BUILDING THE FIELD OF RESILIENCE
ACCCRN LEARNING EVENT
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)
Understanding field-building
Shared identity
Standards of practice
Knowledge base
Leadership and grassroots support
>200 RESILIENCE FIELD-BUILDING PLATFORMS
(2015)
3
Number of platforms
2
4
Nineteen platforms were located on multiple continents or were
truly global in nature.
WITH A HEAVY BIAS IN EUROPE AND NORTH
AMERICA
North America
89
South & Central
America
2
Europe
60
Africa &
Middle East
7
Asia
8
Oceania
32 10 26 24 17 20 2 3 67 1
ENCOURAGING SIGNS OF CROSS-DISCIPLINARY
APPROACHES
Discipline
Focus
Among cross-disciplinary, multi-sectoral platforms, there were multiple platforms dedicated to:
6
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.
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 unalignedplatforms, none of the above elements is recognizable
A significant portion could not be
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
inter-dependence
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.
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
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.
Strong users make use of at least half of these characteristics or similar characteristics in their approach to resilience.
Weak users refer to one or two of
thesecharacteristics.
Non-users make no recognizable use of these characteristics.
A significant portion could
not be assessed
WHERE WE WANT TO BE BY 2025
Goal:
By 2025,
resilience
paradigms are
evident in
policy
,
planning
,
funding
, and
investment.
Outcome 1: Resilience
leaders and practitioners are actively networking to
drive and validate the field (concepts, knowledge, standards)
Outcome 2: A thriving
market-place for professional resilience
services exists
Outcome 3:
Decision-making 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 6: Incentives
and regulations make investing in resilience
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.
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 1: CRI 2.0
Stream 2: Capturing Resilience Value
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 3: Economics of resilience
Invest in a robust framework to assess, measure and value the contribution of ecosystems and ecosystem services to resilience outcomes and guide additional investment.
Stream 4: Assessing Resilience at Other Scales
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.
Surat
Cape Town
Semerang New Orleans
Concepción
Primary research cities
Arup offices that consulted with their cities
Bangkok
Ongoing pilot
Shimla
Arusha
Case study cities
Seattle
Detroit
Quito
Lima
Rio de Janeiro
Brazzaville Dar es Salaam Kampala
Doha
Chengdu
Ho Chi Minh City
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
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
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
Supported by
City Resilience Index
3 cities
6 cities
10 cities
5 cities
Piloting (previous phase) Round 1: Coaching Round 2: Mentoring Round 3: Supporting
What’s next?
•
Implement scaling up strategy
•
Influencing and communication
•
Resilience solutions
•
Strengthening metrics
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
• 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
• 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
Stream 1: Deploy and test academy
for global audiences
GLOBAL RESILIENCE ACADEMY
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
GLOBAL RESILIENCE ACADEMY
Understanding Risk
Understanding
Resilience
Creating an Approach
Defining a Resilience
Project
Resilience Value
through Design
Finance and Leverage
Stakeholders and
Influencers
Maximizing Resilience
Opportunity and Value
Implementation
Roadmap
Performance Measures
RESILIENCE STRATEGY
PROJECT DESIGN
RESILIENCE VALUATION
Refined Project Design
GLOBAL RESILIENCE ACADEMY
$1B Project Funding
$9M Capacity Building
NATIONAL DISASTER RESILIENCE COMPETITION (NDRC)
48
States
+ Washington, D.C.
Puerto Rico
9
Cities
8
Counties
13
funded
from
$176M
to
GLOBAL RESILIENCE ACADEMY
83%
Diversified team
54%
Pursued new funding
We ha e de eloped a
very strong partnership
with (the flagship state
university, and) a research
u i ersity.
NDRC CAPACITY-BUILDING OUTCOMES
81%
Launched regional
collaborations
56%
Considered new
inter-agency working groups
The Acade y pro ided
the incentive for state
government to think about
…ho to i stitutio alize
building resilience into state
GLOBAL RESILIENCE ACADEMY
