical to obtaining buy in from communities. To get buy in, teams should seek broad collaborative engagement through purposeful consultation. A key element of this discussion is the inclusion of multiple perspectives through the identification of the many populations or sub-groups within a community. The participants again noted the importance of identifying and bringing forward local leaders and experts who understand the community context. These leaders must present and represent the community’s context and needs within the project and also help teams better understand the community. Participants also noted that the community teams require ongoing support from both project personnel and the community. This support must be “more than just a letter” – communities must acknowledge that a holistic conception of support involves multiple facets and includes political, social, and economic engagement with disaster resilience planning. Similarly, project teams must ensure that the community teams and leaders are adequately supported by the project to ensure success.

3.2.5 Engagement The concept of engagement was a recurring theme throughout the workshop and was identified as a key component of all the projects and initiatives discussed. The importance of fostering and maintaining engagement is paralleled by its challenge. As noted throughout this report, communities face multiple pressures, individuals are busy, and there are other competing priorities on people’s time and resources. However, the importance of broad engagement cannot be overstated: those who participate drive the inputs and outcomes of any process. Who participates and how they engage has significant implications on the sustainability, accountability, and validity of any project or initiative. Participants identified a series of strategies for increasing community engagement. A central principle is to be open: be transparent, clear, and concise on the nature of projects, the types of possible outcomes, and the type and amount of resources and support required to be successful. Other principles include the need to collaborate, coordinate, and communicate on an ongoing and broad basis. Several participants noted that projects often promote the advantages of participating – something that is always a difficult “sell” when dealing with hazard and risk planning; a parallel strategy is to articulate the impact of NOT being engaged. Other strategies included the use of social media and other marketing efforts, and deliberately building on windows of opportunity to raise disaster resilience issues.

CSSP-2013-CD-1120 14

An emergent theme that became increasingly voiced in the workshop was the strategy of linking disaster resilience planning to other, already successful processes and activities. Project teams were encouraged to see disaster resilience activities and opportunities as linked to other community needs and activities. Disaster resilience is not a discrete thing on its own, so “how do we build on that and spread that message?” This includes benefiting from existing activities and looking for opportunities to insert disaster resilience awareness and messages into other things. “How do we get [our message] to go viral?” Participants suggested that disaster resilience processes are more likely to be successful if they are embedded in other community wide processes such as emergency management, land use planning, etc. They suggested a future “two-way” strategy of seeking opportunities for disaster planning personnel and ideas to contribute to other processes (e.g. ensuring that disaster resilience indicators are built into things like community beautification programs) and bringing other community projects into disaster resilience projects and planning.

3.2.6 Champions and experts The discussion on these themes centred on two concepts: that expertise is both internal and external to a community and the need to build local and project succession planning into community planning projects. As noted several times throughout the workshop and this document, the processes involved in disaster resilience planning require expertise – whether that expertise is embedded in the project tools is provided by an external subject matter expert, or emerges from a community member. However, the concept of expertise also applies to those who know about a community. Community context counts (see section above), and all planning processes need some adaptation to local sensitivities, language, and context. As well, effective projects must build expertise within the community. For processes to have a life beyond their first use, they must involve the development of local knowledge and skill in their use. Projects involved shared, social ownership of the process, and all participants must be willing to “own” their part of the process. The requirement for succession planning emerged through discussion of the importance of local champions. Local champions are crucial to project success, but can also put projects at risk when they leave a project. Often a small number of people in a community are involved in many projects, which further increases the challenge for a community when these people move or withdraw. Projects must build resilience into the project itself by have a continuity plan and developing succession planning A final discussion in this theme involved conceiving projects as discontinuous, semi-chaotic and semi-structured, rather than as discrete, predictable environments. Project planning often has a presumption that the process is predictable and that changes are negative occurrences. One participant encouraged teams to look for the discontinuity inherent in any project. By seeking the challenges that are inherent to and within any project, teams are better prepared for adapting to change. One strategy for dealing with challenges was to “swarm” the problem, deal with its issues, then move on.

3.2.7 Resources Resources – time, people, and money – remain a central challenge for disaster resilience planning. Several strategies were suggested, such as volunteer development to leverage resources within a community and plugging disaster resilience planning into other, ongoing activities (e.g. risk management planning). One participant noted that sustainability is a critical issue and that without a “line item in the budget” for sustained operations, projects were not likely to be successful. Others noted that small communities will never have the funds to do larger projects and suggested that a model of having communities “help the community next door” may be one avenue to disseminating resources more efficiently. Another suggestion was to develop a “travelling road show” with experts who

CSSP-2013-CD-1120 15

emerge from communities to show other communities how to effectively use appropriate tools and processes. Another suggestion was that projects and tools are not always the answer. Sometimes, what a community requires is not a tool but an analyst – someone who can come in to a community, analyze its context and needs and, from there, develop a plan to creatively and effectively shape the larger community response.

3.2.8 Sustainability As with Resources, the need and challenges associated with sustainability of ongoing disaster resilience planning and activity were well examined in the workshop. Participants noted that sustainability is related to political will, which is often tied to fiscal benefits for a government or community. And the incentives for participating in disaster resilience activities are often reversed. Politicians realize little benefit from announcing planning processes. Yet there is a significant “bump” from attending recovery efforts after a disaster. This highlights the need to emphasize the costs of not being proactive. Another participant noted that in the current political climate, it’s not just doing “more with less;” there is a growing realization that we may be asked to do “less with less.” Thus, expectation management becomes even more important. One suggestion for sustainability is to look for ways to embed resilience into ALL ministerial portfolios and enshrine disaster resilience planning into policy.

3.3 Prioritized strategies Activity 4 consisted of a two-stage exercise to prioritize strategies for increasing the uptake of resilience planning activities by Canadian communities. In the first stage, participants worked individually to identify what they considered to be the top ten strategies from the list of implications and strategies generated in the previous Activity. In the second phase, the group as a whole reviewed the prioritized list to validate that that the most-selected strategies were, indeed, indicative of the group’s intentions. Please refer to Appendix G for the entire list of prioritized strategies. The following is a list of strategies with the highest priority for each discussion theme: Language and terminology:

Use picture words for engagement and buy in

Engagement and buy-in: Link resilience building to existing processes that already have buy in Be completely open with information, data, knowledge, intent, rewards, beneficiaries

Resources, timing, and money Cost benefit analysis (i.e. return on investment)

The bigger picture and holistic thinking: Build relationships – laterally, vertically, horizontal – within organizations, agencies, with outside

organizations agencies Develop common frameworks, approaches, or at least share and translate across various ways of

understanding

CSSP-2013-CD-1120 16

Champions and experts: Succession planning – specifics include relationship, pass on knowledge, good will

Developing a common understanding: Give examples of anticipated outcomes, measures – paint the picture – context specific

Community context counts: Identify and support community champion to help discover context. Showcase examples of community resiliency Funding to sustain beyond project focus…creating options for sustained / maintained “home” for

tools, support for communities to implement, maintain and sustain resilience planning All levels government resilience enshrined in policy Ministerial portfolio responsible

Sustainability and political will Funding to sustain beyond project focus…creating options for sustained / maintained “home” for

tools, support for communities to implement, maintain and sustain resilience planning Showcase examples of community resiliency and successful projects to increase political “push”

Other bits and pieces National policies Encourage the use of any tool (used correctly) Engagement of youth

The following list identifies the ten most highly chosen strategies overall:

1. Engagement and buy-in: Be completely open with information, data, knowledge, intent, rewards, beneficiaries

2. Common understanding: Give examples of anticipated outcomes, measures – paint the picture – context specific

3. Resources, time and money: Cost benefit analysis (i.e. return on investment) 4. Bits and pieces: National policies 5. Engagement and buy-in: Link resilience building to existing process that already enjoy buy in 6. Sustainability and political will: Showcase examples of community resiliency 7. Bits and pieces: Encourage the use of any tool (used correctly) 8. Community context counts: Identify and support community champion to help discover context. 9. Sustainability and political will: Funding to sustain beyond project focus…creating options for

sustained / maintained “home” for tools, support for communities to implement, maintain and sustain resilience planning

10. Bits and pieces: Engagement of youth

3.3.1 Prioritized Strategies Analysis Interestingly, participants distributed their choices across all the discussion areas. No single area dominated in terms of priority setting. The priorities chosen were a mix of building on past accomplishments (e.g., Showcase examples of community resiliency and Identify and support community champion to help discover context) and potential future adaptations and new strategies (such as: Link resilience building to existing process that already enjoy buy in, and Engagement of youth).

CSSP-2013-CD-1120 17

Of the top ten priorities, only two were items that were not directly within the influence of communities, developers, and agencies at the workshop (National policy structure and finding ongoing sustainability funding). Three of the strategies involved increasing engagement of communities (through open sharing of information and expectations, giving context specific examples of anticipated outcomes, and demonstrating the return on investment for disaster resilience activities). Other strategies spoke to strategies to support success of projects in process, such as the need to engage and support local champions and embedding disaster resilience within other processes. Finally, one of the key messages to emerge from the priority setting exercise that was loudly echoed in other discussions throughout the workshop was that communities should be encouraged to use ANY tool or process, rather than struggling to find the perfect tool. Any engagement with disaster resilience planning increases community resilience.

CSSP-2013-CD-1120 18

4 Synthesis

Section 3 presented findings and discussions that addressed several deliverables for this project. This section extends and synthesizes the workshop findings to address two workshop deliverables:

1. Factors limiting further engagement in disaster resilience planning by Canadian communities, 2. Gaps

The following discussions draw on the data, discussions, and analysis generated by the workshop and overall project.

4.1 Factors Limiting Community Uptake of Existing Tools and Processes

One of the driving questions for this workshop was how to further engage Canadian communities in taking up the existing disaster resilience processes and tools. Phrased differently, what are the barriers that are preventing other Canadian communities from making use of the outputs of the projects that were involved in this workshop? The following themes emerged from inductive analysis of the workshop presentations, data generated by participants, and discussion during the workshop.

4.1.1 Perceived need and political will A central barrier to increased engagement of Canadian communities in disaster resilience planning is the absence of a value proposition. There are no requirements and few incentives for communities to engage in disaster resilience planning. And if communities do have an interest, there is little funding or support from local, provincial/territorial, or federal levels. In addition, there is little local expertise (other than community planners and emergency officials) so communities lack the ability to judge the value and need for resilience planning. Communities are “busy with day-to-day activities” and may not see disaster resilience planning as either a necessity or as a priority. This is exacerbated by a general apathy in the general public towards any community activities. And when communities do decide to engage, it takes time and resources to build and maintain enough interest to get projects going. Finally, many communities lack the political will to participate. Local elected officials may view “worst case scenarios” as bad news stories that they do not want distributed. Participants also noted that community officials may prefer to “not know” about potential hazards; “now that I know about this, I have to deal with it…”.

4.1.2 Lack of expertise to define problem and make informed choices Several participants noted that communities’ lack of understanding and capacity in disaster resilience planning makes it difficult for communities to even define the problem, let alone meaningfully participate in disaster resilience activities. An inability to interpret academic and planning literature was also raised as a barrier; communities have difficulty finding information, then interpreting and applying it to their setting. This is compounded by the complexity of dealing with community-wide disaster resilience activities. The issues are complex, as are many of the tools, systems, and projects, which makes it difficult for communities to make informed choices about their needs and which processes might best meet those needs. This lack of knowledge can further lead to mismatches between the expectations of a community and the actual outputs or outcomes of many projects and tools.

CSSP-2013-CD-1120 19

4.1.3 Understanding choices and finding a fit Once communities decide to engage in disaster resilience planning, they face choices between tools, processes, and systems. There is no central location for a community to go to in order to search for an appropriate approach. This is further exacerbated by projects which tend to be competitive rather than parallel in their literature and marketing. There is no objective, reliable source from which to obtain unbiased information, reconcile variations between systems, and match community needs to appropriate options. Many projects and systems tend to look at a particular aspect of overall disaster resilience planning and most are set within particular contexts (e.g. urban settings). Thus it may be difficult for communities to assess how various choices might “fit” and to find the best mix of resources for their needs. And there is little interoperability between tools, even when they involve overlapping processes.

4.1.4 Lack of expertise to effectively participate in planning processes Communities are also challenged to participate in complex process with little support. Much of the data required for processes is technical and/or complex. While participants noted that much of the information communities need to participate in Disaster Resilience planning is available, many communities lack the expertise to know what information to get, how to obtain it, and how to use it. These factors leave communities in the position of requiring external expertise and subject matter experts in order to engage in disaster resilience planning. Participants from projects that participated in this workshop noted that, although their intentions were to create systems that required little external or expert support, this was a difficult goal to achieve. One participant noted that the “more you put under the hood” (the more expertise you incorporate into the system or process), the more complex the process becomes and the less adaptability it has to varying contexts and communities. The more sophisticated the “tool” becomes, the more important is it that the inputs conform to the requirements of the process. This makes it more difficult for different communities to adapt the use of tools and processes to meet local conditions or requirements.

4.1.5 Resources All participants in the workshop noted that time, cost, and resources are significant barriers to engaging, completing, and implementing disaster resilience planning and projects. As noted above, communities lack the capacity to make effective decisions and the expertise to engage in Disaster Resilience planning without external support. The communities themselves have limited resources, either in terms of people or funding. One community participant noted what he called the “STP phenomenon: it’s always the Same Ten People” who are engaged in community projects. Participants from larger communities noted the difficulty in getting the right people from all municipal departments or stakeholders to engage or even meet. And, again, participants noted that even when projects are initiated, it takes ongoing energy and support to maintain interest and participation.

4.1.6 Output The participants noted several factors related to project output that limit community participation. As noted earlier, there is often a disconnect between the expectations of communities and the actual outputs of projects and processes. A second outcome-related factor is the “piecemeal” nature of various projects, and communities’ inability to “fit things together” from different processes. Several community-based participants noted that a major impediment is that planning processes are rarely integrated with implementation phases. Communities develop lists of risks and hazards, prioritized actions, strategies for further action - all of which require further funding and participation from the community. Without an overarching framework, along with funding and resources to implement and

CSSP-2013-CD-1120 20

incorporate recommendations from Disaster Resilience planning activities, communities are left without the means to integrate and extend the work done on individual projects. Project developers at the workshop noted that the project-based funding model exacerbates these challenges. Funding is available to develop and pilot tools and processes, but there is no funding available for sustainable operation and extension of their work.

4.2 Gaps – Moving Beyond the Tools Another key goal of this workshop was identifying gaps that moved beyond the tools and projects. Participants were asked to identify missing elements of an overall approach to disaster resilience planning. Participants identified five areas in which major gaps exist:

1. Integrated Policy on Disaster Resilience Planning 2. Funding 3. Metrics and data 4. Engagement 5. Uncertainty management

4.2.1 Integrated Policy on Disaster Resilience Planning Participants noted that a significant challenge for disaster resilience planning is the lack of national policy and the overlapping areas of jurisdiction related to disaster management. Planning and mitigation efforts often occur at the community level, yet the funding and policy control reside at multiple levels. As noted in previous discussions the political drivers are often different from the perceived needs of communities. In addition, communities must often deal with overlapping levels of government, or in the case of some remote and rural communities, little formal support.

4.2.2 Funding Funding and finding resources remain a major impediment. The participants in the workshop recognize the fiscal challenges facing communities and governments, and they provided a number of suggestions for finding leverage within and among communities. However, disaster resilience planning, especially when done in a comprehensive and effective manner, requires knowledge, expertise, political will, data, and resources. Again, sustainability remains an issue as much of the funding in this area has been project and research-based, with little or no ongoing funding to implement recommendations or resilience strategies. To date, communities receive more funding and support for assessment, but little money for mitigation or sustainability.

4.2.3 Metrics and data Participants noted that there is a significant need for metrics and data at multiple levels. Many participants noted that there are multiple processes, tools, and methods for engaging in disaster resilience planning, but no central repository or clearing house for these. Communities would benefit from a central site with lists of projects and tools, along with criteria that assess the best context for each, their strengths and weaknesses, etc. Participants also noted that the country lacks an overall picture on hazards, inventory, measurements, vulnerability, good mapping of exposure and vulnerabilities to hazards. One participant suggested a Hazard Scenario Library, Risk Scenario Library, and a national data base of vulnerability measures.

CSSP-2013-CD-1120 21

4.2.4 Engagement Participants noted that Engagement remains a challenge. On the one hand, there are groups of people (such as youth) who we do not currently tap into as resources in the community. Alternatively, we have little information on which sub-populations and vulnerable groups are not being adequately represented and considered in existing disaster resilience planning. Several participants suggested that there need to be other, better incentives for both individuals and communities to engage with disaster resilience planning. Similarly there should be incentives and disincentives for implementing mitigation and planning recommendations. A discussion followed noting that the availability of insurance could be one way of incentivizing people to “do the right thing.” Canada is the only G8 country that does not have overland flood insurance programs. Flood insurance rates in the US are set on the basis of risk assessments that are carried out at the community level. The flood hazard assessment process is administered through FEMA by Certified Floodplain Managers and Emergency Managers that have a capability to use tools like Hazus to model the impacts of riverine and coastal flooding (storm surge) on communities. Others suggested that the lack of a cost/benefit analysis or analysis of the cost of not being proactive in disaster resilience planning is a significant barrier to engagement.

4.2.5 Uncertainty management Finally, the participants in the workshop returned to the theme of expectation management, particularly in relationship to uncertainty. Multiple presenters noted that we’ll never know enough, and that absolute answers are not available. Nor is 100% resilience attainable. But – and this is the gap to be addressed – communities need to know that anything they do is better than not engaging in disaster resilience planning at all. As one participant noted, “pick a tool – ANY tool.” The goal is to move closer to resilience – but also to realize that this is a process, not an end state. Again, the project-based mechanisms of current practice give an impression that resilience is something that can be achieved, not something that has to be nurtured and maintained.

4.3 Next Steps The final discussion of the workshop was a visioning exercise to broadly discuss the question of “what to do next?” Several participants noted that there already exists a variety of tools, processes, and expertise at multiple levels of community, academia, and government in relation to disaster resilience planning. One participant noted that we have the capability to conduct effective assessments and develop manageable plans for all Canadian communities. What is lacking is less around “gaps” or “new” knowledge or procedures, and more about collective will and integrating disparate activities. Another participant noted, earlier in the workshop, that sometimes communities need an analyst or catalyst more than they need a process. This speaks again to the need for an integrated framework for action and a consolidated source of validated and annotated information about existing processes and tools. Participants suggested that a national framework and vision, not necessarily through government, is required to integrate and support disaster resilience activity. Several participants identified potential federal sponsors, while others indicated that NGOs might be another “home,” and a third discussion centred on the creation of an informal community or network as options. There was a general consensus, however, that the awareness, endorsement, and active support by key organizations and groups such as the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and SOREM are critical to moving an integrated agenda forward.

CSSP-2013-CD-1120 22

The participants also discussed the need to remember the importance of context and discontinuity – that there are no “one size fits all” solutions. Thus, it is more important to have a framework that includes multiple options than to have an overarching program that is unlikely to meet diverse needs and expectations. A final suggestion was the creation of a multi-level, multi-agency, multi-disciplinary “task team” with the mandate of identifying “windows of opportunity” in which collective action could make substantial and sustained progress. The role of the task team would be to note trends or opportunities, to mobilize relevant resources, “swarm,” create change and then move on. Please refer to Appendix H for full list of Next Steps.

CSSP-2013-CD-1120 23

5 Conclusion

The participants in this workshop noted that there are a variety of effective tools and processes available to Canadian communities who seek to engage in disaster resilience planning. However, these tools are generally not well used nor well known. Furthermore, existing projects and initiatives tend to be fragmented and overlapping, and opportunities for synergistic action are often not taken advantage of.

The primary recommendation emerging from this workshop is the need for a coordinated multi-disciplinary team or steering committee to act as an integrative force and national champion for disaster resilience activities. Participants noted that the group need not necessarily be a government entity, although substantive participation in the group is necessary from all levels of government, relevant agencies, and community stakeholders. The role of this group would include:

Champion disaster resilience activities and initiatives from a national perspective Seek and foster ongoing support and sustainability for disaster resilience planning activities

The group would further act as an ongoing venue for those involved in disaster resilience planning to identify priority action areas (see, for example, this report); encourage the development of task forces or teams to engage with these priorities; and work with stakeholders to develop, implement, and monitor goals, strategies, and actions that address each area.

A second recommendation is the development of an integrated national consensus or policy framework for disaster resilience efforts in Canada. Such a framework would serve as a clearinghouse for various programs, projects, initiatives, and communities across Canada to share resources and expertise, build synergies, and better coordinate individual efforts.

Several questions emerge from these recommendations:

How do existing programs and initiatives interact and support each other? Who (agency or individual) should or can take leadership to advance these recommendations? How can sustainable resources and funding be found and/or accessed?

CSSP-2013-CD-1120 24

References/Bibliography....

