A Tale of Five Cities: Assessing Emergency Management for Future Disasters in the United States

Abstract

Many cities across the United States (U.S.) face threats from natural hazards, and as climate change continues to worsen, cities will face increased risks. Emergency management helps cities to mitigate these risks and adapt to shifting threats. Based on the Rockefeller City Resilience Framework and City Resilience Index Driver 3, Indicator 3.4, the scope of this research was to develop an emergency management maturity model and explore emergency management capacity for future disasters based on an assessment of five cities across the U.S. With the resulting data, a city’s score would serve as an evaluation of the emergency response indicator (Indicator 3.4) in order to eventually enter the City Resilience Index. The cities selected were Buffalo, New York; Honolulu, Hawaii; Memphis, Tennessee; New Orleans, Louisiana; and Saint Paul, Minnesota, based on their hazard/risk factors. It should be noted that these scores were intended to compare resilience in a city over time and identify unique areas in which the cities could improve emergency management and were not meant to rank the cities against each other. An interesting find was the overlap between the counties and cities regarding policy data, creating a new avenue for research in local level emergency management.

1. Introduction

Cities across the United States face many threats from natural hazards such as hurricanes, flooding, earthquakes, and more. Emergency management helps cities mitigate and adapt to these threats through recovery, response, mitigation, and preparedness efforts [1]. This study explored emergency response capacity for future disasters in five U.S. cities across the United States based on the 100 Resilient Cities Framework (RCF) and City Resilience Index Driver 3, which focuses on the integration of health facilities and services and ensuring responsive emergency services. Our methodology and model are thus grounded in public health services aspects of the RCF, and in the related Rockefeller City Resilience Index (CRI) Indicator 3.4: effective emergency response services. The RCF and CRI were used as a basis for policy selection and data collection to assess locality emergency response and inform the assessment of policy and response capacity for that location. While cities across the United States have helped develop and test the CRI, only one city in the United States has a complete resilience profile through the Index.

The cities selected for the study included Buffalo, New York; Honolulu, Hawaii; Memphis, Tennessee; New Orleans, Louisiana; and Saint Paul, Minnesota. The locations were selected to provide a broad range of hazard/risk factors, geography, landscape and infrastructural capacity related to emergency management. While hazard types occur across the selected cities, this grouping provides a broad range of natural hazards present throughout the United States.

Our results shed light on the gaps and overlaps at the local policy level, suggesting a new avenue of research regarding local level emergency management. The results support the use of the model at the local level to inform policymakers and decision makers on strategy gaps and the progress on building capacity for emergency management and resilience.

The rest of the paper is outlined as follows: Section 2 provides a literature review on city resilience and the five selected cities’ natural hazards and policies available from the city. After this, Section 3 covers the methods for data collection and analysis, Section 4 provides the results for the cities, and Section 5 includes discussion of the results and highlights the limitations of the study. Section 6 concludes the paper.

2. Background

C.S. Holling’s work [2] in the 1970s defined resilience as “the ability of systems to absorb changes and… still persist”. White and Haas [3] focused on vulnerability as a key component of determining resilience. More recently, the Hyogo Framework for Action [4] adopted by the United Nations called for action to “preserve normal life” in the face of natural disasters. Fiskel [5] introduced the idea of “grow[th]” to “adapt after a disturbance”, and the 2011 U.S. Presidential Policy Directive on National Preparedness [6] incorporated the element of timeliness or “rapid” recovery following a disaster. Cutter [7] suggested the importance of both process [8] and outcome [9] as part of developing resilience capabilities. The concept of resilience has thus evolved with these additions, including how resilience is understood and as well as how it will be assessed and managed.

There is a growing compendium of literature that supports the broader concept of socio-technical resilience and even more on the definitions of resilience (and therefore, underpinning concepts); however, the connections between emergency management planning and resilience are less elucidated. In particular, literature review efforts to examine emergency management and planning as elements of resilience in local robustness is limited [10]. In this research, we explored city-level emergency management capacity and resilience, based on policy and planning efforts in five cities across the U.S.

