Resources - ACCCRN Learning Forum 2016 Presentations and Resources - ACCCRN Network
BUILDING THE FIELD OF RESILIENCE
ACCCRN LEARNING EVENT
SEMARANG MAY 25TH, 2016
Understanding field-building
Shared identity
Standards of practice
Knowledge base
Leadership and grassroots support
Funding and supporting policies
A co
u ity of orga izatio s a d i dividuals
working together towards a common goal, and
usi g a set of co
o approaches
The Strong Field Framework – James Irvine Foundation / Bridgespan (2009)
Field-building is the intentional or unintentional
development of one or more of the elements
(ideas, practice, problems), often by means of
investments in the tools of networks, identity, and
innovation.
RF research team rapid review of field-building for social impact (June 2015)
>200 RESILIENCE FIELD-BUILDING PLATFORMS
(2015)
Number of platforms
52
Research-only academic department/center
37
Academic department/center with research AND training
34
Academic training program or course (no research)
30
Firm or NGO conducting training or capacity-building
16
Journal
13
Research or knowledge network
10
Non-academic research center/think tank
5
Non-academic training program or course
4
Research project
2
Conference or workshop
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
3
WITH A HEAVY BIAS IN EUROPE AND NORTH
AMERICA
Europe
North America
60
89
South & Central
America
2
Africa &
Middle East
7
Asia
8
Oceania
16
Nineteen platforms were located on multiple continents or were
truly global in nature.
4
ENCOURAGING SIGNS OF CROSS-DISCIPLINARY
APPROACHES
Focus
Discipline
8
3
21
22
8
8
8
6
108
10
10
3
2
1
2
20
2
26
24
7
3
1
2
9
17
1
1
4
1
3
2
1
12
2
12
1
10
20
2
3
2
1
2
2
6
2
1
6
3
67
2
1
2
7
7
2
2
1
41
2
1
Number of platforms
Engineering
Architecture/Planning
Econ., sociology, public affairs
Environ. studies/natural sciences
Security studies
Psychology
Business
Public Health/Medicine
Cross-disciplinary
Other/undefined
32
2
1
4
1
Among cross-disciplinary, multi-sectoral platforms, there
were multiple platforms dedicated to:
-Community development and climate or ecology
-Food, energy, and ecology
5
SOME CONVERGENCE AROUND A CORE DEFINITION
Implicitly or explicitly uses a definition of resilience that recognizes it is
about the capacity to survive, adapt, and thrive in the face of stress and
shocks, and even transform when conditions require it.
In significantly aligned platforms, all
facets of the above definition are
identifiable in the mission statement or
work.
100%
11%
75%
In partially aligned platforms, the
capacity to survive is recognized, but
there is weak or absent recognition of
the capacity to adapt, thrive and
transform.
In unaligned platforms, none of the above
elements is recognizable
A significant portion could not be
assessed
43%
50%
13%
25%
32%
0%
6
STRONG FOCUS ON SYSTEMS
Recognizes that addressing resilience requires taking a systems view, and that
these can occur at multiple scales and with different levels of interdependence
100%
In holistic platforms, a systemic
approach to resilience is evident and
multiple systems are considered.
In single system platforms, a
systemic approach is taken, but
only a single system (e.g.,
ecosystem but not economic,
social, etc.) is considered.
75%
61%
50%
In non-systemic platforms, there is
no evident effort to use a systems
view (e.g. resilience of a levee rather
than resilience of the systems
supporting the levee).
A significant portion could not be
assessed
13%
25%
10%
16%
0%
BUT VERY LOW USE OF RESILIENCE CHARACTERISTICS
Characteristics of a resilient system (aware, diverse, self-regulating, integrated,
adaptive) are key to operationalizing the concept of resilience and creating
impact.
7%
Strong users make use of at least half
of these characteristics or similar
characteristics in their approach to
resilience.
100%
12%
6%
75%
Weak users refer to one or two of
these characteristics.
Non-users make no recognizable use
of these characteristics.
A significant portion could
not be assessed
50%
75%
25%
0%
WHERE WE WANT TO BE BY 2025
Outcome 3: Decisionmaking across sectors,
scales and geographies
routinely reflects
resilience thinking
Outcome 4: Multiple
fields & disciplines
have integrated
resilience concepts
and practice
Outcome 5: The resilience
dividend from previous
investments (by RF and
others) can be observed,
with commonly accepted
methodologies
Outcome 2: A thriving
market-place for
professional resilience
services exists
Outcome 1: Resilience
leaders and
practitioners are
actively networking to
drive and validate the
field (concepts,
knowledge, standards)
Goal: By 2025,
resilience
paradigms are
evident in policy,
planning,
funding, and
investment.