Berkes F, Ross H: Community resilience: Toward an integrated approach. Soc Nat Resour. 2013; 26:5-20. Magis K: Community resilience: An indicator of social sustainability. Soc Nat Resour. 2010; 23: 401-416. Murphy, B.L, Anderson, G. S., Bowles, R., Cox, R. S.. Planning for disasterresilieence in rural, remote,

and coastal communities: Moving from thought to action. Journal of Emergency Management. (in press).

Ozawa CP: Planning resilient communities: Insights from experiences with risky technologies. In

Goldstein B (ed.): Collaborative Resilience. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2012: 19-38. Walker and Salt, 2006, xiii

Zellner ML, Hock CJ, Welch EW: Leaping forward: Building resilience by communicating vulnerability.

In Goldstein B (ed.): Collaborative Resilience. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2012: 39-60.

CSSP-2013-CD-1120 25

Appendix A: List of Workshop Participants

PARTICIPANT COMMUNITY, AGENCY, OR PROJECT Alisa Schryer Public Safety Canada, Emergency Management Planning Division Bert Struik Natural Resources Canada Bettina Falloon Village of Pemberton Brenda Murphy Wilfred Laurier University - Faculty of Liberal Arts Colleen Vaughan JIBC School of Public Safety Dan Sandink Institute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction Daniel Maxwell KaDSci Darren Blackburn JIBC - Emergency Management Division Dawn Ursuliak JIBC - Centre for Applied Research Dorit Mason North Shore Emergency Mgmt. Office Doug Smith Sustainability Group, City of Vancouver Eddie Oldfield QUEST Elysia Dempsey Canadian Red Cross Eric Bussey Integrated Emergency Management Solutions Ltd. Greg Anderson JIBC Office of Applied Research and Graduate Studies Heather Lyle Emergency Management BC Karen Lindsay Nanaimo Fire Rescue Karen Martin BC Coalition of People with Disabilities Kelli Kryzanowski Emergency Management BC Keltie Craig Sustainability Group, City of Vancouver Laurie Pearce JIBC - Centre for Applied Research, SIMTEC Lynne Genik Defence Research & Development Canada - CSS Marc D'Aquino First Nations Emergency Services Matt Godsoe Emergency Management and Programs Branch, Public Safety Canada Michelle Weston District of North Vancouver Murray Journeay Natural Resources Canada Pete Learoyd JIBC - Emergency Management Division Robin Cox Royal Roads University, School of Humanitarian Studies Ron Bowles JIBC - Centre for Applied Research Ron Robinson City of Medicine Hat Ryan Wainwright Squamish Lillooet Regional District Serge Corbeil Insurance Bureau of Canada Shannon Krilow Emergency Management BC Simona Verga Defence Research & Development Canada - CSS Stephanie Dunlop Metchosin Fire Department Tamsin Mills Sustainability Group, City of Vancouver

CSSP-2013-CD-1120 26

Appendix B: Workshop Agenda

BUILDING RESILIENT COMMUNITIES WORKSHOP Dr. Donald B. Rix Public Safety Simulation Building Justice Institute of British Columbia, 715 McBride Boulevard, New Westminster, BC START / END AGENDA - DAY ONE FEBRUARY 25TH, 2014 0800 - 0830 Registration and seating 0830 - 0840 Welcome

Greg Anderson, Dean, Office of Applied Research & Graduate Studies, JIBC Lynne Genik, Critical Infrastructure Portfolio Manager, Defence Research & Development Canada (DRDC) Centre for Security Science (CSS) Kelli Kryzanowski, Manager, Integrated Planning, EMBC

0840 - 0850 Orientation and Expected Outcomes Colleen Vaughan, Dean, School of Public Safety Ron Bowles, Assoc. Dean, Centre for Applied Research

0850 - 0920 Introductions Developer and Community Presentations 0920 – 10:00

Community Resilience Architectural Framework Ivan Deith, Principal Consultant, Strategic Programme Delivery & Assurance (SPDA) Service Line, Serco Consulting Bettina Falloon, Executive Assistant/Emergency Program Coordinator, Pemberton Ryan Wainwright, Emergency Program Manager, Squamish Lillooet Regional District

10:00 – 10:40 UN Getting My City Ready Laurie Pearce, JIBC Research Chair Stephanie Dunlop, Fire Chief / Emergency Program Coordinator, Metchosin Fire Department

1040 - 1100 Health Break

1100 - 1140 Rural Disaster Resiliency Project Ron Bowles, Associate Dean, Office of Applied Research, JIBC Brenda Murphy, Graduate Coordinator, Associate Professor, Society, Culture, and Environment and Geography Eric Bussey, Principal, Integrated Emergency Management Solutions Ltd., Yellowknife, NWT

1140 - 1220 Critical Infrastructure Assessment Lynne Genik, Critical Infrastructure Portfolio Manager, Defence Research & Development Canada (DRDC) Centre for Security Science (CSS) Heather Lyle, Director, Integrated Public safety, EMBC

1220 - 1320 Lunch 1320 – 1400

Community-Wide Hazard Risk Management Planning Daniel T. Maxwell, Ph.D., President, KaDSci, LLC Karen Lindsay, Emergency Program Manager, Nanaimo Fire Rescue

1400 - 1440 Hazus: A Loss Estimation Method for Disaster Risk Reduction in Canada Murray Journeay, Geologist with the Earth Science Sector of Natural Resources Canada Dorit Mason, Director, North Shore Emergency Mgmt. Office Michelle Weston, Public Safety Section Manager, District of North Vancouver

1440 -1500 Land Use Planning Guide Bert Struik, Natural Resources Canada

1500 - 1520 Health Break 1520 – 1630 Open Discussion – Wrap Up 1630 - 1730 Value Based Focus Group for Community Resilience CoP

Developing an objectives model for the community resilience CoP Simona Verga, DRDC CSS Operations Research Scientist

CSSP-2013-CD-1120 27

START / END AGENDA - DAY TWO FEBRUARY 26TH, 2014 0830 - 0845 Welcome

Orientation and Expectations to the Day 0845 - 0915 CRHNet Aboriginal Resiliency Report Update

Eric Bussey, President, Integrated Emergency Management Solutions Ltd., Yellowknife, NWT Brenda Murphy, Graduate Coordinator, Associate Professor, Society, Culture, and Environment and Geography Laurie Pearce, JIBC Research Chair

0915 – 0930 Day 1 Discussion Themes

0930-1045 Implications and Strategies to Increase Community Uptake / Snack

1045-1200 Report out

1200 - 1300 Lunch 1300 - 1330 Prioritize and Validate Priority Areas

1330 - 1430 Next Steps

CSSP-2013-CD-1120 28

Appendix C: Developer Tools / Projects and Community Presentations

The first activity of the two-day workshop was a series of presentations by representatives from selected projects and communities. A presenter from each project outlined the project, the tool(s) associated with the project and an overview of its outcome. The following presentation was given by one or more members of the community(ies) involved in the project who spoke on their experience.

Project and/or Tool Developer Presentation Community Presentation

Community Resilience Architectural Framework Ivan Deith, Principal Consultant, Strategic

Programme Delivery & Assurance (SPDA) Service Line, Serco Consulting

Bettina Falloon, Executive Assistant/Emergency Program Coordinator, Pemberton

Ryan Wainwright, Emergency Program Manager, Squamish Lillooet Regional District

UN Getting My City Ready Laurie Pearce, JIBC Research Chair

Stephanie Dunlop, Fire Chief / Emergency Program

Coordinator, Metchosin Fire Department Rural Disaster Resiliency Project

Ron Bowles, Associate Dean, Office of Applied Research, JIBC

Brenda Murphy, Graduate Coordinator, Associate Professor, Society, Culture, and Environment and Geography

Eric Bussey, Principal, Integrated Emergency Management Solutions Ltd., Yellowknife, NWT

Critical Infrastructure Assessment Lynne Genik, Critical Infrastructure Portfolio

Manager, Defence Research & Development Canada (DRDC) Centre for Security Science (CSS)

Heather Lyle, Director, Integrated Public safety, EMBC

Community-Wide Hazard Risk Management Planning Daniel T. Maxwell, Ph.D., President, KaDSci, LLC

Karen Lindsay, Emergency Program Manager,

Nanaimo Fire Rescue Hazus: A Loss Estimation Method for Disaster Risk Reduction in Canada

Murray Journeay, Geologist with the Earth Science Sector of Natural Resources Canada

Dorit Mason, Director, North Shore Emergency Mgmt. Office

Michelle Weston, Public Safety Section Manager, District of North Vancouver

Land Use Planning Guide Bert Struik, Natural Resources Canada

CSSP-2013-CD-1120 29

C.1 Workshop Presentation Case Studies A core component of this project was the presentation of selected disaster resilience projects by workshop participants. Each presentation followed a similar format:

Overview What was supposed to happen? What actually happened? What went well and why? What could be improved and how? Recommendations

The following case studies are summaries of the presentation key points as given by the project developers and their participant communities. The case studies included in this appendix are:

Critical Resilience Architectural Framework UN Getting My City Ready Rural Disaster Resiliency Project Critical Infrastructure Assessment Community-Wide Hazard Risk Management Planning HAZUS: A Loss Estimation Method for Disaster Risk Reduction in Canada Land Use Planning Guide

CSSP-2013-CD-1120 30

Community Resilience Architectural Framework Overview A systematic approach to developing a picture of security and resilience in complex systems, involving: Building a detailed, end-to-end enterprise architecture model of the system which enables stakeholders to see where gaps, overlaps and disparities exist Mapping the ‘whole system’ capabilities required to provide a secure and resilient environment Assessing the degree to which these are delivered by current arrangements – the combined effect of stakeholders’ efforts It enables stakeholders to: See their contribution and that of others, in context Identify opportunities to improve effectiveness, efficiency or both.

What was supposed to happen? Develop a set of plans, capabilities & resources strengthening a community’s ability to withstand disruptive influences and enabling it to recover from crisis events What actually happened? Conducted 4 Workshops in October 2012: Lil’wat Nation group Pemberton Village ‘community’ group Pemberton ‘Business’ group (+ SLRD workshop Nov 2012) Emergency Responders Group Five sessions in each: What the Valley is known for / what it provides Essential Services Hazards to essential services Consequences of disruption over 3 days / 3 weeks Expectations of service restoration after disruption What went well and why? Sophistication of model Ability to capture complexity Consistency of view across the community / infrastructure (i.e. relationships never overlooked / forgotten) Can extract generic model from specifics; reusable in other contexts Build consistent bank of architectures over time – key benchmarking / best practice resource What can be improved and how? Complexity & skills requirement Workload Defining meta model Loading / analysing content Creating outputs Cost of tools Recommendations Create Generic Plans Pre-determined restoration priority guide Community Resilience Team Community Resilience & vulnerable persons logs Provision of fall back generators Maximise key resources held in valley

CSSP-2013-CD-1120 31

Community Resilience Architectural Framework Case Study: Pemberton Valley, BC Pemberton Valley is a diverse and dynamic community consisting of: First Nations, a mix of rural/urban, young families and a farming/agriculture community with varying social, economic factors. It is a recreational/seasonal community with a population of 6,600. Pemberton Valley has experience with risk management tools although limited, with more risk knowledge coming from personal/historical experiences. What was supposed to happen? Contribute to the application of the “architectural framework” for small communities. Provide resources (background, documents, access to key stakeholders) in the development of a simple risk management tool: “The Matrix”. Community engagement, recommendations, and prioritization of “gaps”. What actually happened? Site visits, workshops beneficial. Discovered different risk perspectives in the Valley. Good cross section of stakeholders. Willingness to participate. Provided a useful and simple tool for examining risk. Final presentation of results to community forum - increased cross stakeholder engagement and a shared perception of risks. What went well and why? Validated assumed risk perceptions; as well as, highlighted gaps and disparities not only related to the study, but each of our emergency management programs. Solicited involvement from a wider cross section of the community than is traditionally involved in EM.

What can be improved and how - community? Highlighted the need for mitigation strategies (i.e.: funding for mitigation initiatives, policy frameworks). Confirmation of the importance of communication, collaboration and coordination across jurisdictions and within organizations (i.e.: planning, development, etc.) Further need for joint initiatives to establish networking, partnerships and coherency of resources. Political support. The need for outreach – public education, public awareness. What can be improved and how - community? As a pilot, the process was very smooth. An initial and clear (simple) description of project goals and definitions/glossary would have been helpful. Longer local lead-time and facilitator briefing to ensure larger community-wide engagement.

For more information: Ivan Deith, Principal Consultant, Strategic Programme Delivery & Assurance (SPDA) Service Line, Serco Consulting - ivan.deith@serco.com Bettina Falloon, Executive Assistant/Emergency Program Coordinator, Pemberton - bfalloon@pemberton.ca Ryan Wainwright, Emergency Program Manager, Squamish Lillooet Regional District - rwainwright@slrd.bc.ca

CSSP-2013-CD-1120 32

UN Getting My City Ready

A ten-point checklist and the building block for disaster risk reduction. Guide Overview A ten-point checklist and the building block for disaster risk reduction, developed in line with the five priorities of the Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-2015: Building the Resilience of Nations and Communities to Disasters. Based on the success and stock-taking by partners and participating cities in the first phase (2010-2011) the campaign will continue and shift its focus to more implementation support, city-to-city learning and cooperation, local action planning and monitoring of progress in cities. In addition, the campaign will continue to advocate widespread commitment by local governments to build resilience to disasters and increased support by national governments to cities for the purpose of strengthening local capacities. Develop global goals and targets that are applicable for all cities. Private sector partners will be targeted to support development of ‘industry standards’ and innovative urban risk reduction solutions What was supposed to happen? The provinces and territories were supposed to provide wide-spread support for the Campaign. Communities in Canada were supposed to sign up and join the campaign in substantial numbers. Canada’s National Platform was supposed to get more traction & web site was supposed to be up and running What actually happened? Not many cities as hoped signed up. Cities include: District of North Vancouver, District of Oak Bay, District of Saanich, Township of View Royal, Regional District of Nanaimo, Township of Esquimalt, Colwood, Shirley, Otter Point, Jordan River, Juan de Fuca Regional District and Metchosin. The website was slow to get operational and the provinces and territories were slow to get behind the Campaign.

What went well and why? Those communities and students who engaged in the process benefited from the process. The communities all indicated that they overall benefited from the process – one of the universal findings was that undergoing the process brought together, for the first time, various staff and volunteers to discuss disaster risk reduction. These participants found that many of the activities that they were undertaking were being done under other “programs” or meeting other goals; and yet they ultimately led to improved disaster resiliency. What can be improved and how? The tool needs greater community buy-in and engagement with on-going support by Provinces and Territories. Presentations to Federation of Canadian Municipalities, greater media coverage for successful communities and federal funding support. The tool also needs a review for 2015 Hyogo Framework with a rural perspective. The interest by First Nations, Métis and Inuit people has been a very real positive outcome and the mini-poster carrying this focus will be an important step in getting buy-in from these communities. Case Study: District of Metchosin, BC Metchosin is a small rural community with a population of 5000. It is an agriculture / farming community with CAO/Staff, and Mayor and Council but mostly a volunteer based municipality. What actually happened? Community believes they will be fine and that someone else (military base close by) will look after them. Community also felt they were already prepared. What went well and why? The tool assisted with Municipal awareness (temporary). It was thought provoking and made people looked outside of box. It started a ripple in thinking around resiliency.

CSSP-2013-CD-1120 33

UN Getting My City Ready What can be improved and how? Education: barriers to adequate and accurate information and opinions. Application of Tool: community size and infrastructure is very limited, commercial is non-existent – we cannot be ‘scored’ on what we do not have. We just don’t have the capabilities. Idea behind becoming resilient is to work with what you have. Ground Level thinking – politics vs grass roots…what can Mrs. Smith do. Sandbox – always working with the ‘neighboring communities’ – get involved, network – that doesn’t always work For more information: Laurie Pearce, JIBC Research Chair, lpearce@jibc.ca Stephanie Dunlop, Fire Chief / Emergency Program Coordinator, Metchosin Fire Department, firechief@metchosinfire.ca

CSSP-2013-CD-1120 34

Rural Disaster Resilience Project

Assessing risks and building resilience for disasters in rural, remote and coastal communities. wp-rdrp-dev.jibc.ca/ Guide Overview The guide is designed for rural, remote and coastal communities with few available personnel or resources. The RDRP guide strengthens community resilience and disaster management planning in rural, remote, and coastal communities. The RDRP process includes a user-friendly guide to help you work through the various steps to increase resiliency in your community. Each step and associated activity outlined in the process diagram will guide you through planning; Getting Started, Assessing Your Resilience, Building a Resilience Plan and Plan Implementation. The RDRP planning tool is complete and ready to be implemented. It requires a sustainable framework and resources to keep it updated. wp-rdrp-dev.jibc.ca/ What went well and why? The RDRP process is user friendly and responds to varied community involvement and expertise. It is a simple process with 4 steps and 16 activities that can be accessed in any order. What can be improved and how? Tools/framework would benefit from ongoing review/adaptation to new contexts. Strengths are in community involvement and analysis. The tool is comprehensive and would benefit from a longer implementation phase. Case Study: Lion’s Head, Ontario Lion’s Head is part of the Municipality of Northern Bruce Peninsula. It has 550 people with an aging population, a tourist-based economy and good infrastructure. Lion’s Head experiences Great Lakes coastal hazards. It had an experienced community-based team with experience in hazard assessment, and disaster response with strong community connections. This project was facilitated by strong relationships with, and endorsement from, the municipal government,

What was supposed to happen? Lion’s Head was to assess the planning tools, undertake the resilience planning exercise, get municipal buy in and involve the local community. What actually happened? Excellent feedback was provided to the project team on tools. A focused resilience plan was developed but it was less successful in involving the local community and the long-term impact of the plan unclear. The plan was reported to council but the team had no authority to implement. What went well and why? The community had a highly motivated and dedicated research team that was knowledgeable about the community and had access to municipal resources. What can be improved and how? It is important to have a targeted engagement plan to involve the broader community. For example: timing engagement activities when the community is most likely to be available, using social capital networks to increase visibility and engagement coinciding with emergency events that present “windows of opportunity”.

CSSP-2013-CD-1120 35

Rural Disaster Resilience Project

Case Study: WHATI, NWT Whati has a number of strengths that can enhance the community’s level of resilience. A recently revised and updated Emergency Plan, the community is close-knit, families are strong, language and traditions are strong,

-Government Agreement is a catalyst for positive change, and there is strong local leadership. Whati undertook a Resilience Assessment project to improve capacity to cope with emergencies, shocks and other major changes affecting the community, address day-to-day community concerns and objectives, and prepare for the establishment of the Fortune Minerals NICO mining project. What was supposed to happen? Effective engagement of leaders and various community members to test relevance of RDRP tools in a small, remote Northern community for disaster risk reduction and resilience planning. Synthesize results from application of RRI/HRI tools during the Pilot Project and consider feasible resilience strategies to produce a first draft of Community Resilience Plan. What actually happened? Two day workshop with Chief & Council to apply RRI/HRI tools and prepare initial community resilience strategies. Separate ½ day sessions to apply RRI tool and consider resilience strategies with Community Emergency Committee members, high school students, and unemployed middle-aged males. Individual interviews to apply RRI tool and consider resilience strategies with a respected elder, long-time resident adult educator, community nurse, and informed observer/ frequent visitor to Whati. Consideration of feedback from subsequent Pilot Project sessions and revision of Chief & Council’s initial resilience strategies. What went well and why? RDRP used available knowledge and capabilities in a capacity building approach to enhance resilience in Whati. Strong community participation raised awareness of hazards & risk and helped foster local interest in enhancing resilience. Chief & Council are interested in testing the RDRP framework as an opportunity to engage local and regional partners in preparing to optimize positive effects of a potential mine development.