The selection of cities for the study was based on their geographic location, natural hazards, and related risks for emergency management. Buffalo, New York was chosen due to severe winter storms and flooding risks related to its location on the Great Lakes. Honolulu, Hawaii was chosen since it faces tsunami, flooding, hurricanes, and heavy rains. Memphis, Tennessee was chosen due to its position along the Mississippi River and New Madrid Seismic Zone leaving it vulnerable to flooding, tornados, earthquakes, and windstorms. New Orleans, Louisiana was chosen due to its position on the coast and the associated hazards like hurricanes, flooding, and storm surges. Finally, Saint Paul, Minnesota was also chosen for its location on the Mississippi River and the winter storms and flooding it faces. Figure 1 shows the locations of each city within the United States.

2.1. Buffalo, New York

Buffalo is located in Western New York and has been characterized with multiple hazards such as winter storms and blizzards, ice jams, flooding, drought, tornadoes, and windstorms [11]. Winter storms and blizzards are one of the major hazards of Buffalo, as seen from the winter storm in 2022, which lasted for four days [12]. The storm resulted in shutdown of three power substations due to freezing, power outage for more than 100,000 people, stranded motorists, crippled emergency services, and 47 deaths.

Other hazards for Buffalo include ice jams and flooding. Ice jams can create flooding through three different methods: (1) the first fall freeze can form frazil ice, a form of slush ice that can build up and restrict water flow, resulting in increased water levels and flooding as well as blockages in water intakes; (2) stream channels can freeze solid during the midwinter period, forming anchor ice that blocks water flow and increases water levels; and (3) the existing ice cover can break into large floating masses that lodge against bridges and other infrastructure, restricting water flow. Ice jam flooding occurs through the water levels rapidly changing, with the ice causing additional damage [13]. Buffalo also faces flooding threats from extreme rainfall events, which are increasing both in severity and frequency due to rising and fluctuating temperatures associated with climate change.

Lastly, Buffalo faces droughts, heat waves, tornadoes, and windstorms. With increased temperatures, New York weather is projected to resemble current summers in Georgia in a high emission scenario. In a low emission scenario, New York is projected to resemble Virginia [13]. This means that in the upcoming years, heat waves could occur approximately three times each year. With Buffalo being at an above average sensitivity to heat, many residents as well as infrastructure are at risk. This similarly occurs with tornadoes and windstorms since wind speeds are also projected to increase in the winter and summer months as the climate warms [14]. With a shift in direction and increased wind speeds, Buffalo has an increased likelihood of wind damage to infrastructure, houses, trees, and other critical functions. Thus, with climate change worsening, Buffalo faces multiple hazards that have become more evident, creating a need for emergency preparedness for future disasters.

2.2. Honolulu, Hawaii

Because Honolulu is a part of the 100 Resilient Cities Network, the city has a resilience strategy detailing four pillars—Remaining Rooted, Bouncing Forward, Climate Security, Community Cohesion—each encapsulating different aspects of resiliency [15]. Remaining Rooted discusses how Honolulu will invest in long-term solutions to increase self-sufficiency, reduce out-of-pocket expenses, and assure that their community stays intact. Bouncing Forward discusses how the city will work with individuals, neighborhoods, and institutions to be prepared for threats from hurricanes, flooding, and extreme weather events and how to rebound in ways that put the community on stronger footing for each successive event. Climate Security discusses how Honolulu must transition to a 100% clean energy economy as quickly as possible by changing policies and infrastructure to protect lives and property. Community Cohesion discusses how the City of Honolulu must foster connectivity and collaboration to ensure the community will come together stronger and tighter in the face of economic and environmental challenges [16].

Honolulu faces a wide array of environmental challenges such as busy tropical cyclone seasons, heavy rainfall following prolonged drought, warmer oceans, coral bleaching, eroding beaches, and high tide flooding [16]. Established by charter in 1907, the City of Honolulu, situated in Honolulu County, is the 11th largest municipality in the United States [17], with 90% of their food and fuel being imported [16]. However, Honolulu is not just a large city, but it also has a network of small towns, rural communities, and farms [16]. In 2017, a survey of Honolulu residents indicated the top five shocks were hurricanes, indicated by 77%; tsunamis, indicated by 51%; infrastructure failure, indicated by 37%; rainfall flooding, indicated by 29%; and external economic crisis, indicated by 29%. The top five stresses indicated were the cost of living at 50%, aging infrastructure at 50%, climate change impacts at 47%, lack of affordable housing at 40%, and overreliance on imports at 24%.