Outcome 6: Incentives
and regulations make
investing in resilience
a attra ti e usi ess
as usual pra ti e
1. Measuring Resilience Dividend and Aligning Incentives
Accelerate the development of a suite of complementary tools, processes, and frameworks to generate the
right incentives and conditions for decision making and investments that contribute to resilient outcomes.
Stream 1: CRI 2.0
Identify an institutional home and dissemination plan for the
index (currently in city piloting stage; to be launched October
2015) to spur adoption and curate coming years of analysis and
information generated by its use.
Stream 2: Capturing Resilience Value
To observe the resilience dividend (in 2025 and beyond) from
the projects we are stimulating now, finalize
frameworks/processes such as the Resilience Value Realization
Process, that allow us to:
• Frame projects in terms of resilience value opportunity;
• Review projects to ensure resilience value is maintained
and enhanced; and
• Quantify and, if possible, monetize the resilience value.
Stream 3: Economics of resilience
Through case studies of past events, gain an
understanding of what shocks and stresses can be
modeled, and in what sectors and how it is possible to
realize a resilience dividend.
Stream 4: Assessing Resilience at Other Scales
Invest in a robust framework to assess, measure and
value the contribution of ecosystems and ecosystem
services to resilience outcomes and guide additional
investment.
Supported by
City Resilience Index
Liverpool
Seattle
New York
Madrid
Detroit
Chengdu
Doha
New Orleans
Dubai
Shimla
Hong Kong
Surat
Bangkok
Ho Chi Minh City
Kampala
Cali
Quito
Arusha
Brazzaville
Dar es Salaam
Lima
Semerang
Rio de Janeiro
Sao Paulo
Cape Town
Melbourne
Concepción
Case study cities
Primary research cities
Arup offices that consulted with their cities
Ongoing pilot
What is it?
• A comprehensive tool for cities
• to understand and assess their
resilience
What is it based on?
• Research in 28 Cities
• Tested in 5 cities
• Globally applicable
Supported by
City Resilience Index
What contributes to a city’s resilience?
•
Our research tells us that universally there
are 12 goals that each and every city should
strive towards in order to achieve resilience
•
These are what matters most when a city
faces chronic problems or sudden
catastrophe
Supported by
City Resilience Index
What is does?
• Multi-stakeholder assessment process
• Gather city data and expert opinions
• Generates a city resilience
• measure future change
Qualities
Qualitative
Quantitative
Completeness
Supported by
City Resilience Index
What’s next?
• Implement scaling up strategy
• Influencing and communication
• Resilience solutions
• Strengthening metrics
10 cities
6 cities
5 cities
Piloting (previous phase)
3 cities
Round 1: Coaching
Round 2: Mentoring
Round 3: Supporting
Find out more: www.cityresilienceindex.org
2. Global Resilience Academy
The Rockefeller Foundation invests in the creation and deployment of a Global Resilience Academy-iterated and improved upon through experimentation and testing with new audiences, new distribution
channels, and kept evergreen through the incorporation of new knowledge over time
Stream 1: Deploy and test academy
for global audiences
•
Identify key distribution channels for academy (e.g.
100RC, GRP, ACCCRN and other RF and non-RF
processes and networks) and prioritize deployment
•
Experiment with alternative curriculum delivery
ethods e site, MOOC s, pod asts, ga es
•
Evaluate effectiveness of academy formats with
different audiences in different global contexts and
languages
Stream 2: Iterate on the curriculum and innovate new
approaches to training
•
Gather existing training materials to refresh curriculum for
global audience
•
Keep alu i a d other et orks ‘F a d o -RF) near
enough to cycle their experiences, learnings, and cases back
into the curriculum, but distant enough to self-organize and
innovate on their own
•
Catalyze a pipeline of knowledge creation through strategic
partnerships and investment to feed curriculum over time
•
Translate curriculum so that it is accessible to non-English
speaking practitioners, and translate context to be more
globally relevant
THE GLOBAL RESILIENCE ACADEMY
An intensive workshop to
educate about resilience
concepts and create
resilience strategies and
projects. It includes:
Resilience content
A process that is by
design
GLOBAL RESILIENCE ACADEMY
RESILIENCE ACADEMY MODULES
RESILIENCE STRATEGY
PROJECT DESIGN
RESILIENCE VALUATION
Understanding
Resilience
Defining a Resilience
Project
Maximizing Resilience
Opportunity and Value
Understanding Risk
Resilience Value
through Design
Refined Project Design
Creating an Approach
Finance and Leverage
Implementation
Roadmap
Stakeholders and
Influencers
Performance Measures
GLOBAL RESILIENCE ACADEMY
NATIONAL DISASTER RESILIENCE COMPETITION (NDRC)
$1B Project Funding
48
States
$9M Capacity Building
13
funded
+ Washington, D.C.