What went well and why? RDRP framework was designed to be adaptable, comprehensive and based on locally-set priorities and perspectives. HRA and HRI tools represented an integrated strengths-based approach to risk assessment, designed to allow communities to assess their strengths, assets and vulnerabilities in the face of locally identified hazard-risk priorities. RRI tool was a comprehensive and evidence-based community assessment tool that allowed the community to make their own assessment of their community’s resilience. Web-based tools generated an initial listing of potential resilience strategies. What can be improved and how? Parts of the RDRP tools were not well suited to the Northern environment and would require further refinement and revisions to make them more applicable, particularly in smaller communities. The need for a project champion is highlighted in the RDRP guide. An external knowledgeable facilitator could introduce the RDRP tools, help facilitate the initial process, and provide additional resources that may be needed to support and sustain the ongoing resilience assessment and planning process. For more information: Rural Disaster Resiliency Planning Guide: Ron Bowles; Associate Dean, Office of Applied Research, RBowles@jibc.ca Lions’s Head: Brenda Murphy, Graduate Coordinator, Associate Professor, Society, Culture, and Environment and Geography, bmurphy@wlu.ca Whaiti, NWT: Eric Bussey, President, Integrated Emergency Management Solutions Ltd., Yellowknife, NWT, ericbussey@northwestel.net

CSSP-2013-CD-1120 36

Critical Infrastructure Assessment

Development and pilot of a Critical Infrastructure Assessment Tool for municipalities. Overview Development and pilot of a Critical Infrastructure (CI) Assessment Tool for municipalities Modified dependency grids from Community Resilience Architecture Framework/ Pemberton Valley project provided the basis for tool Tool to aid in understanding and planning, does not calculate risk or output a priority list Pilot with Delta 14-15 January 2014

What was supposed to happen? Use tool during workshop to assess CI dependencies for municipal CI Primary objective: Assist Delta with identifying and assessing CI in the context of ”all hazards” events Secondary objective: Solicit feedback to determine if further development and deployment of the tool would be worthwhile What actually happened? Met with Delta stakeholders to discuss and assess municipal CI Identified areas for further development of tool Provided a summary document with recommended next steps following the workshop

What went well and why? Balanced stakeholder representation allowed participants to speak to their areas of expertise and educate others Completed assessment during workshop Participants indicated that they found value in the exercise Identified areas for improvement and further development What can be improved and how? As expected, tool requires further development in a number of areas Structure Definitions Application Educational material to support facilitation and implementation Manage expectations and clearly articulate project scope Community ownership of process and results Customization of tool to fit community Documentation of assumptions and discussion Incorporation of results into municipal risk management / planning for CI and emergency management This is a first step, not the last…

For more information: Lynne Genik, Critical Infrastructure Portfolio Manager, Defence Research & Development Canada (DRDC) Centre for Security Science (CSS) - Lynne.Genik@drdc-rddc.gc.ca

CSSP-2013-CD-1120 37

Community-Wide Hazard Risk Management Planning

Value Focused Metrics for Improving Emergency Planning Overview The goal was to execute a research project that assessed the utility of applying a mature modeling technique call “Value Focused Metrics (VFM)” to emergency planning. As currently implemented VFM tools appear most appropriate for areas with larger populations and dedicated planning staffs. The project with DRDC is complete. KaDSci continues to explore cost effective approaches for maturing the tools and techniques to be more broadly useful.

What was supposed to happen? KaDSci was supposed to explore the feasibility of applying Value Focused Metrics to disaster related planning. The key questions were:

Would emergency management personnel be able to construct and interpret VFM Models

Could VFM Models be aggregated and / or synthesized somehow to support planning across hazards

What actually happened? Emergency management personnel quickly demonstrated that they could build and use these models… with expert assistance The effort migrated to an emphasis on providing the community participants insights that would help them with their planning.

What went well and why? Facilitated sessions drew out important means

objectives, tasks, and cross organizational dependencies. This was due to three factors:

The models highlighted relationships that were not intuitively obvious

[The research team has a “trained ear” for identifying key issues that should be elaborated

Most importantly – The participants represented multiple perspectives and constructively communicated those perspectives to other participants

The research team was able to construct and synthesize models

Because the modeling techniques appear to be a high value technology transfer from other complex operations

The community participants were eager to fill in details as the research team identified gaps and requirements.

What can be improved and how? Distributed collaboration for model development and analysis needs improvement. More Robust elicitation and analysis software Continued research on how to advance distributed collaboration – especially among multi-disciplinary groups Case Study: Nanaimo, BC

CSSP-2013-CD-1120 38

Community-Wide Hazard Risk Management Planning

Nanaimo Nanaimo is the major port for central Vancouver Island, service centre (health, service, retail and transportation) for mid Vancouver Island with a population of 90,000and 140,000 in the region. It has an aging infrastructure - almost the whole of downtown sits on mine shafts which extend up into other residential areas (EQ issue). City has completed HRVA in detail as part of their Emergency Response and Recovery Plan with top two hazards being Hazmat and Earthquake. 80% of hazmat to island comes through the Nanaimo Port. What was supposed to happen? Gathering of various sectors and public agencies, responder agencies to identify strengths, weaknesses and gaps for City of Nanaimo two high risk hazards, Earthquakes and Hazmat Value Focused Thinking and Value Added Metrics to analyze each hazard Outcome anticipated initially was to utilize software that could support community and other communities in future HRVA assessment, emergency planning and a detailed understanding of how strengths/gaps in these tow hazards. Modeling was to be utilized to see how changing tasks or decisions based on the scenarios would alter outcomes. What actually happened? Mission to Task Analysis/Value Focused Thinking Working from goals back to tasks – Fundamental and Means Objectives Exercises – very tiring for participants Results – Heavy emphasis on Response in both scenarios Gathered input from Subject Matter Experts in detail Validated areas of weakness in planning Provided some insight into potential planning areas. Good tool for supporting planning initiatives to support goals of program and potentially solicit support and funding.

What went well and why? Community Partnerships Identified areas that need focus in four pillars Tool for future development of other hazards – challenge cannot do alone using this model Baseline established in four pillars of Emergency Management that can be measured against in re-evaluation of two hazards What can be improved and how? Time – Somehow condense meetings as commitment was too much for some. Need method to utilize modeling - require user interface – so that communities can look at how decision making changes results and complete analysis Task is onerous in the Fundamental and Means Objectives portions – how can it be streamlined. For more information: Daniel T. Maxwell, Ph.D., President, KaDSci, LLC - dmaxwell@kadsci.com Karen Lindsay, Emergency Program Manager, Nanaimo Fire Rescue - Karen.Lindsay@nanaimo.ca

CSSP-2013-CD-1120 39

HAZUS: A Loss Estimation Method for Disaster Risk Reduction in Canada

Methods for Disaster Risk Reduction Overview What was supposed to happen? Bridge the gap between knowledge & action. Policy Considerations:

Risk Tolerance Emergency Plans Land Use Policy Mitigation Adaptation

What actually happened? Step 1: Establish Context

Establish study region & assess available information/knowledge assets

Appraisal of existing/emerging threats, vulnerabilities and capabilities

Establish policy goals and assessment criteria that will inform planning & decision making

Step 2: Develop Asset Inventory Compile available information on people & characteristics of the built environment

Perform a gap analysis and collect additional local data as needed

Develop Hazus inventories for aggregate & site-level analysis of vulnerability (Level 1 & 2)

Step 3: Hazard Assessment Develop probabilistic & deterministic ground shaking models (PGA, PGV, Sa0.3s & Sa1.0s)

Assess effects of local site amplification for portfolio of ground shaking models (Shakemap)

Assess permanent ground deformation parameters for liquefaction & landslides

Step 4: Risk Analysis Use Hazus model to assess impacts & consequences for portfolio of earthquake scenarios

Use SoVI model to assess intrinsic social vulnerability of community

Assess risk indicators for vulnerability, public safety, economic security & system resilience

Step 5: Risk Evaluation Use indicators to assess thresholds of risk tolerance

Select earthquake risk scenario(s) for planning & policy development

Explore strategies for risk reduction & disaster resilience

What went well and why? Shakeout scenarios: a storyline of what to expect.

Target Indicators Seismic Hazards: 20 seconds of shaking, liquefaction & landslides

Buildings: ~300 with significant damage & 850 damaged beyond repair

People: ~2,300 injured; ~165 fatalities Lifelines: ~14,000 homes without water & ~7000 without power @ 7 days

Economic Loss: ~$2.3B in building-related losses & ~$4.4M/day lost revenue

Return on Investment: 3:1 What can be improved and how?

Focus on methods of risk assessment – not tools Match analytic scale and risk measures with specific needs and policy goals of the community – not scientific capabilities

Base risk decisions on impacts & consequences – not hazards

Provide financial incentives for community-based risk assessment – not legislative requirements

Increase capability for risk-based planning through outreach & professional training– support communities of practice

Explore public-private partnerships for ongoing development of risk assessment capabilities – optimize efficiencies

CSSP-2013-CD-1120 40

HAZUS: A Loss Estimation Method for Disaster Risk Reduction in Canada

City of North Vancouver, BC District of North Vancouver, BC District of West Vancouver, BC Like all local authorities, the North Shore (City of North Vancouver, District of Vancouver and District of Vancouver) has legislated responsibility for Emergency Management. It has a population of 160,000 residents in a 31X13 km region. The North Shore has partnerships with Research Institutions – NRCan, UBC Earthquake Engineering, Justice Institute of BC and Simon Fraser University. It uses Risk Management Tools – Emergency Management BC Risk and Vulnerability on-line assessment tool as well as HAZUS. What was supposed to happen? Analysis of earthquake hazards using the Hazus methodology. NRCan utilized the District of North Vancouver as a pilot community. What actually happened? Extensive analysis occurred for District of North Vancouver. A more limited project is being conducted by UBC for the City of North Vancouver and the District of West Vancouver and as resources are not dedicated, this part of the project is taking longer. NRCan created a new surficial geology map for the District of North Vancouver, then using the Hazus data created ShakeOut stories on how the earthquake would impact citizens. Information was presented to the District’s Natural Hazard Taskforce and input provided on scenarios.

What went well and why? NRCan conducting an in-depth Hazus analysis. ShakeOut scenarios have been developed and these will form the basis for communicating to the public. Information has been shared with the community planning department and will influence the official community plan thereby strengthening community resiliency What can be improved and how? All research needs to be practical. Any tools that are created from research must be easy and inexpensive to use, especially for communities that do not have resources to undertake the analysis. Outcomes should have two purposes: 1) for municipal use to inform their community developments, 2) information for the public. Public Information should be simple and understandable and provide enough detail to create preparedness/mitigation action but not too much that it becomes overwhelming and results in citizen inaction. For more information:

Murray Journeay, Geologist with the Earth Science Sector of Natural Resources Canada - Murray.Journeay@NRCan-RNCan.gc.ca

Dorit Mason, Director, North Shore Emergency Mgmt. Office - dmason@cnv.org

Michelle Weston, Public Safety Section Manager, District of Vancouver - westonm@dnv.org

CSSP-2013-CD-1120 41

Land Use Planning Guide

A Canadian guide for municipalities to consider land-use options to increase disaster resilience

(EM-DAT http://www.emdat.be/natural-disasters-trends) Guide Objectives and Overview 1) A guide for municipalities to consider land-use options to increase disaster resilience 2) Build a tool to learn effective risk-based land-use evaluation 3) Network with mitigators The guide is for municipal staff and those who work for municipal staff. They have significant influence with city council and can make land-use recommendations that have an acceptable hazard risk. The Guide integrates risk management principles and techniques into the municipal land-use recommendation process. It shows how existing municipal instruments and risk assessment tools can be used to recommend land-use that has acceptable risk from hazards.

Phases and status of the Tool Phase 1: Guide for land use planners and permitting officers of Metro Vancouver municipalities. Guide is nearly complete and would be useful for the 100 largest communities in Canada. Phase 2: Template for a national risk-based land-use guide by March 2015. Phase 3: Guides for land-use planners and hazard risk managers of a cluster of Canadian municipalities and other communities. Start pilots in other communities starting April 2015 and 10 years from now incorporated communities and reserves in Canada. What went well and why? Stakeholders provided the concept and core material for the guide through workshops and exercises. Their cross-disciplinary and multi-agency engagement permitted integration of municipal instrument and risk management and built a common language for risk mitigation. It engages stakeholders from disparate disciplines and sectors in risk-based land-use issues to learn more about risk management concepts and the potential of application to local land-use recommendations. It establishes potential additions to local risk management tool boxes. What can be improved and how? Version 1.0 needs to be completed and made available. It will be short, readable, understandable, practical, just enough and applicable. It will need support for versioning and updating over time, and for creation in other places. What actually happened? Interest of originally engaged members of municipalities has fallen off because of length of time since workshops and exercises. For more information: www.sfu.ca/cnhr/workshops/index4.html Bert Struik bert.struik@nrcan.gc.ca

CS

SP

-201

3-C

D-1

120

42

App

endi

x D

: Ena

bler

s an

d C

onst

rain

ts Id

entif

ied

in P

roje

ct/C

omm

unity

Pre

sent

atio

ns

The

first

act

ivity

in th

e w

orks

hop

cons

iste

d of

pre

sent

atio

ns a

nd a

naly

sis o

f sel

ecte

d di

sast

er re

silie

nce

proj

ects

. Pro

ject

dev

elop

ers a

nd c

omm

unity

repr

esen

tativ

es

gave

stru

ctur

ed p

rese

ntat

ions

out

linin

g th

eir p

roje

ct a

nd th

e ex

perie

nce

of th

e co

mm

uniti

es w

ho w

ere

invo

lved

in th

em. P

artic

ipan

ts w

orke

d in

smal

l gro

ups t

o an

alyz

e th

e in

form

atio

n pr

ovid

ed in

the

pres

enta

tions

. The

gro

ups w

ere

aske

d to

iden

tify

thos

e fa

ctor

s tha

t ena

bled

or c

onst

rain

ed th

e su

cces

s of t

he p

roje

cts.

The

follo

win

g ta

bles

are

a c

ompi

latio

n of

the

grou

p w

ork,

org

aniz

ed b

y pr

ojec

t. Th

e m

iddl

e co

lum

n, la

belle

d “B

oth”

repr

esen

ts fa

ctor

s whi

ch b

oth

enab

led

and

cons

train

ed su

cces

s.

Com

mun

ity R

esili

ence

Arc

hite

ctur

al F

ram

ewor

k: E

nabl

ers a

nd C

onst

rain

ts

E

nabl

ers

Bot

h C

onst

rain

ts

Com

mun

ity e

ngag

emen

t fos

tere

d Re

ason

for k

eep

the

conv

ersa

tion

goin

g Co

mm

unity

soci

al v

ulne

rabi

lity

data

– is

this

supp

orte

d by

HRV

A?

Proc

ess b

egin

s to

build

gra

ssro

ots s

uppo

rt a

nd b

uy-in

, al

low

ing

for n

eces

sary

redu

ndan

cy in

peo

ple

/ res

ourc

es

able

to re

spon

d.

How

doe

s the

tool

add

ress

inte

rcon

nect

ions

of

inte

rdep

ende

ncy

of sy

stem

s?

Serv

ice

mat

rix sl

id –

doe

sn’t

show

hea

lth a

nd

com

mun

ity so

cial

serv

ices

The

com

mun

ity m

embe

rs c

ome

toge

ther

and

cre

ate

a co

mm

on fo

cus o

n un

ders

tand

ing

and

actio

ns n

eede

d to

re

ach

resil

ienc

y Do

es it

qua

ntify

acr

oss p

artic

ipat

ing

citie

s Cr

itica

l haz

ards

that

cou

ld c

ause

the

grea

test

impa

ct

to c

omm

unity

mus

t alre

ady

be id

entif

ied

Exist

ing

HRVA

fram

ewor

k in

BC

Dam

age

func

tions

: +/-

go/

no g

o Kn

owle

dge

of w

hat q

uest

ions

to a

sk if

you

don

’t do

fu

ll ar

chite

ctur

e Su

mm

ary

Mat

rix o

f haz

ards

, ser

vice

s im

pact

s and

pr

iorit

ies

Co

st o

f con

sulta

nt: w

hen

not s

uppo

rted

by

EMBC

how

w

ider

app

licat

ion

wou

ld b

e fu

nded

? O

utre

ach

tool

s: th

is is

grea

t, bu

t will

peo

ple

actu

ally

car

e?

It he

lps w

hen

ther

e ar

e em

erge

ncie

s/di

sast

ers

Co

mpl

ex st

ruct

ure

Cons

isten

t dat

e an

d m

etho

dolo

gy

Fo

cus o

n es

sent

ial s

ervi

ces.

Res

pons

e or

ient

ed?

Like

who

le sy

stem

s app

roac

h

Gr

eat t

o se

e hu

ge o

utre

ach

effo

rts b

ut w

onde

r if

conv

ersa

tions

wer

e sil

oed

beca

use

each

wor

ksho

p fo

cuse

d on

par

ticul

ar st

akeh

olde

r gro

up, r

athe

r tha

n m

ixin

g th

em (e

.g. B

usin

ess a

nd fi

rst n

eeds

and

co

mm

unity

mem

bers

in sa

me

dial

ogue

.)

Fram

ing

the

conv

ersa

tion

W

here

doe

s em

otio

nal p

sych

olog

ical

supp

ort f

in in

as

a ca

tego

ry?

Esse

ntia

l ser

vice

s? H

igh

stre

ss si

tuat

ion

Iden

tify/

valid

ate

of d

iffer

ence

s – ri

sk p

erce

ptio

n, a

nd

disp

arity

bet

wee

n co

mm

unity

exp

ecta

tions

and

ca

pabi

litie

s of r

espo

nder

s

W

hat w

ere

the

prac

tical

out

com

es o

f app

licat

ion

or

the

tool

? W

hat p

rogr

ams,

stra

tegi

es, w

ere

deve

lope

d as

a re

sult

of th

e as

sess

men

t? H

ow w

ere

they

app

lied?

CS

SP

-201

3-C

D-1

120

43

Com

mun

ity R

esili

ence

Arc

hite

ctur

al F

ram

ewor

k: E

nabl

ers a

nd C

onst

rain

ts

E

nabl

ers

Bot

h C

onst

rain

ts

3rd p

arty

faci

litat

or –

to e

ngag

e co

mm

unity

– v

ery

impo

rtan

t

Di

scon

nect

/unr

ealis

tic e

xpec

tatio

ns o

f com

mun

ity

mem

bers

and

loca

l em

erge

ncy

serv

ice

prov

ider

s –

very

com

mon

at a

ll le

vels

of g

ovt

Enga

ged

emer

genc

y pl

anni

ng c

oord

inat

ors

M

oney

So

cial

impl

icat

ions

of C

I fai

lure

Expe

ctat

ions

and

syst

em fr

agili

ty

Cons

isten

cy in

mod

el/m

atrix

– e

asy

to c

ompa

re to

oth

ers

To

ol d

oes n

ot in

clud

e ris

k/ha

zard

ass

essm

ent b

ased

on

pro

babi

lity

and/

cons

eque

nce

Mat

rix in

form

atio

n va

luab

le/u

seab

le

In

sight

into

priv

acy

– CI

Si

mpl

ified

, but

still

com

plex

and

val

uabl

e; to

o m

uch

info

rmat

ion

beco

mes

ove

rwhe

lmin

g

Regu

lar p

roce

ss v

s one

-off

proj

ect

Enga

ged

com

mun

ity p

artic

ipan

ts

Ex

pert

ise re

quire

d to

con

duct

arc

hite

ctur

e co

nstr

uctio

n / a

naly

sis

Enga

ged

loca

l fac

ilita

tors

and

par

ticip

ants

Pote

ntia

l stig

mat

izatio

n of

vul

nera

ble

popu

latio

ns o

r se

rvic

es.

Loca

l kno

wle

dge

is es

sent

ial

M

inim

izes s

ocia

l var

iabl

es o

f res

ilien

ce (s

ocia

l/cap

ital,

posit

ive

outc

ome

expe

ctan

cy, t

rust

..)

Com

mun

ity e

ngag

emen

t led

to o

ngoi

ng re

latio

nshi

ps

As

it is

labo

r? in

term

arrie

d? h

ow d

o yo

u en

sure

it is

ke

pt u

p to

dat

e? T

his c

ould

be

a co

nstr

aint

to lo

ng

term

pla

nnin

g.

Pre-

com

plet

ed ri

sk a

sses

smen

t hel

pful

Com

mun

ity li

nks r

equi

red

– ne

ed to

kno

w th

e rig

ht

cont

acts

. Re

aliza

tion

of v

alue

of r

esou

rces

exi

stin

g in

com

mun

ity

O

nly

know

abo

ut y

our r

esili

enci

es le

ss a

bout

oth

ers

Gene

ric M

odel

ing

tool

. Cou

ld b

e br

oadl

y ap

plic

able

.

Clea

r and

com

mon

und

erst

andi

ng o

f res

ilien

ce

Com

mun

ity E

ngag

emen

t

Wha

t doe

s res

ilien

ce lo

ok li

ke?

How

is th

is ex

pres

sed

to c

omm

unity

En

able

s the

iden

tific

atio

n of

inte

rdep

ende

ncie

s and

gap

s am

ongs

t diff

eren

t com

mun

ities

.

Cost

Acce

ptab

le to

ach

ieve

a 7

5% so

lutio

n. E

nsur

e pa

ram

eter

s ar

e id

entif

ied

in a

dvan

ce. I

dent

ify w

hat y

ou a

re n

ot g

oing

to

disc

uss /

ach

ieve

.

U

nder

stan

ding

of r

esea

rch

proc

ess,

key

term

s,

purp

ose,

not

alw

ays d

emon

stra

ted

in w

ay th

at m

akes

se

nse.

Lo

cal k

now

ledg

e co

ntrib

utes

to m

ore

resil

ient

of

prep

ared

ness

and

resp

onse

– e

.g. H

untin

g an

d fis

hing

.

No

mat

ch b

etw

een

com

mun

ity e

xpec

tatio

ns a

nd E

M

prof

essio

nal c

apac

ity

Valu

e of

loca

l kno

wle

dge

thro

ugh

enga

ging

the

right

pa

rtic

ipan

ts.

