Resilient Nation
How communities respond to systemic breakdown
Resilient Nation
at 6:22pm on Tuesday, 17th June 2008
This week we're kicking off a new project on resilience. Looking across the spectrum of risks, from floods and pandemics to power failures and terrorism Resilient Nation will explore how communities respond to systemic breakdown. In the aftermath of events such as the Asian tsunami, the London bombings, and the Buncefield explosion new stories and case studies have highlighted how the community's response to emergencies often lies outside the framework of traditional institutions and organisations.
New technologies create architectures of participation. For example, the lack of reliable information in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina led to the creation of online tools to help the victims of the disaster. Within just a few days online volunteers had processed 50,000 entries about missing or displaced people. While in the UK a Wikipedia entry was created minutes after the London bombings, and was regularly updated by concerned citizens who posted news of the incident as they were unfolding, using photos and videos from members of the public, some of whom were at the scene.
At the same time central government is devolving power and authority to regional and local authorities, placing responsibility for planning, managing and responding to threats and hazards at the local level. Local resilience forums have been created with the aim of communicating information and advice about actions to residents, visitors and businesses to ensure they are ready, either before, during or after an incident.
These emerging trends are having an increasingly important influence on how communities respond to risks. While historically institutions of state have played a central role in managing large scale incidents today there is competition for getting things done. As Clay Shirky suggests, this doesn't mean institutions of the state and formal processes won't continue to exist, rather their purchase on modern life is weakening.
In terms of resilience this raises a set of important questions for both the state and communities which include; How do communities respond to systemic breakdown? What makes for a successful response? How should governments, the private and voluntary sectors support communities in times of crisis? Does the catalyst for community effort come from within communities or can it be stimulated by external actors? Do formal or informal relationships between communities and institutions work best before, during or after incidents? How should authorities communicate and engage with local communities? In terms of emergencies what tools can communities not live without?
New technologies create architectures of participation. For example, the lack of reliable information in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina led to the creation of online tools to help the victims of the disaster. Within just a few days online volunteers had processed 50,000 entries about missing or displaced people. While in the UK a Wikipedia entry was created minutes after the London bombings, and was regularly updated by concerned citizens who posted news of the incident as they were unfolding, using photos and videos from members of the public, some of whom were at the scene.
At the same time central government is devolving power and authority to regional and local authorities, placing responsibility for planning, managing and responding to threats and hazards at the local level. Local resilience forums have been created with the aim of communicating information and advice about actions to residents, visitors and businesses to ensure they are ready, either before, during or after an incident.
These emerging trends are having an increasingly important influence on how communities respond to risks. While historically institutions of state have played a central role in managing large scale incidents today there is competition for getting things done. As Clay Shirky suggests, this doesn't mean institutions of the state and formal processes won't continue to exist, rather their purchase on modern life is weakening.
In terms of resilience this raises a set of important questions for both the state and communities which include; How do communities respond to systemic breakdown? What makes for a successful response? How should governments, the private and voluntary sectors support communities in times of crisis? Does the catalyst for community effort come from within communities or can it be stimulated by external actors? Do formal or informal relationships between communities and institutions work best before, during or after incidents? How should authorities communicate and engage with local communities? In terms of emergencies what tools can communities not live without?
LOGIN to add comments
Comments