Puerto Rico
9
Cities
8
Counties
from
$176M
to
$15M
GLOBAL RESILIENCE ACADEMY
NDRC CAPACITY-BUILDING OUTCOMES
We ha e de eloped a
very strong partnership
with (the flagship state
university, and) a research
u i ersity.
The Acade y pro ided
the incentive for state
government to think about
…ho to i stitutio alize
building resilience into state
go er e t.
56%
83%
81%
54%
Considered new interagency working groups
Diversified team
Launched regional
collaborations
Pursued new funding
GLOBAL RESILIENCE ACADEMY
HOW TO PARTICIPATE IN GRA
1
2
3
DELIVER AN
ACADEMY
BECOME AN
SME
CONTRIBUTE TO
CURRICULUM
Implement your
own Academy
using GRA
resources and
content
Join the network,
share expertise,
and facilitate
Academies
Partner with GRA,
provide content,
and build our
curriculum
GLOBAL RESILIENCE ACADEMY
3. CONNECTING COMMUNITIES VIA DIGITAL RESILIENCE PLATFORMS
•
•
•
•
Resilience Recommender
Resilience Age
Resilience Exchange
CRI.org
www.acccrn.net
www.100resilient cities.org
www.globalresiliencepartnership.org
Buzz Discussion
• What do you see as the major opportunities and
risks i ho the field of resilie e is e ol i g at
present?
• Where is further investment and effort needed?
• How can the ACCCRN community most effectively
contribute to these?
ACCCRN LEARNING EVENT
SEMARANG MAY 25TH, 2016
Understanding field-building
Shared identity
Standards of practice
Knowledge base
Leadership and grassroots support
Funding and supporting policies
A co
u ity of orga izatio s a d i dividuals
working together towards a common goal, and
usi g a set of co
o approaches
The Strong Field Framework – James Irvine Foundation / Bridgespan (2009)
Field-building is the intentional or unintentional
development of one or more of the elements
(ideas, practice, problems), often by means of
investments in the tools of networks, identity, and
innovation.
RF research team rapid review of field-building for social impact (June 2015)
>200 RESILIENCE FIELD-BUILDING PLATFORMS
(2015)
Number of platforms
52
Research-only academic department/center
37
Academic department/center with research AND training
34
Academic training program or course (no research)
30
Firm or NGO conducting training or capacity-building
16
Journal
13
Research or knowledge network
10
Non-academic research center/think tank
5
Non-academic training program or course
4
Research project
2
Conference or workshop
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
3
WITH A HEAVY BIAS IN EUROPE AND NORTH
AMERICA
Europe
North America
60
89
South & Central
America
2
Africa &
Middle East
7
Asia
8
Oceania
16
Nineteen platforms were located on multiple continents or were
truly global in nature.
4
ENCOURAGING SIGNS OF CROSS-DISCIPLINARY
APPROACHES
Focus
Discipline
8
3
21
22
8
8
8
6
108
10
10
3
2
1
2
20
2
26
24
7
3
1
2
9
17
1
1
4
1
3
2
1
12
2
12
1
10
20
2
3
2
1
2
2
6
2
1
6
3
67
2
1
2
7
7
2
2
1
41
2
1
Number of platforms
Engineering
Architecture/Planning
Econ., sociology, public affairs
Environ. studies/natural sciences
Security studies
Psychology
Business
Public Health/Medicine
Cross-disciplinary
Other/undefined
32
2
1
4
1
Among cross-disciplinary, multi-sectoral platforms, there
were multiple platforms dedicated to:
-Community development and climate or ecology
-Food, energy, and ecology
5
SOME CONVERGENCE AROUND A CORE DEFINITION
Implicitly or explicitly uses a definition of resilience that recognizes it is
about the capacity to survive, adapt, and thrive in the face of stress and
shocks, and even transform when conditions require it.