Currently, coastal communities like Honolulu have accounted for most annual disaster losses in the United States [16]. This occurs due to Honolulu’s island infrastructure being extremely vulnerable with many of the roadways, bridges and other facilities located in coastal and flood-prone areas [16]. In the event of a Category 1 hurricane, around 65% of Honolulu’s current residential housing stock would be either destroyed or severely damaged, resulting in approximately 20,000 people needing short to long-term shelter [16]. In addition, 60% of Oahu’s critical infrastructure and two-thirds of the population are located within a mile of the coast. Due to this, critical services such as emergency response as well as food and medicine delivery are particularly vulnerable when coastal hazards like storm surges, flooding, tsunamis, and sea level rise occur.

2.3. Memphis, Tennessee

Memphis resides in an area informally known as the Mid-South which encompasses Western Tennessee, Northern Mississippi, Northeast Arkansas, and parts of Missouri. Memphis remains the center of this area although there is no officially established boundaries. Even without these established boundaries, the region faces multiple threats such as damaging winds, riverine flooding, flash flooding, extreme heat and drought, earthquakes, tornadoes, and snowfall [18].

Damaging winds are a threat in Memphis and the rest of the Mid-South because they can cause frequent and possibly extended power outages for residents [18]. While damaging winds are widespread across the country, Memphis is a national logistics hub, and power outages could create major complications nationwide if operations are disrupted [18]. The National Weather Service considers windstorms to be severe if winds are greater than 58 miles per hour [18]. Even though windstorms do not result in significant direct casualties, they can indirectly cause deaths and injuries due to falling debris, considering debris is the biggest hazard [18]. Since wind speeds are higher if the difference in pressure between two colliding systems is higher, the fluctuation with global temperatures will affect the wind patterns [18].

Another threat towards Memphis is riverine flooding, when rivers and other bodies of water overflow onto riverbanks and surrounding floodplains [18]. When the Mississippi River’s water level rises and exceeds the elevation outlet for the smaller tributaries, these tributaries are unable to drain, become backed up, and overflow their streambanks, causing flooding in areas [18]. For most of the region, these smaller tributaries are the main source of riverine flooding [18]. In downtown Memphis, the city is protected by an elevated bluff from the eastern banks of the Mississippi River. However, the projected increases in winter precipitation in states upstream on the Mississippi and Ohio Rivers means that more snowmelt in the spring will drain into the river channel, resulting in higher-than-normal water levels [18]. On top of that, there is a projected 5.3% increase in the amount of annual precipitation by the late 21st century, although the Mid-South typically receives 54 inches of precipitation annually [18]. With these amounts of precipitation, water levels could exceed the height of dams and locks, affecting the movement of coal, building materials, and agricultural products through Memphis. The more intense downpours will gradually create a faster channel in the waterway, increasing the chances of flash flooding.

While flash flooding is caused by many of the same causes as riverine flooding, flash flooding can also occur because of inadequate or non-functional stormwater drainage capabilities [18]. Even though the city of Memphis does have separate stormwater drainage systems from their sanitary sewer systems, the drainage systems themselves do not comprehensively reflect the latest design standards from 2006 [18]. However, the magnitude of flash flooding events varies widely based on the current rainfall, recent precipitation levels, the water levels in the Mississippi River and its tributaries, and the amount of debris on the ground [18].

Memphis is also part of the New Madrid Seismic Zone, one of three in the central United States known to cause earthquakes. The future activity of this seismic zone has been contested for many years, but in the worst-case scenario, it is estimated that 45,000 people would need to seek temporary shelter in Shelby County [18]. It is also estimated that only 5.5% of households would have potable water, 15% of residents would have power, and 54.8% of bridges would have extensive or complete damage, leaving many people stranded [18]. An earthquake exceeding 7.0 on the Richter Scale from the New Madrid Seismic Zone would be able to create a blackout of the Eastern Interconnection electrical grid, which has not occurred since 2003.