Ev

en if

hav

e go

od p

lans

, nee

d th

e re

sour

ces t

o fo

llow

th

roug

h e.

g. $

for s

truc

tura

l miti

gatio

n Co

mm

unity

cen

tric

resil

ienc

e pr

ogra

ms s

tart

from

gra

ss

root

s. P

ublic

enc

oura

gem

ent t

o va

lidat

e in

terd

epen

denc

ies.

.

St

anda

rdize

d m

odel

for H

IRA

– FR

VA la

ck o

f cle

ar

mod

el b

y w

hich

com

mun

ities

are

ass

esse

d le

aves

gap

s fo

r EM

read

ersh

ip

CS

SP

-201

3-C

D-1

120

44

Com

mun

ity R

esili

ence

Arc

hite

ctur

al F

ram

ewor

k: E

nabl

ers a

nd C

onst

rain

ts

E

nabl

ers

Bot

h C

onst

rain

ts

Stan

dard

izatio

n of

acc

essin

g co

mm

unity

ha

zard

s/vu

lner

abili

ty. R

isks a

re c

ritic

al to

iden

tify

piec

es o

f th

e ar

chite

ctur

al fr

amew

ork

by w

hich

resil

ienc

e is

real

ized.

In

tero

pera

bilit

y –

mul

ti ju

risdi

ctio

nal,

mul

ti-di

scip

line

man

agem

ent s

yste

ms –

com

mon

lang

uage

. Lac

k of

ad

min

supp

ort a

t sen

ior l

evel

Bein

g av

aila

ble

befo

re d

urin

g an

d af

ter d

emon

stra

tes a

go

od u

nder

stan

ding

of n

eeds

and

resp

onse

to c

omm

unity

ne

eds /

resil

ienc

e.

Ar

chite

ctur

al d

esig

ned

from

wes

tern

poi

nts o

f vie

w.

Wha

t wor

ks, d

oesn

’t w

ork

in a

borig

inal

con

text

. Ap

plic

atio

ns o

f pre

mad

e fr

amew

orks

. U

se k

ey p

eopl

e, n

etw

orks

to in

itiat

e pr

ojec

t. N

eed

proj

ect

cham

pion

s. M

ove

beyo

nd S

TP (s

ame

ten

peop

le)

Ti

me

requ

ired

– te

chni

cal k

now

ledg

e to

use

tool

Out

side

faci

litat

or c

an e

nabl

e in

crea

sed

unde

rsta

ndin

g of

ris

k an

d re

silie

nce.

Incl

udes

use

of t

ools

Co

mpl

ete

plan

s too

exp

ensiv

e fo

r com

mun

ities

– d

on’t

addr

ess u

nkno

wn

unkn

owns

Po

litic

al su

ppor

t fro

m le

gitim

acy

of fa

cilit

ated

pro

ject

Cost

Se

eing

com

mun

ities

as s

yste

m o

f sys

tem

s.

Cons

ulta

nt G

uide

Po

wer

of t

he C

omm

unity

influ

ence

d. R

esili

ence

Tea

m.

Stru

ctur

e an

d Co

nten

ts c

ould

pro

vide

tem

plat

e fo

r oth

ers

IF m

ade

easie

r to

use

Repo

rtin

g ba

ck o

n w

hat I

van

hear

d fr

om c

omm

unity

and

w

hat n

ext s

teps

look

ed li

ke. F

ram

ewor

k m

atrix

de

mon

stra

ted

ther

e ar

e re

sour

ces )

miti

gatio

n /

colla

bora

tion

)

Bene

fits o

f mat

rix a

nd u

se b

y ot

her s

take

hold

ers

CS

SP

-201

3-C

D-1

120

45

Cri

tical

Infr

astr

uctu

re A

sses

smen

t: E

nabl

ers a

nd C

onst

rain

ts

E

nabl

ers

Bot

h C

onst

rain

ts

Wha

t is g

ood

enou

gh?

80:2

0 ru

le. I

f you

hav

e m

ost o

f th

e in

form

atio

n is

that

eno

ugh?

Term

inol

ogy

– m

ay n

eed

to u

se o

ther

te

rmin

olog

y CI

is c

onfu

sing

does

n’t m

ean

easy

to

und

erst

and

for o

ther

s not

with

this

EM fi

eld.

How

far d

own

do y

ou g

o fo

r the

ass

essm

ent?

Wha

t is

enou

gh?

Wha

t is n

ot d

etai

led

enou

gh?

Tyin

g CI

to re

plac

emen

t val

ue (v

ulne

rabi

lity,

co

nseq

uenc

e of

loss

) fin

anci

al a

sset

man

agem

ent p

lans

-i.e

. tha

t if y

ou re

plac

e th

en re

cove

r will

be

less

. Cu

stom

izatio

n of

the

tool

re: l

angu

age

Educ

atio

n an

d En

gage

men

t is m

ost v

alua

ble.

Que

stio

n -d

o th

ose

part

icip

ants

then

com

mun

icat

e it

back

to th

e ot

hers

w

ithin

thei

r are

a?

Look

s at w

ho is

impa

cted

if g

oods

and

serv

ices

lost

Bu

ilds s

tron

g un

ders

tand

ing

of m

unic

ipal

CI o

nly

Cons

isten

cy o

f peo

ple

invo

lved

in p

roce

ss –

con

tinui

ty.

Use

d in

form

atio

n fr

om p

revi

ous p

ilot p

roje

ct to

info

rm

the

tool

use

d in

Del

ate

W

hat a

bout

com

mun

ity se

rvic

es re

pres

enta

tives

at t

he

tabl

e. C

omm

unity

gro

ups o

ften

get

left

out

of p

roce

ss b

ut

they

kno

w th

e po

pula

tion

impa

cted

.

Use

d m

atrix

tool

Tool

may

not

be

one

that

is /

can

be d

riven

by

com

mun

ity.

This

need

s to

be fo

r is o

nly

used

at g

over

nmen

t or p

rivat

e in

dust

ry

Use

soci

al m

edia

to id

CI g

eogr

aphi

cally

Mea

ns to

get

CI f

ails

to ID

ass

ets

Mul

tiple

Use

r App

licab

le

Ge

ogra

phic

al im

pact

– d

oes i

t tel

l us w

ho is

impa

cted

and

w

here

? Cl

arity

aro

und

expe

ctat

ions

Com

mon

lang

uage

Ba

lanc

ed re

pres

enta

tion:

exp

erts

in re

leva

nt a

reas

of

expe

rtise

eng

aged

Furt

her f

ragm

ents

EM

/ Re

silie

ncy/

Sus

tain

abili

ty/C

limat

e Ch

ange

Ada

ptio

n Ca

paci

ty to

cus

tom

ize to

ols t

o m

eet l

ocal

nee

d.

Co

nstr

aine

d sh

arin

g of

CI i

nfor

mat

ion

Clea

r def

initi

ons o

f key

und

erst

andi

ng o

f ter

ms

U

nrea

listic

exp

ecta

tions

in c

omm

unity

. En

gage

men

t its

elf i

s one

of t

he m

ost v

alua

ble

piec

es o

f pr

oces

s.

W

illin

gnes

s / c

apac

ity o

f com

mun

ity to

par

ticip

ate

activ

ely

and

in a

dvan

ce.

Disc

ussio

n du

ring

the

proc

ess –

goo

d va

luab

le

Ru

shed

– p

roje

ct d

eadl

ines

con

stra

ints

. W

hat i

f we

coul

d an

ticip

ate

and

visu

alize

the

cons

eque

nces

of d

isast

er e

vent

bef

ore

it oc

curr

ed?

Wou

ld th

e kn

owle

dge

& u

nder

stan

ding

lead

to a

ctio

ns

on th

e gr

ound

that

hav

e a

pote

ntia

l to

redu

ce

vuln

erab

ilitie

s and

incr

ease

resil

ienc

e

Se

curit

y of

info

rmat

ion

prod

uct.

Data

Ow

ners

hip

/ pr

oprie

tary

info

rmat

ion.

Brid

ge a

sses

smen

t man

agem

ent t

o to

ol

Kn

owle

dge

of C

I dep

ende

ncie

s and

inte

rdep

ende

ncie

s is

limite

d Co

nsist

ent t

eam

Chan

ge in

staf

fing

– qu

ality

of d

ata,

bei

ng p

rovi

ded

Esta

blish

ben

chm

arks

How

to g

et o

ne c

omm

unity

to ta

ke o

wne

rshi

p

An

ticip

ate

the

proj

ect s

cope

– b

ette

r tim

e to

pre

pare

Cl

ear t

erm

inol

ogy

and

lang

uage

– b

ring

peop

le b

efor

ehan

d

N

o CI

legi

slatio

n

CS

SP

-201

3-C

D-1

120

46

U

N G

ettin

g M

y C

ity R

eady

: Ena

bler

s and

Con

stra

ints

Ena

bler

s B

oth

Con

stra

ints

Po

inte

d at

ove

rlap

betw

een

sust

aina

bilit

y pa

rts,

re

crea

tion,

soci

al se

rvic

es, e

tc…

that

are

also

gre

at fo

r di

sast

er ri

sk re

duct

ion

resil

ienc

e

Buy-

In ta

kes t

ime

- how

man

y tim

es d

o th

ey n

eed

expo

sure

to th

e to

pic

befo

re th

ey h

ear i

t?

Part

icip

atio

n of

citi

zens

gro

ups

N

eed

stro

ng lo

cal g

over

nmen

t buy

-in to

be

effe

ctiv

e

Holis

tic a

ppro

ach

La

ck o

f buy

-in a

nd c

olla

bora

tion

on p

roje

ct a

war

enes

s an

d pr

omot

ion.

How

was

con

cept

and

pro

ject

ap

prov

ed?

Grea

t way

to e

ngag

e st

uden

ts –

mod

el a

t oth

er p

ost-

seco

ndar

y sc

hool

s?

W

hat g

uida

nce

is pr

ovid

ed to

Citi

es/C

omm

uniti

es to

ac

hiev

e th

e 10

ess

entia

ls M

etho

ds fo

r com

mun

ities

to c

ompa

re p

rogr

ess (

e.g.

W

ebsit

e pr

ovid

ing

info

rmat

ion,

pro

gres

s,

part

icip

atio

n. )

Ha

nd fo

r sm

all c

omm

uniti

es to

und

erst

and

exac

tly

how

thei

r rea

litie

s fit

into

the

10 e

ssen

tials.

Very

sim

ple

eval

uatio

n (m

ilest

ones

, hal

f way

ther

e –

etc.

)

Loca

l res

ourc

es

Adap

tabl

e to

smal

ler c

omm

uniti

es

N

ot e

noug

h na

tiona

l/ pr

ovin

cial

/ te

rrito

rial s

uppo

rt

Com

preh

ensiv

e, p

riorit

ized

fram

ewor

k th

at is

ver

y ea

sy to

und

erst

and

As

sum

ptio

ns th

at p

eopl

e un

ders

tand

why

it is

im

port

ant t

o do

DRR

wor

k. If

they

don

’t un

ders

tand

th

ey w

on’t

be m

otiv

ated

to d

o it.

Mun

icip

al le

ader

s hel

ping

oth

er m

unic

ipal

lead

ers

O

nlin

e to

ols o

nly

wor

k if

peop

le g

o on

line

and

use

them

. And

this

is a

chal

leng

e to

get

peo

ple

to d

o it.

Stud

ent f

acili

tato

rs (h

avin

g st

uden

ts to

do

wor

k as

pr

ojec

t)

Unf

ortu

nate

ly, i

nfor

mat

ion

and

educ

atio

n is

gene

rally

no

t eno

ugh

to c

hang

e be

havi

or. N

eed

face

to fa

ce,

hum

our,

fun,

pro

mpt

s, le

arni

ng w

hat b

arrie

rs a

re fo

r co

mm

uniti

es to

sign

up.

Com

mun

ity b

ased

soci

al

mar

ketin

g.

Good

bas

elin

e as

sess

men

t tha

t can

info

rm fu

ture

m

itiga

tion

stra

t3gi

es

Sc

ope

uncl

ear a

nd a

ctua

l out

com

es o

f pro

ject

har

d to

ar

ticul

ate

Nat

iona

l pro

file

and

“shi

ny to

ol.”

To

mot

ivat

e an

d re

war

d

Link

sust

aina

bilit

y to

resil

ienc

y. B

ut re

alize

it d

oesn

’t re

plac

e tr

iple

bot

tom

line

shou

ld b

e qu

adru

ple

bott

om

line:

soci

al, e

nviro

nmen

tal,

finan

cial

and

resil

ienc

y.

Web

site

has t

ools

and

allo

ws c

ompa

rison

with

oth

er

com

mun

ities

Term

inol

ogy:

doe

sn’t

help

if it

is a

t hig

her l

evel

wor

ds.

Nee

ds to

be

loca

l lev

el c

omm

unic

atio

n le

vel.

Brin

g pe

ople

toge

ther

for s

elf-a

naly

sis

Co

mpe

titio

n w

ith o

ther

tool

s – IC

LEI/B

ARL

prog

ram

Co

ntin

uity

of c

omm

unity

self-

anal

ysis

– pu

t in

Prov

law

fo

r O.C

. pla

n

Nee

d ch

ampi

ons i

n th

e co

mm

uniti

es to

mak

e th

is ha

ppen

. Si

mpl

e ge

neric

pro

cess

Nee

d su

ppor

t (at

leas

t in

prin

cipa

l) fr

om

CS

SP

-201

3-C

D-1

120

47

UN

Get

ting

My

City

Rea

dy: E

nabl

ers a

nd C

onst

rain

ts

E

nabl

ers

Bot

h C

onst

rain

ts

prov

/ter

ritor

ial E

mer

genc

y M

anag

emen

t and

Pub

lic

Safe

ty

Tran

spar

ency

Supp

ort –

then

wha

t? H

ow v

alid

ate?

How

com

pare

?

Mor

e of

a p

olic

y fr

amew

ork

that

cou

ld a

llow

oth

er

spec

ific

tool

s to

be u

sed

Fo

r sm

alle

r com

mun

ities

, som

e of

the

10 e

ssen

tials

are

not a

pplic

able

, not

ava

ilabl

e, o

r not

big

gest

co

ncer

ns o

f the

com

mun

ity

Faci

litat

es b

reak

ing

silos

UN

vs C

anad

ian

Regi

onal

col

labo

ratio

n th

roug

h re

sour

ces s

harin

g ag

reem

ents

pro

vinc

ial g

rant

Leve

l of r

esou

rces

ava

ilabl

e to

com

mit

to a

sses

smen

t an

d pl

anni

ng/r

isk m

itiga

tion,

may

be

lack

ing

in sm

all

com

mun

ities

(per

sonn

el, t

ime,

bud

get)

Re

gion

al c

olla

bora

tion

– pr

ovin

cial

fund

s, re

sour

ces

shar

ing

MO

A

Cons

trai

nts a

rtic

ulat

ed in

term

s of $

and

tim

e bu

t va

lue

is no

t art

icul

ated

in th

is w

ay

Nat

iona

l Disa

ster

Miti

gatio

n St

rate

gy

Cr

itica

l inf

rast

ruct

ure

is la

belle

d a

natio

nal s

ecur

ity

issue

and

is th

eref

ore

clas

sifie

d

Prov

inci

al –

leve

l sup

port

cru

cial

trai

ning

and

re

sour

ces

With

out a

stro

ng le

ader

ship

(bit

it in

divi

dual

or

orga

niza

tiona

l) it

seem

s tha

t wor

k do

es n

ot p

roce

ed.

Chal

leng

e is

thus

to k

eep

enth

usia

sm e

.g.

ther

e in

volv

ed a

nd re

crui

t mor

e br

oadl

y U

se u

nive

rsity

bas

ed re

sear

ch a

nd e

nerg

y of

stud

ents

to

faci

litat

e re

sear

ch.

O

ngoi

ng c

omm

unity

edu

catio

n

10 e

ssen

tials

– m

inor

und

erst

andi

ng o

f no

regr

ets a

nd

mai

nstr

eam

ing

with

in c

limat

e ch

ange

ada

ptat

ion

Si

loin

g of

initi

ativ

es e

.g. S

usta

inab

ility

vs d

isast

er

resil

ienc

e. P

aral

lel t

rack

s rat

her t

han

mut

ually

in

form

ing.

Co

st

Fr

amew

ork

is gr

eat b

ut y

ou n

eed

buy

in a

nd su

ppor

t.

Faci

litat

ors w

ith su

bjec

t exp

ertis

e

Smal

l rur

al c

omm

unity

– la

ck o

f res

ourc

es, s

mal

l bu

dget

and

vol

unte

er b

ased

.

Them

e: C

omm

on u

nder

stan

ding

Tool

box

mig

ht n

ot b

e us

er fr

iend

ly fo

r rur

al a

nd m

ight

no

t be

appl

icab

le.

Help

s bui

ld a

com

mon

und

erst

andi

ng o

f prin

cipl

es a

nd

goal

s of r

esili

ence

pla

nnin

g

Can

crea

te a

war

enes

s abo

ut m

otiv

atin

g ch

ange

, en

gage

men

t and

act

ivity

mor

e ch

alle

ngin

g.

Inve

stm

ent a

nd m

aint

enan

ce in

CI t

hat r

educ

es ri

sk

Co

mm

uniti

es a

re b

usy

doin

g da

y to

day

act

iviti

es. W

hy

shou

ld th

ey b

othe

r?

Guid

e th

roug

h pr

oces

s.

Subj

ect E

valu

atio

n in

ratin

g es

sent

ials.

Defin

ing

Hyog

o Es

sent

ial s

ervi

ces i

s miss

ing.

Thi

s mus

t be

par

t of e

very

com

mun

ity’s

ach

ieve

men

t pla

nnin

g fo

r EM

pre

pare

dnes

s.

CS

SP

-201

3-C

D-1

120

48

UN

Get

ting

My

City

Rea

dy: E

nabl

ers a

nd C

onst

rain

ts

E

nabl

ers

Bot

h C

onst

rain

ts

Conf

lictin

g de

man

ds o

n pe

ople

’s ti

me.

Th

eme:

Ow

ners

hip

Shift

to in

trod

uce

rura

l per

spec

tive

Abse

nce

of fe

dera

l lea

ders

hip

in D

RR –

vi

sibili

ty/p

riorit

y

Lack

of i

ncen

tives

for u

ptak

e an

d us

e of

UN

ISDR

st

rate

gy a

t loc

al sc

ale

Com

para

ble

com

mun

ities

for v

alid

atio

n

Co

nfus

ing

in te

rmin

olog

y an

d la

ngua

ge

Obt

aini

ng b

uy in

A

budg

et fo

r disa

ster

redu

ctio

n

CS

SP

-201

3-C

D-1

120

49

H

AZU

S: E

nabl

ers a

nd C

onst

rain

ts

E

nabl

ers

Bot

h C

onst

rain

ts

Supp

orts

4 E

M p

illar

s

Avai

labi

lity

of d

ata

and

prot

ectio

n of

dat

a Su

ppor

ts c

omm

uniti

es o

f pra

ctic

e

Nee

d re

sour

ces t

o ex

erci

se p

lan.

i.e.

. . .

$$

Soci

al v

ulne

rabi

lity

asse

ssm

ent d

one

Co

st

Look

ing

at w

ho is

vul

nera

ble

and

why

Wor

ks to

con

vinc

e ke

y pe

rson

nel

Asse

t inv

ento

ry

Pu

blic

apa

thy

HAZU

S, N

RCan

rese

arch

pro

vide

d sp

ecifi

c us

able

re

sults

EQ v

ision

aw

aren

ess i

s hig

h. N

ot th

e sa

me

for m

ost

haza

rds (

see

Calg

ary’

s flo

od v

ision

.) Fo

cus o

n m

etho

ds n

ot to

ol

Pr

e-po

sitio

n su

pplie

s, tr

aini

ng ta

rget

s Di

ffere

nt a

ppro

ache

s for

diff

eren

t aud

ienc

es

Re

sear

ch h

as to

be

prac

tical

and

app

lied

Cons

eque

nce

visu

aliza

tion

– re

peat

able

Amou

nt o

f sci

entif

ic a

nd te

chni

cal d

ata

need

ed

Com

preh

ensiv

e m

ap la

yers

show

ing

build

ings

, ec

onom

ic lo

ss, p

eopl

e, li

felin

es

Ho

w d

id y

ou c

ome

up w

ith 3

:1 R

OI,

wha

t lit

give

s 4:1

Scen

ario

and

impa

ct a

naly

sis –

targ

ets f

or p

lann

ing

Re

sour

ces n

eed

for c

ompl

eted

det

aile

d in

form

atio

n fo

r sei

smic

haz

ard

anal

ysis

Use

est

imat

e of

loss

and

type

of l

oss t

o he

lp in

form

bu

sines

ses r

e: o

ppor

tuni

ties t

o ca

ptiv

ate

on d

isast

er

to im

prov

e pl

anni

ng fo

r pos

t-di

sast

er se

rvic

e

$ to

inpu

t dat

a to

ass

ess

dam

age

– lo

catio

n/ty

pe o

f bu

ildin

gs, d

emog

raph

ic sh

ifts b

y tim

e of

day

, etc

.