In significantly aligned platforms, all
facets of the above definition are
identifiable in the mission statement or
work.
100%
11%
75%
In partially aligned platforms, the
capacity to survive is recognized, but
there is weak or absent recognition of
the capacity to adapt, thrive and
transform.
In unaligned platforms, none of the above
elements is recognizable
A significant portion could not be
assessed
43%
50%
13%
25%
32%
0%
6
STRONG FOCUS ON SYSTEMS
Recognizes that addressing resilience requires taking a systems view, and that
these can occur at multiple scales and with different levels of interdependence
100%
In holistic platforms, a systemic
approach to resilience is evident and
multiple systems are considered.
In single system platforms, a
systemic approach is taken, but
only a single system (e.g.,
ecosystem but not economic,
social, etc.) is considered.
75%
61%
50%
In non-systemic platforms, there is
no evident effort to use a systems
view (e.g. resilience of a levee rather
than resilience of the systems
supporting the levee).
A significant portion could not be
assessed
13%
25%
10%
16%
0%
BUT VERY LOW USE OF RESILIENCE CHARACTERISTICS
Characteristics of a resilient system (aware, diverse, self-regulating, integrated,
adaptive) are key to operationalizing the concept of resilience and creating
impact.
7%
Strong users make use of at least half
of these characteristics or similar
characteristics in their approach to
resilience.
100%
12%
6%
75%
Weak users refer to one or two of
these characteristics.
Non-users make no recognizable use
of these characteristics.
A significant portion could
not be assessed
50%
75%
25%
0%
WHERE WE WANT TO BE BY 2025
Outcome 3: Decisionmaking across sectors,
scales and geographies
routinely reflects
resilience thinking
Outcome 4: Multiple
fields & disciplines
have integrated
resilience concepts
and practice
Outcome 5: The resilience
dividend from previous
investments (by RF and
others) can be observed,
with commonly accepted
methodologies
Outcome 2: A thriving
market-place for
professional resilience
services exists
Outcome 1: Resilience
leaders and
practitioners are
actively networking to
drive and validate the
field (concepts,
knowledge, standards)
Goal: By 2025,
resilience
paradigms are
evident in policy,
planning,
funding, and
investment.
Outcome 6: Incentives
and regulations make
investing in resilience
a attra ti e usi ess
as usual pra ti e
1. Measuring Resilience Dividend and Aligning Incentives
Accelerate the development of a suite of complementary tools, processes, and frameworks to generate the
right incentives and conditions for decision making and investments that contribute to resilient outcomes.
Stream 1: CRI 2.0
Identify an institutional home and dissemination plan for the
index (currently in city piloting stage; to be launched October
2015) to spur adoption and curate coming years of analysis and
information generated by its use.
Stream 2: Capturing Resilience Value
To observe the resilience dividend (in 2025 and beyond) from
the projects we are stimulating now, finalize
frameworks/processes such as the Resilience Value Realization
Process, that allow us to:
• Frame projects in terms of resilience value opportunity;
• Review projects to ensure resilience value is maintained
and enhanced; and
• Quantify and, if possible, monetize the resilience value.
Stream 3: Economics of resilience
Through case studies of past events, gain an
understanding of what shocks and stresses can be
modeled, and in what sectors and how it is possible to
realize a resilience dividend.
Stream 4: Assessing Resilience at Other Scales
Invest in a robust framework to assess, measure and
value the contribution of ecosystems and ecosystem
services to resilience outcomes and guide additional
investment.
Supported by
City Resilience Index
Liverpool
Seattle
New York
Madrid
Detroit
Chengdu
Doha
New Orleans
Dubai
Shimla
Hong Kong
Surat
Bangkok
Ho Chi Minh City
Kampala
Cali
Quito
Arusha
Brazzaville
Dar es Salaam
Lima
Semerang
Rio de Janeiro
Sao Paulo
Cape Town
Melbourne
Concepción
Case study cities
Primary research cities
Arup offices that consulted with their cities
Ongoing pilot
What is it?
• A comprehensive tool for cities
• to understand and assess their
resilience
What is it based on?