Extreme heat and drought, tornados, and snowfall are all threats to Memphis. In the Mid-South region, recent development patterns have increased impervious cover which reflects heat into the air and decreased permeable cover which absorbs heat [18]. Because of the Urban Heat Island Effect, Memphis experiences twenty-one more days above 90 degrees Fahrenheit than rural areas, and the city can be up to sixteen degrees hotter compared to the nearby rural areas [18]. Due to warmer temperatures, both tornadoes and winter snowfall are impacted. Due to eastward shifts in climate zones, there has been an increase in tornado risk within the region [18]. With warmer temperatures, Memphis is more likely to experience more rain events rather than snow. Because of extreme heat, Memphis’s tornado threat may increase while its snowfall accumulation threat will decrease.

2.4. New Orleans, Louisiana

Historically, New Orleans lies in an area faced with environmental hazards such as inland river flooding, hurricanes, oil spills, and many others as climate change continues to worsen. Louisiana is experiencing the highest rate of relative sea level rise in the world with a projected 4.3 feet by 2100 [19]. It is likely that by 2050, Louisiana will experience temperatures above 95 degrees Fahrenheit 80+ days per year [19]. Around 25% of the United States’ waterborne exports are shipped through Louisiana’s five major ports with the Mississippi River draining 40% of the Continental United States [19]. As high technology jobs continue to grow within New Orleans, there is a growing demand for hazard mitigation and emergency preparedness.

The Mississippi River travels through New Orleans, and over one-third of the city is wetlands [19]. Due to the deltaic soils and the wetlands surrounding the city, the shifting coastal landscape offers unique challenges for the built environment [19]. However, with highly efficient pumping technology, the wetlands in low lying parts of the city and region were drained and suburbanized, resulting in regional sprawl [19]. New Orleans is currently drained by twenty-four pumping stations with a total design capacity of 50,891 cubic feet per second [20]. The greater New Orleans metropolitan area, which includes Orleans, Jefferson, St. Bernard, and Plaquemines, is served by over 80 pumping stations with a combined capacity of over 30 billion gallons per day [20].

New Orleans faces six specific types of flooding as a major concern: riverine flooding, flash flooding, ponding, backwater flooding, urban flooding, and coastal flooding [20]. Riverine flooding occurs along a river or smaller stream that results from runoff by heavy rainfall, intensive snow, or ice melt. Flash flooding occurs when locally intense precipitation inundates an area in a short amount of time, causing the local streamflow and drainage capacity to be overwhelmed. Backwater flooding occurs when water slowly rises from a normally unexpected direction where protection has not been provided [20]. Urban flooding is similar to flash flooding, but it is specific to urbanized areas, when stormwater drainage systems cannot keep pace with heavy precipitation and water accumulates on the surface. Oftentimes, urban flooding is caused by a slow-moving thunderstorm or torrential rainfall. Finally, coastal flooding occurs when normally dry coastal land is flooded by seawater but may be caused by direct inundation, overtopping of a natural or artificial barrier, or the breaching of a natural or artificial barrier. Typically, coastal flooding from storm surges, tsunamis, and gradual sea-level rise can appear similar to any of the other flood types depending on its cause [20].

New Orleans faces storm surge hazards associated with hurricanes and other severe storms, which is responsible for most of the coastal flooding along the Louisiana Gulf Coast [20]. The threat from storm surges has only increased over the past 150 years due to a wide variety of factors such as coastal erosion, the loss of wetlands, sea-level rise, and the construction of canals for navigation and drainage [20]. The severity of a storm surge is determined by a number of factors like the path of a hurricane, wind speeds, the shape of the coastline, and the forward speed [20]. Storm surges are considered one of the deadlier and more destructive components of a hurricane, and a number of factors relating to storm surge hazards are expected to change the risk of flooding in New Orleans [20]. These factors include increases in the relative sea level within the region due to geological subsidence and global sea-level rise, loss of coastal wetlands, and the potential increases in hurricane activity in the Gulf of Mexico [19].

Hurricanes are among the most devastating naturally occurring hazards in the United States [20]. Past hurricanes and tropical storms have impacted New Orleans greatly by causing structural damage to homes, businesses, and critical facilities to prevent water intrusion. Emergency services can be interrupted during these events and power outages caused by even tropical storm winds can impact healthcare facilities, disrupt essential social services, lead to a loss of food during extended outages, impact vulnerable communities, and lead to losses with revenue [20].