Pre-

iden

tifie

d ar

eas o

f con

cern

Man

agin

g ex

pect

atio

ns

Expl

icit

inte

ract

ive

desig

n an

d an

alys

is

Nee

d ex

pert

s / tr

aine

d an

alys

ts to

run

the

tool

s Br

oad

enga

gem

ent

Li

mite

d ra

nge

of h

azar

ds

Risk

Sce

nario

s can

info

rm p

olic

y

Sign

ifica

nt d

ata

requ

irem

ents

for h

azar

d sc

enar

ios

Cons

ider

s risk

tole

ranc

e le

vels.

Not

just

obj

ectiv

e as

sess

men

ts /

prio

ritie

s.

Lo

oks a

t one

spec

ific

scen

ario

onl

y. T

his r

equi

res a

ne

ed to

kee

p ey

es o

n th

e bi

g pi

ctur

e Co

ntin

ual e

ngag

emen

t with

stak

ehol

ders

to d

evel

op

less

ons l

earn

ed.

So

me

com

mun

ities

(at e

lect

ed le

vel)

don’

t wan

t to

shar

e in

form

atio

n ab

out w

orst

cas

e sc

enar

ios.

Deta

iled

Proc

ess

N

eed

know

ledg

e tr

ansla

tion

for e

ach

audi

ence

. Pub

lic

won

’t un

ders

tand

aca

dem

ic la

ngua

ge.

Robu

st m

etho

ds “

hard

” ev

iden

ce to

info

rm p

olic

y an

d pl

anni

ng

Bu

reau

crat

ic fo

ot d

esig

n.

Use

in sm

all o

r lar

ge c

omm

uniti

es. A

dapt

to fi

t.

Apat

hy re

spon

ders

will

look

afte

r us.

Good

Impl

emen

tatio

n Pr

oces

s (cl

ear)

See

risk

info

rmat

ion

as b

ad st

ory

– Do

n’t w

ant t

o sh

are

this

with

citi

zens

. M

anag

ing

expe

ctat

ions

Lack

of d

isast

er e

xper

ienc

e.

Focu

s on

met

hods

(sta

ndar

dize

d of

risk

ass

essm

ent –

no

t too

ls. D

on’t

tool

s hel

p ge

nera

te a

com

mon

Citiz

ens d

on’t

nece

ssar

ily w

ant t

o kn

ow e

.g. E

ffort

on

land

val

ues.

CS

SP

-201

3-C

D-1

120

50

HA

ZUS:

Ena

bler

s and

Con

stra

ints

Ena

bler

s B

oth

Con

stra

ints

la

ngua

ge a

nd a

sses

smen

t mat

rix.?

Ex

pect

atio

ns a

re u

nrea

listic

giv

en e

arth

quak

e of

Rap

id

rest

orat

ion

of se

rvic

es. S

ugge

sts e

xpec

tatio

ns

man

agem

ent c

ampa

ign

effo

rt.

Pu

blic

exp

ecta

tions

Rebu

ildin

g af

ter d

isast

er. P

lan

to “

build

bac

k be

tter

” op

port

unity

for m

itiga

tion.

Scen

ario

s can

tell

a co

mpe

lling

stor

y to

und

erpi

n aw

aren

ess a

nd p

lan

deve

lopm

ent.

Coor

dina

te p

lann

ing

for d

isast

ers w

ith o

ther

loca

l pl

anni

ng p

roce

ss.

Know

ledg

e of

who

/whe

n/w

here

hel

ps p

inpo

int a

nd

focu

s pla

ns.

Brin

g re

sear

ch to

the

prac

tical

real

m

Part

ners

hip

with

rese

arch

ins

titut

ions

– d

evel

op,

enha

nce

Chan

ge th

e st

ory

– ch

ange

the

fram

e of

refe

renc

e

Be

ope

n –

give

citi

zens

the

info

and

wha

t the

y w

ant t

o kn

ow

Out

reac

h to

pla

nner

s to

inco

rpor

ate

to O

CP

Pres

enta

tion

of re

alist

ic sc

enar

ios –

not

ove

rwhe

lmin

g

En

cour

agin

g pr

epar

edne

ss in

a m

eani

ngfu

l way

CS

SP

-201

3-C

D-1

120

51

L

and

Use

Pla

nnin

g G

uide

: Ena

bler

s and

Con

stra

ints

Ena

bler

s B

oth

Con

stra

ints

Prov

ides

a m

etho

d to

inte

grat

e ris

k re

duct

ion

in O

CPs

N

o bu

y-in

by

plan

ning

dep

artm

ents

. Sho

rt si

ghte

d bu

ild to

get

taxe

s – d

on’t

wan

t des

tiny.

Impa

ct o

f the

m

etro

gro

wth

pla

n –

1 m

illio

n m

ore

peop

le c

omin

g Br

ings

pla

nnin

g co

mm

unity

into

disa

ster

eng

agem

ent

conv

ersa

tion

Pl

anni

ng h

ighl

y po

litic

al e

cono

mic

to u

s effi

cien

cy.

May

be re

sista

nce

to ri

sk re

duct

ion

guid

e ap

plic

atio

ns

Part

of s

trat

egic

pla

nnin

g

Polit

ical

In

tegr

atio

n in

to a

ll of

a m

unic

ipal

ities

acr

oss

depa

rtm

ents

Does

n’t t

ake

all h

azar

ds –

focu

sed

on n

atio

nal

disa

ster

s.

Wor

k w

ith w

hat y

ou a

lread

y ha

ve in

pla

ce

To

ols d

esig

ned

for c

ities

in 1

st p

hase

. Ex

erci

ses f

or le

arni

ng ri

sk m

anag

emen

t

O

pen

sour

ce

Not

pre

scrip

tive,

allo

ws c

omm

uniti

es to

dev

elop

land

us

e pl

ans w

hich

con

sider

risk

redu

ctio

n.

Poin

ts to

mun

icip

al to

ols/

proc

esse

s whe

re ri

sk

miti

gatio

n ca

n be

inse

rted

Wor

ksho

p/ex

erci

ses e

nabl

e co

mm

unic

atio

n –

get

peop

le to

lear

n an

d w

ork

toge

ther

Shar

ing

info

acr

oss l

ocal

gov

ernm

ent s

ervi

ces

Leve

rage

exi

stin

g to

ols

Mai

ntai

ns re

leva

nce

Util

izes s

ocia

l and

tech

nica

l asp

ects

U

se sy

mbo

ls

Bu

ild o

n st

reng

ths a

nd w

ork

alre

ady

com

plet

ed

Deve

lop

com

mon

lang

uage

and

def

initi

ons

Thou

ght:

com

mun

ity w

ell-b

eing

pla

nnin

g as

sess

men

t ha

s man

y sim

ilarit

ies t

o m

any

of th

ese

tool

s.

Und

erst

andi

ng fr

amew

ork

of c

omm

uniti

es

Rela

tions

hip

build

ing

Tole

ranc

e fo

r los

ses i

n ea

ch a

rea/

cate

gory

CS

SP

-201

3-C

D-1

120

52

Rur

al D

isas

ter

Res

ilien

cy P

roje

ct: E

nabl

ers a

nd C

onst

rain

ts

E

nabl

ers

Bot

h C

onst

rain

ts

Web

bas

ed to

ols a

s wel

l M

easu

rem

ent p

roxi

es to

sim

plify

ana

lysis

Ap

plic

abili

ty to

a la

rger

juris

dict

ion?

Web

as s

uppo

rtin

g co

mpl

emen

t rat

her t

han

cent

ral

focu

s – e

.g. S

till n

eed

lots

of f

ace

to fa

ce

Mov

e be

yond

disa

ster

s int

o br

oade

r pla

nnin

g iss

ues

Is li

on’s

hea

d a

repr

esen

tativ

e ca

se st

udy?

E.g

. – v

ery

good

infr

astr

uctu

re c

ompa

red

to m

ost <

1000

co

mm

uniti

es. P

lus a

cces

s to

Ow

en S

ound

, hos

pita

l, et

c.

Dive

rse

deliv

ery

met

hods

Is

the

tool

a g

ood

size?

# e

xerc

ises,

#pr

esen

tatio

ns –

to

o m

uch

or ju

st ri

ght?

Li

mite

d re

sour

ces

Stro

ng so

cial

net

wor

ks in

rura

l com

mun

ity –

pos

sibly

co

mpa

red

to th

e la

rge

urba

n su

burb

an c

omm

uniti

es.

Impl

emen

tatio

n Ha

rd to

sust

ain

this

leve

l of f

acili

tatio

n (o

r get

it in

the

first

pla

ce)

Look

ed a

t soc

ial s

truc

ture

of c

omm

unity

– th

is is

ofte

n le

ft o

ut

Li

on’s

Hea

d no

aut

horit

y to

impl

emen

t

NW

T –

loca

l lea

ders

hip

Li

on’s

Hea

d re

lied

on p

eopl

e co

min

g to

the

even

ts,

rath

er th

an g

oing

to th

em- e

.g. G

o to

the

beac

h, th

e pu

b et

c. e

xist

ing

grou

ps a

t the

ir m

eetin

gs

Com

preh

ensiv

e gr

oup

or st

akeh

olde

rs w

ho w

ere

invo

lved

in w

hati,

nw

t – in

clud

ing

mar

gina

lized

po

pula

tions

Nee

d to

ado

pt fo

r div

erse

gro

ups –

abo

rigin

al

com

mun

ities

Bott

om u

p ap

proa

ch ra

ther

than

top

dow

n

NW

T –

mar

gina

lized

gro

ups i

n co

mm

unity

St

reng

ths b

ased

app

roac

h

Resis

tanc

e to

eng

agem

ent o

f mun

icip

aliti

es.

Com

mun

ity b

ased

und

erst

andi

ng /

defin

ition

of

resil

ienc

e –

how

rela

te to

it.

N

atio

nal s

uppo

rt p

rogr

am o

r pro

vinc

ial s

uppo

rt tr

igge

r RR

ana

lysis

follo

w u

p an

d re

sults

N

orth

ern

Bruc

e Pe

nins

ula

signe

d of

f on

mun

icip

al b

uy-

in

Ge

nera

l pub

lic a

nd c

omm

unity

apa

thy

Use

of s

ocia

l/net

wor

ks to

eng

age

com

mun

ity

Ex

tens

ive

list o

f T/H

too

focu

sed

on d

etai

l, pr

escr

iptiv

e

RDRP

pro

vide

s evi

denc

e fo

r com

mun

ity e

ngag

emen

t

Perh

aps a

bit

too

pres

crip

tive

need

to m

ake

it m

ore

flexi

ble

and

adap

tabl

e Gr

ound

up

Su

stai

nabi

lity

in te

rms o

f res

ourc

es e

ngag

emen

t

Pilo

t pha

se w

ith C

anad

ian

com

mun

ities

The

tend

ency

to re

ly o

n / b

elie

ve o

ther

s are

taki

ng

care

of e

nsur

ing

a co

mm

unity

is p

rote

cted

. Lac

k of

pe

rson

al o

wne

rshi

p to

war

ds b

uild

ing

resil

ienc

y.

Ease

of u

se o

f onl

ine

and

adap

tabl

e to

fit c

omm

unity

’s

part

icul

ar n

eeds

Lead

ersh

ip m

ust s

uppo

rt c

ham

pion

s oth

erw

ise

does

n’t m

ove

forw

ard.

Li

nkin

g re

silie

nce

to d

isast

er to

eco

nom

ic

deve

lopm

ent

Fl

exib

le B

otto

m u

p ap

proa

ch

Requ

ire d

isast

er re

silie

nce

asse

ssm

ents

as p

art o

f de

velo

pmen

t app

rova

ls

One

mor

e th

ing

to d

o –

need

cha

mpi

on

HRA,

HRI

, RRI

use

ful –

sim

ilar t

o

Ong

oing

fund

ing

to k

eep

up to

ol a

nd u

pgra

de

CS

SP

-201

3-C

D-1

120

53

Rur

al D

isas

ter

Res

ilien

cy P

roje

ct: E

nabl

ers a

nd C

onst

rain

ts

E

nabl

ers

Bot

h C

onst

rain

ts

Sens

e of

legi

timac

y an

d co

nsist

ency

of R

R sy

stem

th

roug

h w

eb to

ol

O

nlin

e ac

cess

incr

ease

acc

ess b

ut n

eed

awar

enes

s ne

ed b

road

band

Fl

exib

le to

ols

N

eed

for f

acili

tatio

n –

time

cons

trai

nts

Stro

ng c

ham

pion

s -

Ti

me

and

supp

ort

Addr

ess n

eed

to b

alan

ce –

com

preh

ensiv

e, ro

bust

, ea

sy to

use

.

Supp

ort a

nd ti

me

Good

com

preh

ensiv

e ( H

RA, H

RI, D

RI) l

ooks

acr

oss

soci

al a

nd p

hysic

al fa

ctor

s

Tim

e of

yea

r for

dat

a co

llect

ion

Paris

iden

tific

atio

n an

d re

silie

ncy

stra

tegy

Requ

ires c

omm

unity

cha

mpi

on

Writ

ten

in e

asily

und

erst

anda

ble

lang

uage

Lack

of c

omm

unity

eng

agem

ent

Stru

ctur

ed a

ppro

ach

that

is fl

exib

le

S/

O m

enta

lity

whe

n it

cam

e to

impl

emen

tatio

n –

how

to

ove

rcom

e ju

risdi

ctio

nal i

ssue

s Tr

uste

d co

mm

unity

mem

bers

Usa

bilit

y –

pape

r to

web

Re

silie

nce

– m

ore

than

bei

ng p

repa

red

for d

isast

er

even

ts

St

rong

er im

plem

enta

tion

phas

e

Dive

rse

com

mun

ity e

ngag

emen

t

Le

ader

ship

/ Ch

ampi

ons

Tabl

e To

p –

scen

ario

spec

ific:

incl

ude

scho

ols

com

mun

ity le

ader

s – m

ock

exer

cise

– c

omm

unity

in

volv

emen

t

Can

use

exist

ing

info

rmat

ion

to b

lend

with

tool

s HIR

A

Pr

e-ex

istin

g st

reng

ths c

an se

rve

as b

asis

Di

sast

ers w

indo

ws o

f opp

ortu

nity

Th

eme:

Pla

n an

d st

rate

gies

Pr

epar

ed m

essa

ging

N

eed

to c

ham

pion

pro

ject

Lo

okin

g fo

rwar

d to

upc

omin

g de

3vle

opm

ents

– w

hich

co

uld

impa

ct c

omm

uniti

es

Impl

emen

tatio

n pl

an a

nd st

rate

gies

To

ols p

rovi

de w

ere

flexi

ble

and

stru

ctur

ed

Them

e: B

uy-in

M

unic

ipal

buy

in –

reso

lutio

n pa

ssed

by

coun

cil

Exte

rnal

faci

litat

or o

r cha

mpi

on re

quire

d

Go

od c

ross

-sec

tion

of p

artic

ipan

ts

Good

und

erst

andi

ng/b

uy in

CS

SP

-201

3-C

D-1

120

54

C

omm

unity

-Wid

e H

azar

d R

isk

Man

agem

ent P

lann

ing:

Ena

bler

s and

Con

stra

ints

Ena

bler

s B

oth

Con

stra

ints

Ap

ply

to 4

EM

pill

ars

Rese

arch

sugg

est p

roxi

es th

at a

ppro

x. 7

5% so

lutio

n Em

erge

ncy

man

ager

s are

the

faci

litat

ors o

f re

latio

nshi

ps

Link

ing

fund

amen

tal o

bjec

tives

to p

rinci

ples

for

resp

onse

, miti

gatio

n, re

cove

ry, a

nd p

repa

redn

ess

Soft

war

e ne

eds t

o do

mor

e un

der t

he h

ood

to m

ake

it sim

pler

for e

nd u

sers

Co

mm

unity

par

tner

s inv

olve

d ne

eds t

o be

bro

ader

(m

ore

incl

usiv

e)

Pote

ntia

l rel

atio

nshi

ps id

entif

ied

But d

evel

oper

shou

ld st

ay in

volv

ed fo

r fac

ilita

te u

ser

unde

rsta

ndin

g an

d m

aint

ain

use

of th

e to

ol

Mul

tiple

stak

ehol

ders

Faci

litat

or

All t

ools

need

to d

o be

tter

at i

dent

ifyin

g va

lue/

valu

e pr

opos

ition

and

retu

rn o

n in

vest

men

t or c

ost b

enef

it an

alys

is N

eeds

exp

ert a

ssist

ance

Und

erst

and

why

do

I car

e, w

hy im

port

ant,

impl

icat

ions

to c

onte

xtua

lize

task

s and

mak

e re

leva

nt

Fu

ndam

enta

ls O

bjec

tive

Hier

arch

y (v

alue

bas

ed) v

alue

ju

dgm

ents

oft

en e

xclu

de m

argi

naliz

ed p

opul

atio

ns o

f so

ciet

y Ad

apta

ble

Is

it re

prod

ucib

le/r

epea

tabl

e Fl

exib

le

Is

it si

mpl

e an

d/or

inex

pens

ive

enou

gh?

For f

utur

e us

e: a

ll ha

zard

app

roac

h

Nee

d to

kno

w th

e co

mm

unity

to st

art w

ith –

wha

t are

th

e ch

alle

nges

St

rate

gies

and

inve

ntor

y of

reso

urce

s for

eng

agem

ent

of c

omm

uniti

es

Ti

mef

ram

e re

quire

d to

com

plet

e co

mpl

ex a

naly

sis

Them

e: O

utre

ach

Ch

alle

nge

to li

nk to

gui

de d

eliv

erab

les t

o an

one

rous

pr

oces

s to

get b

uy in

Out

reac

h an

d pr

esen

ce in

com

mun

ities

Lim

its c

onsid

erat

ion

of u

nkno

wn

or g

ener

ic ri

sks /

re

silie

nce

elem

ents

High

light

s of w

hat’s

impo

rtan

t to

com

mun

ity

mem

bers

Com

plex

ada

ptiv

e sy

stem

s are

by

defin

ition

un

know

able

is a

logi

c m

odel

abo

ut fi

t for

such

sy

stem

s.

Valid

atio

n fo

r com

mun

ity –

eng

agem

ent g

roup

s – b

uilt

by c

omm

unity

High

num

ber o

f ass

umpt

ions

Mod

el se

ems m

ore

appr

opria

te fo

r top

dow

n ap

proa

ch. M

ight

miss

out

on

broa

der c

omm

unity

st

akeh

olde

rs in

put.

Com

plex

app

licat

ion

Softw

are

limita

tions

Peop

le w

ant q

uick

ans

wer

s and

eas

y so

lutio

ns. N

eed

to m

anag

e ex

pect

atio

ns

Easy

inte

rfac

es n

eed

mor

e so

ftw

are

and

pre-

deve

lopm

ent.

CS

SP

-201

3-C

D-1

120

55

Com

mun

ity-W

ide

Haz

ard

Ris

k M

anag

emen

t Pla

nnin

g: E

nabl

ers a

nd C

onst

rain

ts

E

nabl

ers

Bot

h C

onst

rain

ts

Tool

s oft

en n

eed

faci

litat

ion

Cost

M

anag

e ex

pect

atio

ns

Nee

d fo

r pla

nnin

g re

late

d to

vul

nera

ble

popu

latio

n

Dive

rse

com

mun

ity c

onsid

erat

ions

influ

ence

on

arch

itect

ure

fram

ewor

k

La

ck o

f res

ourc

es

CS

SP

-201

3-C

D-1

120

56

App

endi

x E:

Dis

cuss

ion

Them

es

The

disc

ussi

on th

emes

em

erge

from

par

ticip

ants

’ rev

iew

of t

he e

nabl

ers a

nd c

onstr

aint

s ass

ocia

ted

with

pro

ject

and

com

mun

ity p

rese

ntat

ions

. Wor

king

in sm

all

grou

ps, p

artic

ipan

ts re

view

ed th

e en

tire

list o

f ena

bler

s and

con

stra

ints

and

look

ed fo

r cro

ss-c

uttin

g th

emes

ass

ocia

ted

with

ena

blin

g an

d co

nstra

inin

g co

mm

unity

pa

rtici

patio

n in

dis

aste

r res

ilien

ce p

lann

ing.

The

pro

ject

team

then

use

d an

indu

ctiv

e an

alys

is to

gro

up th

ese

them

es in

to a

serie

s of d

iscu

ssio

n to

pics

that

form

ed

the

basi

s of t

he D

ay T

wo

activ

ities

. The

list

s bel

ow a

re th

e in

divi

dual

them

es id

entif

ied

by th

e pa

rtici

pant

s, gr

oupe

d in

to D

iscu

ssio

n Th

emes

by

proj

ect t

eam

.

