Eduard,

Great question!

We have been working with TISP, NIST and a smaller group called the Practical Community Resilience (PCR) Working Group (members from USACE, INL & myself) for the last 4.5 years. For the first two years we ran work shops across the country and developed a strategy that would use student interns coupled with SMEs to help resource constrained communities develop resilience. Last May we launched the first pilot and one of the biggest gaps we discovered centered around flood modeling. The current approach to flood modeling is archaic, expensive and less than accurate. After investigating the "Art of the Possible" we have developed a strategy that would leverage super computers to simulate rainfall, model watersheds, aggregate the resulting models, overlay critical infrastructure, determine vulnerabilities and the communicate results back to local stakeholders for action. We have since developed an initial scope and are currently socializing this within USACE.

Attached is a brief on the referenced pilot.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

David Vaughn

Eduard:

I think that David addresses community resilience an objective that has been pushed in international meetings (for example, UN ISDR, Geneva , 2009.... and similar other meetings). And there were good examples on this kind of community organization provided at that time by the US, Japan, and other country reppresentatives. Regarding Computing, there were at least six International meetings (until 2010 as I remember) on Early Warning Systems that promote the developmemt of new simulation systems that use inputs such as satellite imagery, digital elevation models, meteorological information, statistical and census database, GIS technology, etc... and high performance computing to have some chance to provide an early warning for some kind of disasters. There are strong efforts from the space sector on improve response time on acquiring and delivering data. (See Time-Sensitive Remote Sensing, as an example, a Springer book on this matter...)

Thanks David for the PDF, I read it.

Regards

Gabriel Platzeck

Dear David and Gabriel,

Thank you for you valuable comments and important information. Yes, indeed we may be just at the very beginning of unfolding nature and weather phenomena, that may not always be properly registered, nor understood. Large cities like NY, LA, Vancouver, plus other regions in the world may become direct target. Having proper Contingency and Business Continuity Plan is essential. Plus, proper citizens evacuation training, side by side with computer simulations, while correlating the critical attributes such response time, medical aid localisation, proper medical, plus assistance. etc. Having all well planned and organised may be a good starting point, while sharing valuable experience and skills all across the nation and worldwide in real-time. This may sound quite ambitious, but it is only an foundation for much more that may need to be done.

Eduard and Gabriel,

One of the topics we have been discussing for several years is how we can better engage Land and Sea Grant Universities to take on the mission of community resilience in their respective states. The point is that we can develop great technologies but if the solutions we create are never used by the communities, then we need to question our effectiveness. The Morrill Act defines the role of the Land Grant University to include education, research, and service in support of the state in which they reside. Many of us would like to see a movement towards more applied research that engages communities and offers value via disaster risk reduction with measurable results.

Sincerely,

David Vaughn

I am on a panel to discuss issues related to why we have not advanced further in our disaster reduction quest at the 2018 Natural Hazards Conference in Bloomfield, Colorado. I currently sit on the "Science During Crisis" panel of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Our publication is in its review stage. Please look out for it. Here is my argument. We need to change the policy thinking on disasters, that is change the espoused theory, first and then change our behavior or theory-in-use. It is the thinking on disasters we need to focus on. People on both sides of the disaster policy debate think the same way - that disasters are Acts of God and beyond their ability to address, and they do not have the resources to address disasters. When people on both side of the policy debate think the same way, advocacy for change is near impossible. We write as, if computers and access to them were ubiquitous; they are not. Often, they are the first devices and their infrastructure to collapse, during and even before disasters. People tend to rely on their memories, instinct and what they may have practiced. We need to focus on simulation exercises, education, and community-based disaster management. We need to teach people to identify and accept their risks and threats and get them to self-organize because when disaster strike, they are often on their own, initially. I should add though the computers and the related network of disaster organization like NOAA and NHC, have been invaluable in identifying, tracking and relaying information on weather-related disaster triggers. Conveying how they interact on the ground and mobilizing action are local responsibilities. Often, it is this latter capacity we lack. All disasters are still local.