• Research in 28 Cities
• Tested in 5 cities
• Globally applicable
Supported by
City Resilience Index
What contributes to a city’s resilience?
•
Our research tells us that universally there
are 12 goals that each and every city should
strive towards in order to achieve resilience
•
These are what matters most when a city
faces chronic problems or sudden
catastrophe
Supported by
City Resilience Index
What is does?
• Multi-stakeholder assessment process
• Gather city data and expert opinions
• Generates a city resilience
• measure future change
Qualities
Qualitative
Quantitative
Completeness
Supported by
City Resilience Index
What’s next?
• Implement scaling up strategy
• Influencing and communication
• Resilience solutions
• Strengthening metrics
10 cities
6 cities
5 cities
Piloting (previous phase)
3 cities
Round 1: Coaching
Round 2: Mentoring
Round 3: Supporting
Find out more: www.cityresilienceindex.org
2. Global Resilience Academy
The Rockefeller Foundation invests in the creation and deployment of a Global Resilience Academy-iterated and improved upon through experimentation and testing with new audiences, new distribution
channels, and kept evergreen through the incorporation of new knowledge over time
Stream 1: Deploy and test academy
for global audiences
•
Identify key distribution channels for academy (e.g.
100RC, GRP, ACCCRN and other RF and non-RF
processes and networks) and prioritize deployment
•
Experiment with alternative curriculum delivery
ethods e site, MOOC s, pod asts, ga es
•
Evaluate effectiveness of academy formats with
different audiences in different global contexts and
languages
Stream 2: Iterate on the curriculum and innovate new
approaches to training
•
Gather existing training materials to refresh curriculum for
global audience
•
Keep alu i a d other et orks ‘F a d o -RF) near
enough to cycle their experiences, learnings, and cases back
into the curriculum, but distant enough to self-organize and
innovate on their own
•
Catalyze a pipeline of knowledge creation through strategic
partnerships and investment to feed curriculum over time
•
Translate curriculum so that it is accessible to non-English
speaking practitioners, and translate context to be more
globally relevant
THE GLOBAL RESILIENCE ACADEMY
An intensive workshop to
educate about resilience
concepts and create
resilience strategies and
projects. It includes:
Resilience content
A process that is by
design
GLOBAL RESILIENCE ACADEMY
RESILIENCE ACADEMY MODULES
RESILIENCE STRATEGY
PROJECT DESIGN
RESILIENCE VALUATION
Understanding
Resilience
Defining a Resilience
Project
Maximizing Resilience
Opportunity and Value
Understanding Risk
Resilience Value
through Design
Refined Project Design
Creating an Approach
Finance and Leverage
Implementation
Roadmap
Stakeholders and
Influencers
Performance Measures
GLOBAL RESILIENCE ACADEMY
NATIONAL DISASTER RESILIENCE COMPETITION (NDRC)
$1B Project Funding
48
States
$9M Capacity Building
13
funded
+ Washington, D.C.
Puerto Rico
9
Cities
8
Counties
from
$176M
to
$15M
GLOBAL RESILIENCE ACADEMY
NDRC CAPACITY-BUILDING OUTCOMES
We ha e de eloped a
very strong partnership
with (the flagship state
university, and) a research
u i ersity.
The Acade y pro ided
the incentive for state
government to think about
…ho to i stitutio alize
building resilience into state
go er e t.
56%
83%
81%
54%
Considered new interagency working groups
Diversified team
Launched regional
collaborations
Pursued new funding
GLOBAL RESILIENCE ACADEMY
HOW TO PARTICIPATE IN GRA
1
2
3
DELIVER AN
ACADEMY
BECOME AN
SME
CONTRIBUTE TO
CURRICULUM
Implement your
own Academy
using GRA
resources and
content
Join the network,
share expertise,
and facilitate
Academies
Partner with GRA,
provide content,
and build our
curriculum
GLOBAL RESILIENCE ACADEMY
3. CONNECTING COMMUNITIES VIA DIGITAL RESILIENCE PLATFORMS
•
•
•
•
Resilience Recommender
Resilience Age
Resilience Exchange
CRI.org
www.acccrn.net
www.100resilient cities.org
www.globalresiliencepartnership.org
Buzz Discussion
• What do you see as the major opportunities and
risks i ho the field of resilie e is e ol i g at
present?
• Where is further investment and effort needed?
• How can the ACCCRN community most effectively
contribute to these?