Them

e 1:

Lan

guag

e an

d Te

rmin

olog

y T

hem

e 2:

Eng

agem

ent a

nd B

uy-in

T

hem

e 3:

Res

ourc

es

The

me

4: H

olis

tic A

ppro

ach/

The

Big

Pi

ctur

e Cl

ear t

erm

inol

ogy

Buy

in

Cost

and

com

plex

ity

Asse

t Vul

nera

bilit

y Co

nsist

ency

Co

mm

unity

buy

in

Lack

of r

esou

rces

Cl

ear p

roje

ct sc

ope

and

outc

omes

Disc

ussio

n Co

mm

unity

eng

agem

ent

Lim

ited

reso

urce

s Co

mm

unity

nee

ds/c

onsid

erat

ions

– e

.g.

vuln

erab

le p

opul

atio

ns

Lack

of c

omm

on la

ngua

ge

Dive

rse

com

mun

ity e

ngag

emen

t Re

sour

ce L

imita

tions

Co

mpr

ehen

sive

Prac

tical

, use

r frie

ndly

flex

ible

en

gage

men

t Re

sour

ces

Defin

ing

resil

ienc

e Si

mpl

ifica

tion

thro

ugh

prox

y m

easu

res –

ad

dres

ses l

imite

d re

sour

ces

Expe

ctat

ions

Re

sour

ces –

cos

t, tim

e,$$

, exp

ertis

e Di

fficu

lt to

eng

age

plan

ners

Term

inol

ogy

Expe

ctat

ions

Man

agem

ent

Reso

urce

s (en

able

r/co

nstr

aint

) Dr

awin

g on

exi

stin

g ne

twor

ks

Visu

al to

ols

Expe

ctat

ions

Man

agem

ent –

upf

ront

ab

out t

ool c

an /

can’

t do

Tim

e an

d Su

ppor

t Dr

awin

g on

exi

ting

plan

s

Im

port

ance

of i

nter

nal a

nd e

xter

nal

stak

ehol

der e

ngag

emen

t us

e of

SM

E’s

addr

ess a

ll po

pula

tion

(vul

nera

bilit

y)

Ex

istin

g sy

stem

s

La

ck o

f com

mun

ity b

uy in

Frag

men

ts /

EM su

stai

nabi

lity

/ clim

ate

chan

ge

adap

tatio

n

Lo

okin

g fo

r NM

-haz

ard

goal

s – g

o to

the

com

mun

ity; d

on’t

expe

ct th

em to

com

e to

us.

Fin

d co

mm

on in

tere

st

Fu

ture

gro

wth

stra

tegy

O

pen

Out

reac

h

Impa

cts

O

utre

ach

(ope

n)

M

issin

g ne

twor

k m

appi

ng

Pa

rtne

rshi

ps

M

ulti

– Ju

risdi

ctio

nal,

Cons

isten

t, En

able

s in

tero

pera

bilit

y, M

ulti-

disc

iplin

ary

Pu

blic

buy

in

Pa

iring

risk

resil

ienc

e as

sess

men

t with

tr

eatm

ent

Pu

blic

exp

ecta

tions

Plan

s and

stra

tegi

es

Re

latio

nshi

p bu

ildin

g a

nd p

artn

ersh

ips

Re

spon

se o

rient

ed

Su

stai

nabi

lity

(res

ourc

e an

d en

gage

men

t)

Sc

ope

CS

SP

-201

3-C

D-1

120

57

Them

e 1:

Lan

guag

e an

d Te

rmin

olog

y T

hem

e 2:

Eng

agem

ent a

nd B

uy-in

T

hem

e 3:

Res

ourc

es

The

me

4: H

olis

tic A

ppro

ach/

The

Big

Pi

ctur

e

W

hat’s

in it

for m

e? W

hy is

this

my

prob

lem

– v

isual

, due

dili

genc

e –

not

wan

ting

to k

now

Su

ppor

ts 4

EM

pill

ars

Th

eme

5: C

ham

pion

s and

Sub

ject

M

atte

r Exp

erts

Th

eme

6: C

omm

on U

nder

stan

ding

Th

eme

7: C

omm

unity

Con

text

Co

unts

Th

eme

8: S

usta

inab

ility

and

Pol

itica

l W

ill

Enga

gem

ent a

nd c

ham

pion

s Ac

cess

ing

the

right

dat

a Ac

cess

ing

the

right

dat

a Ch

alle

nges

with

impl

emen

tatio

n Ex

pert

requ

ired

Clea

r pro

ject

scop

e an

d ou

tcom

es

Com

mun

ity e

ngag

emen

t Co

st a

nd c

ompl

exity

Faci

litat

ion

– Pe

rson

or T

ool

Defin

ing

resil

ienc

e Co

mm

unity

nee

ds/c

onsid

erat

ions

– e

.g.

vuln

erab

le p

opul

atio

ns

Ope

n O

utre

ach

Impo

rtan

ce o

f int

erna

l and

ext

erna

l st

akeh

olde

r eng

agem

ent

use

of S

ME’

s ad

dres

s all

popu

latio

n (v

ulne

rabi

lity)

Do

n’t’

expe

ct th

em to

com

e to

use

Do

n’t’

expe

ct th

em to

com

e to

use

O

utre

ach

(ope

n)

Lead

ersh

ip /

Cham

pion

Ev

alua

tion

Find

com

mon

inte

rest

s O

wne

rshi

p

Relia

nce

on e

xter

nal e

xper

ts

Eval

uatio

n of

tool

, Usa

bilit

y, T

echn

ical

fo

unda

tion

Impo

rtan

ce o

f int

erna

l and

ext

erna

l st

akeh

olde

r eng

agem

ent

use

of S

ME’

s ad

dres

s all

popu

latio

n (v

ulne

rabi

lity)

Po

litic

al w

ill

Reso

urce

s – c

ost,

time,

$$, e

xper

tise

Expe

ctat

ions

Man

agem

ent

Loca

l rel

evan

t Tra

nsfe

r Kno

wle

dge,

bo

ttom

up,

con

text

spec

ific

Reso

urce

Lim

itatio

ns

SME

Expe

ctat

ions

Man

agem

ent –

upf

ront

ab

out t

ool c

an /

can’

t do

Look

ing

for N

M-h

azar

d go

als –

go

to th

e co

mm

unity

; don

’t ex

pect

them

to c

ome

to u

s. F

ind

com

mon

inte

rest

Su

stai

nabi

lity

Spec

ific

proc

ess –

pro

vide

s gui

danc

e Im

pact

s N

eeds

and

Com

mun

ity

Sust

aina

bilit

y (r

esou

rce

and

enga

gem

ent)

Influ

ence

of T

ool

Rela

tions

hip

build

ing

and

par

tner

ship

s

Lo

cal r

elev

ant T

rans

fer K

now

ledg

e,

bott

om u

p, c

onte

xt sp

ecifi

c Sp

ecifi

c pr

oces

s – p

rovi

des g

uida

nce

M

ulti

– Ju

risdi

ctio

nal,

Cons

isten

t, En

able

s int

erop

erab

ility

, Mul

ti-di

scip

linar

y

O

wne

rshi

p

Publ

ic e

xpec

tatio

ns

Re

latio

nshi

p bu

ildin

g a

nd p

artn

ersh

ips

Sa

tisfie

d w

ith n

ot b

eing

per

fect

Scop

e

W

hat’s

in it

for m

e? W

hy is

this

my

prob

lem

– v

isual

, due

dili

genc

e –

not

wan

ting

to k

now

CS

SP

-201

3-C

D-1

120

58

App

endi

x F:

Impl

icat

ions

and

Str

ateg

ies

Parti

cipa

nts w

orke

d in

smal

l gro

ups t

o re

view

the

disc

ussi

on th

emes

gen

erat

ed in

Day

One

. Gro

ups w

ere

aske

d to

iden

tify

key

idea

s ass

ocia

ted

with

eac

h th

eme,

th

en d

iscu

ss th

e im

plic

atio

ns o

f the

them

e in

rela

tions

hip

to c

omm

unity

par

ticip

atio

n in

dis

aste

r res

ilien

ce p

lann

ing,

and

then

dev

elop

stra

tegi

es to

enc

oura

ge

incr

ease

d up

take

by

com

mun

ities

.

Dis

cuss

ion

The

me

1: L

angu

age

and

Ter

min

olog

y

Key

Idea

s Im

plic

atio

ns

Stra

tegi

es

How

do

you

keep

with

the

lang

uage

evo

lutio

n Le

ad to

misu

nder

stan

ding

. Im

plem

ent “

wro

ng”

agre

emen

t. Di

alec

t dic

tiona

ry –

don

’t tr

y to

cha

nge

use

diffe

rent

sect

ors

Disc

ussio

ns a

nd p

roce

ss im

port

ant b

ut a

fina

l sin

gle

defin

ition

ver

y w

ell c

ould

be

impo

ssib

le

Build

Dic

tiona

ry a

nd n

ot p

ut in

pra

ctic

e –

just

in

telle

ctua

l exe

rcise

. In

corp

orat

e in

to th

e re

latio

nshi

p bu

ildin

g

Exam

ine

lang

uage

– g

ende

r neu

tral

Cu

ltura

l im

bedd

ed d

iffer

ence

. Sh

ow o

utco

mes

to e

xpla

in m

eani

ng

Prin

cipl

es a

nd v

alue

s ref

lect

lang

uage

. Em

bed

the

prin

cipl

es

with

in th

e de

finiti

on. H

iera

rchy

and

evo

lutio

n in

term

s of

fund

amen

tal v

alue

s.

Spen

d to

o m

uch

time/

emph

asis

tryi

ng to

def

ine

term

s,

rath

er th

an so

lve

prob

lem

s.

Acce

pt th

at w

e w

on’t

all a

gree

– g

et o

ver i

t and

mov

e on

.

“Rol

e O

rder

Mod

el”.

Rep

eat b

ack

wha

t you

hea

rd.

Opp

ortu

nity

to c

orre

ct.

Oft

en e

duca

tiona

l com

pone

nt –

e.g

... N

ot e

very

one

know

s wha

t “CI

?? Is

/mea

ns

Bein

g ab

le to

art

icul

ate

mea

ning

(sim

ple

lang

uage

) and

ad

apt a

mea

ning

for “

this”

pur

pose

Two

way

com

mun

icat

ion.

Sa

me

wor

ds m

ean

diffe

rent

thin

gs to

diff

eren

t peo

ple.

E.

g. “

Inte

llige

nce”

(in

term

s of i

nfor

mat

ion)

Enco

urag

e th

e pr

oces

s of n

egot

iatio

n m

eani

ng w

ithin

an

oper

atio

nal c

onte

xt /

grou

p, ra

ther

than

tryi

ng to

st

anda

rdize

Aw

aren

ess –

lang

uage

and

term

inol

ogy

may

be

diffe

rent

, but

we

can

wor

k w

ith th

at if

we

are

awar

e of

it.

Ac

know

ledg

e cu

ltura

l con

text

Focu

s on

conc

ept a

s com

pare

d to

spec

ific

term

s, p

lay

dow

n th

e te

rm

Nee

d an

inte

rpre

ter t

o tr

ansla

te –

und

erst

and

the

lang

uage

.

U

se p

ictu

re w

ords

for e

ngag

emen

t and

buy

in

Agre

e on

nor

ms u

p fr

ont

Agre

e to

disa

gree

Co

nsen

sus b

ased

dec

ision

mak

ing

Use

exa

mpl

es fr

om re

al e

vent

s

Keep

the

conv

ersa

tion

goin

g –

enga

ge a

nd e

ncou

rage

dy

nam

ic c

onve

rsat

ion

to b

uild

aw

aren

ess i

nste

ad o

f st

anda

rd d

efin

ition

s.

Use

of i

nter

disc

iplin

ary

lang

uage

CS

SP

-201

3-C

D-1

120

59

D

iscu

ssio

n T

hem

e 2:

Com

mon

Und

erst

andi

ng

K

ey Id

eas

Impl

icat

ions

St

rate

gies

De

pend

s on

defin

ing

term

s (th

eme

1) a

nd c

omm

unity

co

ntex

t (th

eme

7)

If do

ne ri

ght,

you

get a

pos

itive

out

com

e Ge

t all

stak

ehol

ders

toge

ther

Und

erst

andi

ng o

f nee

ds

Effic

ient

use

of v

alua

ble

reso

urce

s Cr

eate

visi

on a

nd m

issio

n –

refin

e it

Build

rela

tions

hips

/ ne

twor

ks

Prod

uct o

r out

com

es m

ore

usef

ul (a

pplic

able

) Cl

ear a

bout

lim

itatio

ns, m

anag

e ex

pect

atio

ns

Cost

Ben

efit

– w

hat y

ou g

et o

ut o

f it w

hat y

ou p

ut in

. Ch

asin

g co

mm

on u

nder

stan

ding

is a

pot

entia

l red

he

rrin

g fo

r pro

gres

s or s

olvi

ng p

robl

ems.

Kee

p fo

cuse

d on

miss

ion.

O

pen

dial

ogue

– e

very

one

gets

a v

oice

Stre

ngth

s bas

ed a

ppro

ach

– co

mm

uniti

es th

ink

this

will

poi

nt o

ut d

efic

ienc

ies i

nste

ad o

f str

engt

hs.

Keep

con

vers

atio

n go

ing

Dyna

mic

– g

oes b

ack

and

fort

h

Chan

ge H

RVA

to H

RRCA

(res

ilien

ce) (

capa

city

) sto

p ta

lkin

g ab

out v

ulne

rabi

litie

s. K

eep

thin

king

pos

itive

M

ovin

g fr

om p

ositi

ons t

o in

tere

sts

Guid

ing

prin

cipl

es

Who

car

es –

see

com

mon

lang

uage

and

term

inol

ogy

Heise

nber

g U

ncer

tain

ty P

rinci

ple

Give

exa

mpl

es o

f ant

icip

ated

out

com

es, m

easu

res –

pa

int t

he p

ictu

re –

con

text

spec

ific

Budg

et ti

me

to d

evel

op

Look

for a

reas

whe

re c

omm

on u

nder

stan

ding

exi

sts –

bu

ild o

n th

at

Reco

gnize

that

a c

omm

on u

nder

stan

ding

onl

y ex

ists i

n a

fleet

ing

spec

ific

cont

ext.

No

univ

ersa

lly c

omm

on

unde

rsta

ndin

g

N

eeds

a fi

nal o

utco

mes

doc

umen

t – m

ove

spec

ific

than

miss

ion,

etc

. – c

omes

afte

r con

sulta

tion

D

iscu

ssio

n T

hem

e 3:

Big

Pic

ture

/ H

olis

tic T

hink

ing

K

ey Id

eas

Impl

icat

ions

St

rate

gies

Fact

s, U

nbia

sed,

Tra

nspa

rent

, Fa

ctua

lly u

nbia

sed

Build

rela

tions

hips

– la

tera

lly, v

ertic

ally

, hor

izont

al –

w

ithin

org

aniza

tions

, age

ncie

s, w

ith o

utsid

e or

gani

zatio

ns a

genc

ies

Chan

ge w

ord

of sy

stem

s – c

onsid

er w

ords

hol

istic

, in

tegr

ated

thin

king

M

anag

e th

e m

essa

ge /

med

ia c

ontr

ol

Deve

lop

com

mon

fram

ewor

ks, a

ppro

ache

s, o

r at l

east

sh

are

and

tran

slate

acr

oss v

ario

us w

ays o

f un

ders

tand

ing

This

is a

big

pie

– w

hich

pie

ce a

re w

e w

orki

ng o

n to

day?

Pi

ctur

es se

nds t

he m

essa

ge

Use

com

mon

indi

cato

rs –

e.g

. TBL

with

met

rics

CS

SP

-201

3-C

D-1

120

60

Dis

cuss

ion

The

me

3: B

ig P

ictu

re /

Hol

istic

Thi

nkin

g

Key

Idea

s Im

plic

atio

ns

Stra

tegi

es

Ever

yone

has

a p

art t

o pl

ay in

resil

ienc

e fr

om

indi

vidu

al to

all

leve

ls of

gov

ernm

ent,

priv

ate,

sect

or,

NGS

.etc

.

Man

agin

g to

hol

d th

e bi

g pi

ctur

e w

hile

focu

sing

on a

sm

alle

r par

t and

bei

ng a

ble

to c

omm

unic

ate

to a

ll pa

rtne

rs

Adop

t Van

couv

er’s

app

roac

h –

cent

raliz

ed

sust

aina

bilit

y pl

anni

ng in

Citi

es m

anag

ers’

offi

ce, c

ity

mun

icip

ality

wid

e st

rate

gies

like

Van

couv

er 2

020.

Ove

rarc

hing

idea

is h

ealth

ier,

mor

e su

stai

nabl

e, a

nd

resil

ient

; com

mun

ities

– Im

plic

atio

n –

disa

ster

re

silie

nce

need

s to

be c

onne

cted

to o

ther

com

mun

ity

goal

s – in

tegr

ated

, inc

lusiv

e. M

ake

it re

leva

nt

Star

t with

big

pic

ture

but

focu

s on

smal

l pic

ture

s for

ac

tion

– he

lps d

efin

e sm

all s

cale

act

ions

and

met

rics

Take

tim

e to

find

the

right

pro

xies

that

repr

esen

t the

bi

g pi

ctur

e (t

hink

act

uary

)

Focu

s on

a na

tiona

l rol

e-ou

t tha

t pre

serv

es c

onte

nt

depe

nden

ce

Inte

grat

e an

d co

nnec

t to

exist

ing

com

mun

ity g

oals

Iden

tify

the

key

influ

entia

l ele

men

ts o

f the

big

pic

ture

U

nder

stan

d its

mea

sure

s

De

fine

the

pict

ure

for t

he c

onte

xt

CS

SP

-201

3-C

D-1

120

61

Dis

cuss

ion

The

me

4: C

omm

unity

Con

text

Cou

nts

K

ey Id

eas

Impl

icat

ions

St

rate

gies

Ove

rlap

with

out

com

es a

nd te

rmin

olog

y W

ithou

t con

text

com

mun

ity w

on’t

buy

in.

Enga

gem

ent m

etho

ds (i

.e. h

ow y

ou e

ngag

e is

impo

rtan

t). R

ound

tabl

e ra

ther

than

adv

ersa

rial p

ublic

m

eetin

gs

Legi

slatio

n un

ique

to e

ach

com

mun

ity

With

out c

onte

xt m

ay fo

cus o

n w

rong

prio

ritie

s.

Use

com

mun

ity e

xam

ples

goo

d ba

d an

d ug

ly

Gove

rnan

ce is

uni

que

Not

tool

is to

tally

gen

eral

izabl

e –

depe

nds o

n co

ntex

t Id

entif

ying

eng

agin

g th

e rig

ht p

artic

ipan

ts –

may

be

iden

tifie

d by

vul

nera

bilit

y as

sess

men

ts –

who

is

vuln

erab

le is

how

to e

ngag

e th

ese

peop

le?

Phys

ical

/ En

viro

nmen

tal

Cont

ext l

eads

to b

ette

r app

licab

ility

and

out

com

es

Com

mun

ity c

ham

pion

hel

ps w

ith e

ngag

emen

t Pe

ople

disc

onne

cted

from

wha

t the

y do

with

who

th

ey a

re –

they

(DM

staf

f) ar

e m

embe

rs o

f the

co

mm

unity

as w

ell

Legi

slativ

ely

uniq

ue

Com

mun

ity C

ham

pion

– n

eeds

goo

d su

ppor

ted

cont

ext t

o ge

t buy

in fo

r goo

d ou

tcom

es

Why

wou

ld w

e do

this?

Ph

ysic

al e

nviro

nmen

t Dy

nam

ic su

rvey

s to

colle

ct a

nd v

alid

ate

cont

ext

Go

vern

ance

Va

lue

base

d ap

proa

ches

Ca

n’t p

arac

hute

in –

or c

an p

arac

hute

in b

ut m

ust

iden

tify

be se

nsiti

ve to

con

text

Hist

ory

base

d –

(how

can

we

also

app

reci

ate

the

futu

re?

Its c

onte

xt a

lso a

bout

whe

re p

eopl

e ar

e pl

anni

ng to

go?

)

W

ithou

t cle

ar c

onte

xt (i

.e. g

over

nmen

t, ha

zard

s,

hist

ory,

geo

grap

hy c

ultu

re e

tc.)

ther

e is

no re

leva

nce

Com

mun

ity b

uilt

thro

ugh

faci

litat

ion.

W

ithou

t rel

evan

ce th

ere

is no

buy

-in

Broa

d co

llabo

rativ

e en

gage

men

t (tw

o w

ay k

now

ledg

e ex

chan

ge)

Incl

usiv

e of

per

spec

tives

Out

reac

h to

vul

nera

ble

grou

ps to

list

en /

hear

pe

rspe

ctiv

es

Iden

tify

and

supp

ort c

omm

unity

cha

mpi

on to

hel

p di

scov

er c

onte

xt.

