Dyson College of Arts and Sciences
Issue link: http://dysoncollege.uberflip.com/i/128987
attention from both the public and private sectors. The disruption of supply chains and manufacturing globally because of the vast flooding of Bangkok from three back-toback typhoons in December of 2011 underscores this need. One reason for the pervasive neglect of post-disaster planning and expanding insurance capacities to cope may be because of society's concentration of attention on 9/11 and the threats of unknown possible terrorist disasters, as opposed to the known risks of natural disasters. Another more powerful reason is inertia, and the comfortable acceptance of "business as usual" practices. In addition, insurance focuses on compensation for catastrophic loss and is not yet designed for adaptation and building sustainable socioeconomic recoveries. Concepts of insurance need to be rethought, and realigned with a new kind of phased planning that allows for postdisaster recovery. A final reason is that economic development is a prerogative of local governments, and they have yet to embrace the environmental management systems needed for sustainable development, much less to prepare to cope with the effects of climate change. These problems are parts of the equation for post-disaster adaptation, and they deserve study also. For a new substantive field of post-disaster development to take hold, society will need to build resilience into all its undertakings. Integration the New with the Old: The Resilience Principle Prevailing patterns of "business as usual" assume that recovery after a disaster will take place. Little is planned about how to do so, since one cannot know when or where a natural disaster will strike. But the experience with all disasters demonstrates that measures can be taken to avert and prevent the harm, or magnitude of damage, inflicted by a disaster. Moreover, society can design ways to more effectively "bounce back" quickly after a disaster. This is the essence of resilience. If there is one step that society should take now, to address the question that President Friedman has posed, it is to acknowledge and embrace the principle of resilience. As a principle of law and management, "resilience" is derived from that trait of human nature, which is to be resilient. As a species, humans are resilient; humans save for a rainy day, design backup systems, and cover themselves. But at the same time, humans take unnecessary risks, gamble or seek the hyper-efficiency of "just in time" delivery in manufacturing processes. Environmental Management systems have been designed to provide the resilience when companies or other institutions may seek to take undue risks, without prior analysis or care. Environmental management systems mimic natural systems. Like all species, humans find resilience in ecosystems. Ecologists and social scientists have identified and elaborated this principle of resilience. Understandings of resilience have entered into public policy discourse as well. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) defined resilience as the "amount of change a system can undergo without changing state," and the UN Development Programme has termed it "a tendency to maintain integrity when subject to disturbance." Studies can assess the socioeconomic roles that reliance serves in human communities, just as is done in studies of biological communities through ecosystems. Cities that survive and prosper over generations, like London, Singapore, or New York, are said to be resilient. Attributes of resilience can be studied and replicated. In order to engraft sustainable post-disaster adaptation onto existing governmental systems, environmental management systems should aim explicitly to enhance resilience, 43