CS

SP

-201

3-C

D-1

120

62

Dis

cuss

ion

The

me

5: E

ngag

emen

t and

Buy

In

K

ey Id

eas

Impl

icat

ions

St

rate

gies

In

crea

singl

y cr

owde

d / c

ompe

titiv

e m

arke

t pla

ce fo

r pe

ople

’s a

tten

tion

time

and

enga

gem

ent.

Buy-

in –

Incr

ease

d us

e in

tool

s cre

atin

g m

ore

visib

ility

RR

U/E

MBC

– G

ettin

g Re

ady

Cam

paig

n m

eetin

g of

pas

t re

cipi

ents

M

easu

rabl

e ou

tcom

es o

f not

dev

elop

ing

sust

aina

ble

resil

ienc

e as

a p

riorit

y Re

duce

d bu

y-in

dec

reas

es p

rosp

ect o

f sus

tain

abili

ty

RRU

/EM

BC -

Pos

t eng

agem

ent r

evie

w a

nd sh

arin

g se

ssio

n of

find

ings

, res

ults

etc

. 36

0deg

ree

acco

unta

bilit

y –

GOU

T R

at

e Pa

yer (

Indu

stry

/ Bu

sines

s / C

itize

n gr

oups

) Fr

ame

wha

t is a

lread

y be

ing

done

by

com

mun

ity in

co

ntex

t of t

he re

silie

nce

prog

ram

Cl

ear a

nd c

onci

se w

ith th

e m

essa

ge (g

oal o

bjec

tive,

pl

an la

ngua

ge)

Ac

coun

tabi

lity

Educ

ate

EMBC

staf

f. Re

gion

al m

anag

ers s

o th

ey c

an

prom

ote

thro

ugho

ut B

C @

regi

onal

mee

tings

Co

mpl

icat

es –

man

date

s, c

apab

ility

, cap

acity

, tim

e,

diffe

rs a

cros

s par

tner

s Pr

ovid

e / c

reat

e co

oper

ativ

e /(

carr

ot) a

nd c

oerc

ive

(fina

ncia

l stic

ks) i

ncen

tives

for r

esili

ency

bui

ldin

g

Ta

kes t

ime

and

reso

urce

s Li

nk re

silie

nce

build

ing

to e

xist

ing

proc

ess t

hat a

lread

y en

joy

buy

in

En

gage

men

t inc

reas

e re

leva

nce,

upt

ake

Broa

den

resil

ienc

y bu

ildin

g to

be

as in

clus

ive

as

poss

ible

to m

ake

it m

eani

ngfu

l for

man

y as

pos

sible

Re

silie

nce

– as

sum

ptio

ns e

mbe

ddin

g ne

ed to

be

unpa

cked

, exa

min

ed, a

nd in

som

e ca

ses c

halle

nged

. (g

row

ing

criti

ques

of c

once

pt)

Dem

onst

rate

the

valu

e –

info

rmin

g co

mm

unity

of

valu

e of

pro

cess

M

arke

ting

soci

al a

nd o

ther

– so

cial

mar

ketin

g an

d m

arke

t res

earc

h Th

ree

C’s c

olla

bora

tion,

coo

rdin

atio

n an

d co

mm

unic

atio

n (fa

cilit

atio

n) a

nd b

ring

snac

ks

Ta

ke a

dvan

tage

of t

imin

g –

i.e. w

orld

eve

nts

Publ

ic e

duca

tion

and

awar

enes

s cam

paig

ns (o

ngoi

ng)

Fina

ncia

l inc

entiv

es /

mot

ivat

ion

Sim

ple

and

simpl

y un

ders

tood

ach

ieva

ble

goal

s.

Out

put –

bro

chur

e ho

w to

sign

up

who

is in

alre

ady

Publ

ic e

duca

tion

and

awar

enes

s cam

paig

ns (o

ngoi

ng)

Bott

om u

p ap

proa

ch –

bui

ld o

n st

reng

ths

unde

rsta

ndin

gs a

nd d

efin

ing

resil

ienc

e in

a re

leva

nt

cont

extu

al w

ay

Be re

ady

to e

ngag

e du

ring

win

dow

s of o

ppor

tuni

ty

(wel

l pub

licize

d di

sast

er, e

tc..)

Be c

ompl

etel

y op

en w

ith in

form

atio

n, d

ata,

kn

owle

dge,

inte

nt, r

ewar

ds, b

enef

icia

ries

Inte

grat

e in

itiat

ives

into

exi

stin

g en

gage

men

ts –

Ge

nera

lly th

roug

h co

mm

unity

gro

ups

CS

SP

-201

3-C

D-1

120

63

D

iscu

ssio

n T

hem

e 6:

Cha

mpi

ons a

nd E

xper

ts

K

ey Id

eas

Impl

icat

ions

St

rate

gies

Ex

pert

s doe

s not

just

mea

n SM

E bu

t eve

ryon

e’s

know

ledg

e, in

put,

back

yard

/ hist

oric

al

Rela

tions

hips

bui

ldin

g is

esse

ntia

l, ta

kes t

ie

Crea

ting

with

in E

M jo

b de

scrip

tions

with

spac

e fo

r bu

ildin

g re

latio

nshi

ps –

end

orse

it, t

ime,

pro

vide

re

sour

ces,

sust

aine

d co

mm

itmen

t Re

sear

ch a

nd fu

ndin

g of

pro

ject

s / p

ilots

nee

ds to

co

nsid

er ti

me

to b

uild

rela

tions

hips

– a

nd h

ow d

o re

latio

nshi

ps li

ve b

eyon

d th

e pr

ojec

t

Mul

tiple

sect

ors /

are

as –

EM

nee

ds to

be

imbe

dded

in

othe

r are

a –

plan

ning

mai

nstr

eam

ing

heal

th

Succ

essio

n pl

anni

ng –

spec

ific

incl

ude

rela

tions

hip,

pa

ss o

n kn

owle

dge

good

will

Cham

pion

has

pow

er to

dec

ide

and

impl

emen

t or

stro

ngly

influ

ence

thos

e Ho

w d

o yo

u fin

d / i

dent

ify th

em

Ow

ners

hip

Trus

ted

peop

le

How

do

you

enga

ge th

em

Defin

e ro

les /

resp

onsib

ilitie

s of w

hat w

e ne

ed /

wan

t fr

om c

ham

pion

/ ex

pert

He

lps i

f cha

mpi

on is

kno

wle

dgea

ble

in p

roje

ct a

rea

Know

ledg

e ex

chan

ge /

info

rmat

ion

List

en b

efor

e an

swer

Part

ners

hips

bui

ldin

gs

Tim

e to

bui

ld c

onte

xt

Do

they

hav

e yo

ur a

gend

a Ch

ampi

on n

eeds

to h

ave

trus

t of s

take

hold

ers a

nd

soci

al c

apita

l

Ha

ve to

hav

e th

em c

ham

pion

s, T

rust

ed p

eopl

e Cu

ltiva

te b

oth

and

with

diff

eren

tiate

peo

ple

as e

ach

and

mai

ntai

n

Nee

d to

find

the

com

mon

goa

l Bu

ild tr

ust b

etw

een

you

and

cham

pion

and

exp

ert

CS

SP

-201

3-C

D-1

120

64

D

iscu

ssio

n T

hem

e 7:

Res

ourc

es, T

ime,

and

Mon

ey

K

ey Id

eas

Impl

icat

ions

St

rate

gies

Com

petin

g pr

iorit

ies l

imits

eng

agem

ent

Fina

ncia

l pla

nnin

g bu

ilds r

esili

ency

(mul

ti-le

vel)

Li

mit

buy-

in

Crea

ting

rele

vanc

y by

usin

g lo

cal t

ools

(tie

s int

o bu

y-in

). Id

entif

y lo

cal r

esili

ence

cha

mpi

on

EM

and

resil

ienc

e pl

ans a

nd re

sour

ces n

eed

to b

e in

clud

ed in

fore

cast

ing,

bud

getin

g an

d st

rate

gic

plan

ning

(dur

ing

mun

icip

al p

lann

ing)

Volu

ntee

r rec

ruitm

ent,

trai

ning

and

rete

ntio

n –

assig

n re

spon

sibili

ties.

N

eed

to b

e ab

le to

art

icul

ate

cost

s of n

ot d

oing

re

silie

nce

plan

Bo

und

the

prob

lem

/ fo

cus

Lo

ng te

rm c

ultu

re o

f res

ilien

ce v

ersu

s sho

rt te

rm

outc

omes

Li

ne it

em –

bud

get –

sust

aine

d fu

ndin

g an

d pr

oces

s

Link

exi

stin

g pr

ojec

ts a

nd a

ctiv

ities

to re

silie

nce

plan

ning

act

iviti

es/ p

roje

cts t

o m

axim

ize re

sour

ces

time

and

mon

ey

Educ

ate

/ inf

orm

oth

ers a

reas

/sec

tors

/gra

ntin

g bo

dies

re

: how

dist

. Res

ilien

ce is

rele

vant

to th

em (i

e he

alth

co

mm

unity

dev

elop

men

t edu

catio

n/bu

sines

s)

Proc

ess r

athe

r tha

n pr

ojec

t men

talit

y

De

velo

p go

od b

usin

ess c

ase

with

ver

y cl

ear o

utco

mes

BL

As, e

tc) o

t jus

t $$

TBL

thin

king

.

Co

uld

be q

uant

ified

in te

rms o

f $ if

requ

ired

– un

ders

tand

true

eco

nom

ic im

pact

s of d

isast

ers

Nee

ds c

ontin

uity

pla

ns fo

r pro

ject

s rel

ated

to li

nkin

g to

exi

stin

g re

sour

ces,

stru

ctur

es e

tc w

here

pos

sible

Co

st b

enef

it an

alys

is (ie

retu

rn o

n in

vest

men

t)

CS

SP

-201

3-C

D-1

120

65

Dis

cuss

ion

The

me

8: S

usta

inab

ility

and

Pol

itica

l Will

Key

Idea

s Im

plic

atio

ns

Stra

tegi

es

Are

ther

e al

tern

ativ

e w

ays t

o bu

ildin

g po

litic

al w

ill /

sust

aina

bilit

y (ie

cro

wd

sour

cing

/ soc

ial f

inan

cing

etc

) Po

litic

al w

ill h

elps

incr

ease

allo

catio

n of

reso

urce

s for

in

itial

impl

emen

tatio

n an

d lo

ng te

rm su

stai

nabi

lity

Prov

ide

supp

ortin

g ev

iden

ce i

n te

rms t

hat a

re

com

patib

le /

valu

ed b

y po

litic

al c

lass

Do

thes

e pr

oces

s nee

d to

be

inde

pend

ently

su

stai

nabl

e?

Self-

gove

rnin

g –

redu

cing

the

need

for e

xper

tise

Link

resil

ienc

e bu

ildin

g to

exi

stin

g / s

usta

inab

le

proc

ess (

e.g.

Com

mun

ity p

lann

ing)

Polit

ical

will

tied

to fi

scal

ben

efits

Ac

coun

tabi

lity

to d

evel

op re

silie

nce

as g

over

nmen

t pr

iorit

y GO

UT

repu

tatio

n m

anag

emen

t res

pons

ible

to

mot

ivat

e / $

$ W

ill n

ever

get

100

% su

ppor

t but

mus

t stil

l mov

e fo

rwar

d Kn

owle

dge

info

rmat

ion

ties t

o ris

k ..

risk

aver

sion

/ fe

ar su

gges

t not

kno

win

g In

form

com

mun

ity o

n co

ncep

ts o

f res

ilien

ce a

nd h

ow

it re

late

s to

sust

aina

bilit

y

Show

dec

ision

mak

ers a

ctua

l eve

nts

No

polit

ical

will

to b

e tr

ansp

aren

t abo

ut lo

cal

risks

/haz

ards

Ed

ucat

ing

publ

ic /

coun

cil –

sust

aina

ble

resil

ienc

e –

need

to in

crea

se tr

ansp

aren

cy in

pub

lic

Spea

k tr

uth

to p

ower

eve

nts (

scre

am in

to w

ind)

Po

litic

al w

ill ti

ed to

fisc

al b

enef

its

Resil

ienc

e pe

rfor

man

ce in

dica

tors

in e

very

min

ister

ial

port

folio

N

o ac

tions

– li

fe sa

fety

U

pper

tier

pub

lic g

over

nmen

t end

orse

men

t of D

R –

its

impo

rtan

ce, i

ts re

leva

nce

> pr

iorit

izing

Co

st to

not

bei

ng p

roac

tive

Fund

ing

to su

stai

n be

yond

pro

ject

focu

s…cr

eatin

g op

tions

for s

usta

ined

/ m

aint

aine

d “h

ome”

for t

ools,

su

ppor

t for

com

mun

ities

to im

plem

ent,

mai

ntai

n an

d su

stai

n re

silie

nce

plan

ning

$$

for m

onito

ring

and

eval

uatio

n bu

ilt in

to a

ll gr

antin

g

De

dica

ted

reso

urce

s to

supp

ort s

usta

inab

le in

itiat

ives

Ta

rget

s / g

oals

ensh

rined

in p

olic

y

Sh

owca

se e

xam

ples

of c

omm

unity

resil

ienc

y

M

inist

eria

l por

tfolio

resp

onsib

le

All l

evel

s gov

ernm

ent r

esili

ence

ens

hrin

ed in

pol

icy

Iden

tify

cost

s of b

eing

pro

activ

e

CS

SP

-201

3-C

D-1

120

66

Dis

cuss

ion

The

me

9: B

its a

nd P

iece

s (G

aps a

nd T

hing

s not

Dis

cuss

ed E

lsew

here

)

Key

Idea

s G

aps

Stra

tegi

es

Nat

iona

l pol

icie

s mak

ing

conn

ectio

ns –

ie re

silie

ncy

and

NDM

P N

atio

nal p

olic

ies

Enco

urag

e th

e us

e of

any

tool

(use

d co

rrec

tly

How

do

we

conn

ect,

over

-lap,

ass

ist e

ach

othe

r, br

ing

NDM

P be

yond

CI t

o co

mm

unity

and

peo

ple

Enga

gem

ent o

f you

th

Shor

t ter

m –

bui

ld c

ultu

re o

f com

mun

ities

that

thin

k ab

out r

esili

ence

and

bro

ad e

ngag

emen

t Re

sear

ch fu

ndin

g –

CSP

– CO

P re

silie

ncy

wha

t fun

ding

th

at is

n’t C

I U

ncer

tain

ty m

anag

emen

t Lo

nger

term

: ref

ine

tool

s and

raise

leve

l of

stan

dard

izatio

n

Repu

tatio

n m

anag

emen

t M

easu

re, m

etric

s and

dat

a O

n to

ol d

oes n

ot so

lve

all p

robl

ems –

edu

catio

n is

impo

rtan

t En

gage

men

t of y

outh

– b

uild

ing

resil

ienc

y fr

om y

outh

up

– g

roun

d up

and

you

th u

p –

yout

h ar

mie

s chc

h an

d Ja

pan.

Fu

ndin

g re

sear

ch im

plem

enta

tion

sust

aini

ng e

tc…

Pr

ofes

siona

l dev

elop

men

t

Volu

ntee

rs –

Whe

re d

o th

ey fi

t? N

orth

van

haz

ards

ta

sk fo

rce,

Ore

gon

resil

ienc

e st

udy

– pr

ofes

siona

ls Al

l had

lots

of c

olou

r O

pen

badg

es –

dig

ital r

ecog

nitio

n of

skill

s obt

aine

d

Deal

ing

with

unc

erta

inty

Si

mila

r str

ateg

ies i

n m

ultip

le th

emes

M

OO

C (o

nlin

e co

urse

s)

Cons

isten

t fou

ndat

ion

date

M

ultip

le h

ats –

so m

any

here

wea

r mul

tiple

hat

s /

broa

d pe

rspe

ctiv

es

OK

with

75%

succ

ess

Mea

sure

s and

met

rics

Ac

cess

ible

com

mon

par

king

lot f

or to

ols a

nd p

roce

ss

fram

ewor

ks

Deal

ing

with

unk

now

n un

know

n

Fund

ing

for t

rain

ing

educ

atio

n fo

r com

mun

ity

mem

bers

, mun

icip

al w

orke

rs e

ct.

Not

one

shoe

fits

all

– bu

t all

peop

le w

ear s

hoes

Data

base

Inde

x (s

hoe

stor

e an

alog

y)

Prof

essio

nal D

evel

opm

ent a

nd tr

aini

ng a

nd e

duca

tion

/ acc

essib

ility

(MO

OC)

O

pen

badg

es sc

outs

met

hod

volu

ntee

rs

Tool

s – e

ncou

rage

use

of a

ny –

no

one

right

Park

ing

lot –

acc

essib

le c

omm

on p

lace

to g

o to

acc

ess

or sh

oe st

ore

with

kno

wle

dge

sale

s for

ce –

tool

s and

fr

amew

orks

– n

eeds

som

e fa

cilit

atio

n to

hel

p co

mm

unity

dec

ide

whi

ch sh

oe fi

ts a

nd th

e fo

ot a

nd

the

task

and

will

last

10

0 %

is n

ot th

e ta

rget

CS

SP

-201

3-C

D-1

120

67

App

endi

x G

: Str

ateg

ic P

riorit

ies

Votin

g R

esul

ts

T

hem

e St

rate

gy

“Vot

es”

Lang

uage

and

Ter

min

olog

y

Ke

ep th

e co

nver

satio

n go

ing

– en

gage

and

enc

oura

ge d

ynam

ic c

onve

rsat

ion

to b

uild

aw

aren

ess i

nste

ad o

f sta

ndar

d de

finiti

ons.

8

Use

pic

ture

wor

ds fo

r eng

agem

ent a

nd b

uy in

5

Fo

cus o

n co

ncep

t as c

ompa

red

to sp

ecifi

c te

rms,

play

dow

n th

e te

rm

4

Aw

aren

ess –

lang

uage

and

term

inol

ogy

may

be

diffe

rent

, but

we

can

wor

k w

ith th

at if

we

are

awar

e of

it.

1

Show

out

com

es to

exp

lain

mea

ning

1

N

eed

an in

terp

rete

r to

tran

slate

– u

nder

stan

d th

e la

ngua

ge.

1

Use

exa

mpl

es fr

om re

al e

vent

s 1

Di

alec

t dic

tiona

ry –

don

’t tr

y to

cha

nge

use

diffe

rent

sect

ors

0

Inco

rpor

ate

into

the

rela

tions

hip

build

ing

0

Acce

pt th

at w

e w

on’t

all a

gree

– g

et o

ver i

t and

mov

e on

. 0

Be

ing

able

to a

rtic

ulat

e m

eani

ng (s

impl

e la

ngua

ge) a

nd a

dapt

a m

eani

ng fo

r “th

is” p

urpo

se

0

En

cour

age

the

proc

ess o

f neg

otia

tion

mea

ning

with

in a

n op

erat

iona

l con

text

/ gr

oup,

ra

ther

than

tryi

ng to

stan

dard

ize

0

Ackn

owle

dge

cultu

ral c

onte

xt

0

Agre

e on

nor

ms u

p fr

ont

0

Agre

e to

disa

gree

0

Co

nsen

sus b

ased

dec

ision

mak

ing

0

Use

of i

nter

disc

iplin

ary

lang

uage

0

CS

SP

-201

3-C

D-1

120

68

The

me

Stra

tegy

“V

otes

” Co

mm

on U

nder

stan

ding

Give

exa

mpl

es o

f ant

icip

ated

out

com

es, m

easu

res –

pai

nt th

e pi

ctur

e –

cont

ext s

peci

fic

11

St

reng

ths b

ased

app

roac

h –

com

mun

ities

thin

k th

is w

ill p

oint

out

def

icie

ncie

s ins

tead

of

stre

ngth

s. 5

O

pen

dial

ogue

– e

very

one

gets

a v

oice

3

Dy

nam

ic –

goe

s bac

k an

d fo

rth

3

Build

rela

tions

hips

/ ne

twor

ks

3

Crea

te v

ision

and

miss

ion

– re

fine

it 2

Gu

idin

g pr

inci

ples

1

Ch

ange

HRV

A to

HRR

CA (r

esili

ence

) (ca

paci

ty) s

top

talk

ing

abou

t vul

nera

bilit

ies.

Keep

th

inki

ng p

ositi

ve

1

Get a

ll st

akeh

olde

rs to

geth

er

0

Clea

r abo

ut li

mita

tions

, man

age

expe

ctat

ions

0

Bu

dget

tim

e to

dev

elop

0

Lo

ok fo

r are

as w

here

com

mon

und

erst

andi

ng e

xist

s – b

uild

on

that

0

Re

cogn

ize th

at a

com

mon

und

erst

andi

ng o

nly

exist

s in

a fle

etin

g sp

ecifi

c co

ntex

t. N

o un

iver

sally

com

mon

und

erst

andi

ng

0

N

eeds

a fi

nal o

utco

mes

doc

umen

t – m

ove

spec

ific

than

miss

ion,

ect

– c

omes

afte

r co

nsul

tatio

n 0

CS

SP

-201

3-C

D-1

120

69

The

me

Stra

tegy

“V

otes

” Bi

g Pi

ctur

e / H

olist

ic T

hink

ing

Bu

ild re

latio

nshi

ps –

late

rally

, ver

tical

ly, h

orizo

ntal

– w

ithin

org

aniza

tions

, age

ncie

s, w

ith

outs

ide

orga

niza

tions

age

ncie

s 8

De

velo

p co

mm

on fr

amew

orks

, app

roac

hes,

or a

t lea

st sh

are

and

tran

slate

acr

oss v

ario

us

way

s of u

nder

stan

ding

6

In

tegr

ate

and

conn

ect t

o ex

istin

g co

mm

unity

goa

ls 5

Ta

ke ti

me

to fi

nd th

e rig

ht p

roxi

es th

at re

pres

ent t

he b

ig p

ictu

re (t

hink

act

uary

) 1

U

se c

omm

on in

dica

tors

– e

.g. T

BL w

ith m

etric

s 0

Ad

opt V

anco

uver

’s a

ppro

ach

– ce

ntra

lized

sust

aina

bilit

y pl

anni

ng in

Citi

es m

anag

ers o

ffice

, ci

ty m

unic

ipal

ity w

ide

stra

tegi

es li

ke V

anco

uver

202

0.

0

St

art w

ith b

ig p

ictu

re b

ut fo

cus o

n sm

all p

ictu

res f

or a

ctio

n –

help

s def

ine

smal

l sca

le

actio

ns a

nd m

etric

s 0

Fo

cus o

n a

natio

nal r

ole

out t

hat p

rese

rves

con

tent

dep

ende

nce

0

Iden

tify

the

key

influ

entia

l ele

men

ts o

f the

big

pic

ture

0

U

nder

stan

d its

mea

sure

s 0

De

fine

the

pict

ure

for t

he c

onte

xt

0

CS

SP

-201

3-C

D-1

120

70

The

me

Stra

tegy

“V

otes

” Co

mm

unity

Con

text

Cou

nts

Id

entif

y an

d su

ppor

t com

mun

ity c

ham

pion

to h

elp

disc

over

con

text

. 7

U

se c

omm

unity

exa

mpl

es g

ood

bad

and

ugly

4

Va

lue

base

d ap

proa

ches

4

Br

oad

colla

bora

tive

enga

gem

ent (

two

way

kno

wle

dge

exch

ange

) 3

En

gage

men

t met

hods

(ie

how

you

eng

age

is im

port

ant)

. Rou

nd ta

ble

rath

er th

an

adve

rsar

ial p

ublic

mee

tings

0

Id

entif

ying

eng

agin

g th

e rig

ht p

artic

ipan

ts –

may

be

iden

tifie

d by

vul

nera

bilit

y as

sess

men

ts

– w

ho is

vul

nera

ble

is ho

w to

eng

age

thes

e pe

ople

? 0

Co

mm

unity

cha

mpi

on h

elps

with

eng

agem

ent

0

Com

mun

ity C

ham

pion

– n

eeds

goo

d su

ppor

ted

cont

ext t

o ge

t buy

in fo

r goo

d ou

tcom

es

0

Dyna

mic

surv

eys t

o co

llect

and

val

idat

e co

ntex

t 0

Hi

stor

y ba

sed

– (h

ow c

an w

e al

so a

ppre

ciat

e th

e fu

ture

? Its

con

text

also

abo

ut w

here

pe

ople

are

pla

nnin

g to

go?

) 0

Co

mm

unity

bui

lt th

roug

h fa

cilit

atio

n.

0

Incl

usiv

e of

per

spec

tives

0

O

utre

ach

to v

ulne

rabl

e gr

oups

to li

sten

/ he

ar p

ersp

ectiv

es

0

CS

SP

-201

3-C

D-1

120

71

The

me

Stra

tegy

“V

otes

” En

gage

men

t and

Buy

In

Be

com

plet

ely

open

with

info

rmat

ion,

dat

a, k

now

ledg

e, in

tent

, rew

ards

, ben

efic

iarie

s 15

Link

resil

ienc

e bu

ildin

g to

exi

stin

g pr

oces

s tha

t alre

ady

enjo

y bu

y in

9

Bo

ttom

up

appr

oach

– b

uild

on

stre

ngth

s und

erst

andi

ngs a

nd d

efin

ing

resil

ienc

e in

a

rele

vant

con

text

ual w

ay

5

Mea

sura

ble

outc

omes

of n

ot d

evel

opin

g su

stai

nabl

e re

silie

nce

as a

prio

rity

2

Take

adv

anta

ge o

f tim

ing

– ie

wor

ld e

vent

s 1

De

mon

stra

te th

e va

lue

– in

form

ing

com

mun

ity o

f val

ue o

f pro

cess

1

Pu

blic

edu

catio

n an

d aw

aren

ess c

ampa

igns

(ong

oing

) 1

Cl

ear a

nd c

onci

se w

ith th

e m

essa

ge (g

oal o

bjec

tive,

pla

n la

ngua

ge)

1

RRU

/EM

BC –

Get

ting

Read

y Ca

mpa

ign

mee

ting

of p

ast r

ecip

ient

s 0

RR

U/E

MBC

- P

ost e

ngag

emen

t rev

iew

and

shar

ing

sess

ion

of fi

ndin

gs, r

esul

ts e

tc.

0

Out

put –

bro

chur

e ho

w to

sign

up

who

is in

alre

ady

0

Ed

ucat

e EM

BC st

aff.

Regi

onal

man

ager

s so

they

can

pro

mot

e th

roug

hout

BC

@ re

gion

al

mee

tings

0

Pr

ovid

e / c

reat

e co

oper

ativ

e /(

carr

ot) a

nd c

oerc

ive

(fina

ncia

l stic

ks) i

ncen

tives

for r

esili

ency

bu

ildin

g 0

Br

oade

n re

silie

ncy

build

ing

to b

e as

incl

usiv

e as

pos

sible

to m

ake

it m

eani

ngfu

l for

man

y as

po

ssib

le

0

Publ

ic e

duca

tion

and

awar

enes

s cam

paig

ns (o

ngoi

ng)

0

Fina

ncia

l inc

entiv

es /

mot

ivat

ion

0

Sim

ple

and

simpl

y un

ders

tood

ach

ieva

ble

goal

s. 0

Th

ree

C’s c

olla

bora

tion,

coo

rdin

atio

n an

d co

mm

unic

atio

n (fa

cilit

atio

n) a

nd b

ring

snac

ks

0

Be re

ady

to e

ngag

e du

ring

win

dow

s of o

ppor

tuni

ty (w

ell p

ublic

ized

disa

ster

, etc

..)

0

Inte

grat

e in

itiat

ives

into

exi

stin

g en

gage

men

ts –

Gen

eral

ly th

roug

h co

mm

unity

gro

ups

0

CS

SP

-201

3-C

D-1

120

72

The

me

Stra

tegy

“V

otes

” Ch

ampi

ons a

nd E

xper

ts

Su

cces

sion

plan

ning

– sp

ecifi

c in

clud

e re

latio

nshi

p, p

ass o

n kn

owle

dge

good

will

7

Ch

ampi

on n

eeds

to h

ave

trus

t of s

take

hold

ers a

nd so

cial

cap

ital

4

Expe

rts d

oes n

ot ju

st m

ean

SME

but e

very

one’

s kno

wle

dge,

inpu

t, ba

ckya

rd/ h

istor

ical

1

De

fine

role

s / re

spon

sibili

ties o

f wha

t we

need

/ w

ant f

rom

cha

mpi

on /

expe

rt

1

List

en b

efor

e an

swer

1

Cr

eatin

g w

ithin

EM

job

desc

riptio

ns w

ith sp

ace

for b

uild

ing

rela

tions

hips

– e

ndor

se it

, tim

e,

prov

ide

reso

urce

s, su

stai

ned

com

mitm

ent

0

Ow

ners

hip

0

Tim

e to

bui

ld c

onte

xt

0

Culti

vate

bot

h an

d w

ith d

iffer

entia

te p

eopl

e as

eac

h an

d m

aint

ain

0

Build

trus

t bet

wee

n yo

u an

d ch

ampi

on a

nd e

xper

t 0

CS

SP

-201

3-C

D-1

120

73

The

me

Stra

tegy

“V

otes

” Re

sour

ces T

ime

and

Mon

ey

Co

st b

enef

it an

alys

is (ie

retu

rn o

n in

vest

men

t) 10

Volu

ntee

r rec

ruitm

ent,

trai

ning

and

rete

ntio

n –

assig

n re

spon

sibili

ties.

5

Crea

ting

rele

vanc

y by

usin

g lo

cal t

ools

(tie

s int

o bu

y-in

). Id

entif

y lo

cal r

esili

ence

cha

mpi

on

3

Li

nk e

xist

ing

proj

ects

and

act

iviti

es to

resil

ienc

e pl

anni

ng a

ctiv

ities

/ pro

ject

s to

max

imize

re

sour

ces t

ime

and

mon

ey

2

Fina

ncia

l pla

nnin

g bu

ilds r

esili

ency

(mul

ti-le

vel)

0

Boun

d th

e pr

oble

m /

focu

s 0

Li

ne it

em –

bud

get –

sust

aine

d fu

ndin

g an

d pr

oces

s 0

Ed

ucat

e / i

nfor

m o

ther

s are

as/s

ecto

rs/g

rant

ing

bodi

es re

: how

dist

. Res

ilien

ce is

rele

vant

to

them

(ie

heal

th c

omm

unity

dev

elop

men

t edu

catio

n/bu

sines

s)

0

Proc

ess r

athe

r tha

n pr

ojec

t men

talit

y 0

De

velo

p go

od b

usin

ess c

ase

with

ver

y cl

ear o

utco

mes

BLA

s, e

tc) o

t jus

t $$

TBL

thin

king

. 0

Co

uld

be q

uant

ified

in te

rms o

f $ if

requ

ired

– un

ders

tand

true

eco

nom

ic im

pact

s of

disa

ster

s 0

N

eeds

con

tinui

ty p

lans

for p

roje

cts r

elat

ed to

link

ing

to e

xist

ing

reso

urce

s, st

ruct

ures

etc

w

here

pos

sible

0

0

CS

SP

-201

3-C

D-1

120

74

The

me

Stra

tegy

“V

otes

” Su

stai

nabi

lity

and

Polit

ical

Will

Show

case

exa

mpl

es o

f com

mun

ity re

silie

ncy

8

Fu

ndin

g to

sust

ain

beyo

nd p

roje

ct fo

cus…

crea

ting

optio

ns fo

r sus

tain

ed /

mai

ntai

ned

“hom

e” fo

r too

ls, su

ppor

t for

com

mun

ities

to im

plem

ent,

mai

ntai

n an

d su

stai

n re

silie

nce

plan

ning

6

M

inist

eria

l por

tfolio

resp

onsib

le

6

All l

evel

s gov

ernm

ent r

esili

ence

ens

hrin

ed in

pol

icy

6

Prov

ide

supp

ortin

g ev

iden

ce i

n te

rms t

hat a

re c

ompa

tible

/ va

lued

by

polit

ical

cla

ss

4

Show

dec

ision

mak

ers a

ctua

l eve

nts

2

Targ

ets /

goa

ls en

shrin

ed in

pol

icy

2

Spea

k tr

uth

to p

ower

eve

nts (

scre

am in

to w

ind)

1

Li

nk re

silie

nce

build

ing

to e

xist

ing

/ sus

tain

able

pro

cess

(e.g

. Com

mun

ity p

lann

ing)

0

GO

UT

repu

tatio

n m

anag

emen

t res

pons

ible

to m

otiv

ate

/ $$

0

Info

rm c

omm

unity

on

conc

epts

of r

esili

ence

and

how

it re

late

s to

sust

aina

bilit

y 0

Ed

ucat

ing

publ

ic /

coun

cil –

sust

aina

ble

resil

ienc

e –

need

to in

crea

se tr

ansp

aren

cy in

pub

lic

0

Resil

ienc

e pe

rfor

man

ce in

dica

tors

in e

very

min

ister

ial p

ortfo

lio

0

U

pper

tier

pub

lic g

over

nmen

t end

orse

men

t of D

R –

its im

port

ance

, its

rele

vanc

e >

prio

ritizi

ng

0

$$ fo

r mon

itorin

g an

d ev

alua

tion

built

into

all

gran

ting

0

Dedi

cate

d re

sour

ces t

o su

ppor

t sus

tain

able

initi

ativ

es

0

Iden

tify

cost

s of b

eing

pro

activ

e 0

CS

SP

-201

3-C

D-1

120

75

The

me

Stra

tegy

“V

otes

” Bi

ts a

nd P

iece

s

Nat

iona

l pol

icie

s 9

En

cour

age

the

use

of a

ny to

ol (u

sed

corr

ectly

8

En

gage

men

t of y

outh

6

O

pen

badg

es –

dig

ital r

ecog

nitio

n of

skill

s obt

aine

d 4

O

K w

ith 7

5% su

cces

s 4

Da

taba

se In

dex

(sho

e st

ore

anal

ogy)

4

O

pen

badg

es sc

outs

met

hod

volu

ntee

rs

3

Mea

sure

, met

rics a

nd d

ata

3

Long

er te

rm: r

efin

e to

ols a

nd ra

ise le

vel o

f sta

ndar

diza

tion

2

Acce

ssib

le c

omm

on p

arki

ng lo

t for

tool

s and

pro

cess

fram

ewor

ks

1

Fund

ing

for t

rain

ing

educ

atio

n fo

r com

mun

ity m

embe

rs, m

unic

ipal

wor

kers

ect

. 1

Pa

rkin

g lo

t – a

cces

sible

com

mon

pla

ce to

go

to a

cces

s or s

hoe

stor

e w

ith k

now

ledg

e sa

les

forc

e –

tool

s and

fram

ewor

ks –

nee

ds so

me

faci

litat

ion

to h

elp

com

mun

ity d

ecid

e w

hich

sh

oe fi

ts a

nd th

e fo

ot a

nd th

e ta

sk a

nd w

ill la

st

1

Unc

erta

inty

man

agem

ent

1

Sh

ort t

erm

– b

uild

cul

ture

of c

omm

uniti

es th

at th

ink

abou

t res

ilien

ce a

nd b

road

en

gage

men

t 0

O

n to

ol d

oes n

ot so

lve

all p

robl

ems –

edu

catio

n is

impo

rtan

t 0

Pr

ofes

siona

l dev

elop

men

t 0

M

OO

C (o

nlin

e co

urse

s)

0

Prof

essio

nal D

evel

opm

ent a

nd tr

aini

ng a

nd e

duca

tion

/ acc

essib

ility

(MO

OC)

0

To

ols –

enc

oura

ge u

se o

f any

– n

o on

e rig

ht

0

100

% is

not

the

targ

et

0

Fund

ing

rese

arch

impl

emen

tatio

n su

stai

ning

etc

…

0

CS

SP

-201

3-C

D-1

120

76

App

endi

x H

: Nex

t Ste

ps

Deb

rief

Not

es a

nd N

ext S

teps

Dis

cuss

ion

O

vera

ll Im

pres

sion

s N

ext S

teps

Al

l had

lots

of c

olou

r Tr

ansit

ion

– th

e ca

tchy

idea

Si

mila

r str

ateg

ies i

n m

ultip

le th

emes

In

vent

nug

gets

to in

sert

pul

ling

toge

ther

M

ultip

le h

ats –

so m

any

here

wea

r mul

tiple

hat

s / b

road

per

spec

tives

Bu

ild V

cop

Va

lue

base

d

Mor

e th

an e

noug

h re

sour

ces /

K

Vo

lunt

eer –

RCS

G/DR

R/?

Se

t sig

hts h

igh

La

nd u

se p

lann

ing

guid

e

Indu

stry

– m

unic

ipal

/ pr

ovin

cial

/ fe

dera

l cro

wd

fund

ing

– ne

eds t

o be

fund

ed

Cr

owd

sour

ces –

fund

ing

– w

ill p

eopl

e gi

ve to

gov

ernm

ent

M

atch

ing

dona

tions

– w

ho g

ets t

he m

oney

Crea

te ta

sk fo

rce

– ca

n it

be d

one

outs

ide

of g

over

nmen

t – n

gos,

red

cros

s

Tim

elin

e hx

disa

ster

mul

ti-di

scip

linar

y

Endo

rsem

ent f

rom

var

ious

age

ncie

s dep

artm

ents

fed

/ pro

v/m

un

U

se th

e m

edia

– w

indo

ws o

f opp

ortu

nity

Proj

ect p

iece

s the

re n

eed

to p

acka

ged

Sp

ores

and

fung

us

Sh

ow st

ore

over

arch

ing

fram

ewor

k

CSSP-2013-CD-1120 77

Appendix I: CHRNet Aboriginal Resiliency Report Update Executive Summary Promoting Canadian Aboriginal Disaster Resilience in First Nations, Métis and Inuit Communities Eric Bussey, Brenda L. Murphy and Laurie Pearce March 2014 This report is an initiative of the Aboriginal Resilience Sub-Working Group (AR). In 2013, the AR was struck within the Resilient Communities Working Group (RCWG). The RCWG is one of the four national working groups established under Canada’s Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction. This report was prepared on behalf of the Canada Risks and Hazards Network for Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada. The paper summarizes the key themes about Aboriginal disaster resilience that arose from two events held in November 2013 in Regina, Saskatchewan: the Canadian Platform’s annual meeting and the Canadian Risks and Hazards (CRHNet) annual symposium. It also references key literature about resilience to contextualize the discussion. A resilience approach is often portrayed as one that builds on current strengths, effectively manages and creatively adapts to all types of change, including disasters. Resilience requires knowledge about local hazards and vulnerabilities as well as information about what resources are available. While there is overlap between the disaster resilience issues facing rural/urban non-Aboriginal populations and Aboriginal communities, information about disaster resilience in Aboriginal contexts is quite slim. The concept of Aboriginal resilience is linked to the idea of community resilience since each community has its own history, culture, traditions, language, family ties, and relationships to its landscape. In a Canadian context, Aboriginal resilience also needs to be differentiated and understood within First Nations, Métis and Inuit traditions. A key advantage of community resilience is that it fosters a proactive rather than a reactive approach to emergency management. Many Aboriginal communities have a history of self-reliance and resilience upon which to draw. Aboriginal resilience is tied to Traditional Knowledge such as local knowledge about hunting and country foods, natural resources, travel routes, and weather, snow and ice conditions. The capacity of each Aboriginal community is often dependent on the level of resources and/or economic development within that community. To become more disaster resilient, communities need access to formal networks, systems and arrangements and local, informal arrangements to deal with immediate community needs after a disaster. Strong cultural traditions and close relations between family and neighbours were noted strengths of small First Nations, Inuit and Métis communities. Communities also need support from higher levels of government, non-government organizations and private corporations to bolster resilience.

CSSP-2013-CD-1120 78

Based on the discussions and presentations which were a part of the 2013 Platform and Symposium, several important themes emerged: Enhancing Aboriginal Disaster Resilience Since the scholarly literature and Aboriginal perspectives on the tenets of disaster resilience are quite slim, it is critical to consider the unique circumstances of First Nations, Métis and Inuit communities and to engage Aboriginal knowledge holders to further define the resilience concept. Support from higher levels of government, non-government organizations and private corporations is critical for supporting and developing local-level resilience. Connections to the Resilience Literature Comprehensive definitions of community disaster resilience are increasingly common where disaster resilience refers to a community’s ability not only to survive and absorb a disruption but also to anticipate risk and creatively adapt to the changes and losses that result from disasters and other catastrophic change. Traditional Knowledge will be a cornerstone of Aboriginal disaster resilience concepts and approaches. Private Sector and Insurance Disaster risk reduction is not solely a government responsibility; the private sector also plays an important role and has a social responsibility to support community resilience and recovery after a disaster. Engaging with First Nations, Métis and Inuit Communities The RCWG and the AR are examples of opportunities for engaging Aboriginal communities in disaster risk reduction. A common theme from Aboriginal community leaders is that it is important for them to engage external stakeholders as well as local individuals and groups in resilience enhancement work. Importance of Social Capital in First Nations, Inuit and Metis Communities Disaster resilient communities are communities with strong linkages and communications between its members, as well as local and mutual support networks. Vibrant local connections with broader webs of resources and support are essential to the development of community resilience. Risk and Climate Change As risk is localized, disaster risk reduction efforts need to be a pillar of community planning. Risk reduction efforts are even more urgent when considering that the severity and frequency of extreme weather events seems to be increasing through the effects of climate change, and that smaller events causing damage, injury and/or death can occur at any time. It is clear that we need to mitigate risk better, but we also need to make communities more resilient without significantly impacting the economy and people.