New Orleans is particularly vulnerable to climate change through coastal erosion. While the Louisiana coast is uniquely buffered from the Gulf of Mexico by its coastal wetland systems, the state still has the highest rate of wetland loss in the country, accounting for 80% of the nation’s coastal wetland loss [20]. While coastal erosion is a gradual process, the impact severity from hurricanes and tropical storms can result in increased erosion [20]. Coastal erosion also affects land subsidence, or the loss of surface elevation due to the removal of subsurface support. This removal can range from broad regional lowering to localized collapse of land [20]. High land subsidence rates in New Orleans can be found where former marshland was built upon for buildings, roads, and levee causeways [20].

2.5. Saint Paul, Minnesota

Saint Paul is also located along the Mississippi River and faces multiple types of hazards. Saint Paul is part of the Twin Cities area where Minnesota’s two largest cities, Minneapolis and Saint Paul, are settled along the Mississippi and St. Croix rivers. Although these cities are often referred to as one metropolitan area, only Saint Paul and its surrounding county, Ramsey County, were examined.

Saint Paul faces multiple hazards such as flooding, winter storms, thunderstorms, windstorms, tornadoes, and extreme heat. In 2015, an expert stakeholder group also identified infrastructure failure as one of the top four acute shocks that threatens the city. The group also identified chronic stresses on the city, including aging/overwhelmed infrastructure, insufficient funding for infrastructure projects that improve public safety and ensure access to critical services, and lack of trained professionals to support residents, including health, wellness, and emergency response professionals [21].

As climate change continues to affect Saint Paul, winter is becoming warmer with more winter rain than snow [21]. According to Saint Paul’s Strategic Framework for Community Resilience, winter is warming at ten times the rate of summer, resulting in insufficient winter conditions for killing pests like the emerald ash borer. The entire Minnesota climate has grown wetter with the Saint Paul region seeing some of the largest changes within the state [21]. Heavy rainfalls have become both more common and more intense.

Saint Paul faces three types of flooding threats from increased precipitation. The first is where prolonged wet periods last weeks or even months, producing unusually high lake and river levels that flood low-lying areas and shut down recreation at parks and trails. The second type is flash flooding, from extreme rainfall that overwhelms drainage systems. The third type occurs when the winter snow melts quickly during spring and overflows the Mississippi river and the surrounding lakes. A 100-year storm would easily flood all of downtown Saint Paul, block roads, destroy surrounding infrastructure, and block transportation. The threat from heavy precipitation continues to increase, and it is projected that the number of days between rain events will also increase, creating increased risk of drought before, after, and even during periods of heavy precipitation [21].

Saint Paul faces tornado hazards that could damage infrastructure, restrict critical services, and endanger lives. Tornadoes can cause as much property damage as a hurricane, and often cause more deaths [22]. The number of days with more than 30 Enhanced Fujita Scale (EF) or greater tornadoes is increasing in Ramsey County and Saint Paul [22]. Tornadoes and windstorms can result in significant property damage and impact critical infrastructure like hospitals and emergency services.

Extreme heat is another hazard to Saint Paul as the city is susceptible to the Urban Heat Island Effect. Saint Paul has already warmed considerably compared to the rest of the state, with average temperatures rising 3.2 degrees Fahrenheit from 1951 to 2010. Between 2041 and 2070, temperatures are expected to rise another four to five degrees, meaning there will be five to ten more days annually reaching over 95 degrees Fahrenheit [21]. The hazard of extreme heat is continuing to worsen as the threats for the associated severe thunderstorms, flooding, and tornadoes have increased.

2.6. Summary of Review

The cities of Buffalo, Honolulu, Memphis, New Orleans, and St. Paul face considerable shocks and stresses associated with natural hazards, exacerbated by climate change. These shocks and stresses arise from the hazards themselves, as well as from limitations on city capacity for emergency management. This study contributes toward narrowing gaps in understanding these limitations by providing a framework to evaluate emergency management capacity for future disasters. The cities selected for evaluation represent a range of natural hazards and related shocks and stresses perceived as threats to cities across the United States, and the maturity evaluation and analysis can inform policy development and implementation strategies for municipal decisionmakers.

Table 1. Summary of natural hazards for each city.

City	Region	Characteristics	Natural Hazards
Buffalo, New York	US Northeast	Situated on Lake Erie and the Niagara River	Snow accumulation, extreme winter temperatures, blizzards, ice jams, flooding, drought, tornadoes, windstorms
Honolulu, Hawaii	US Pacific Islands	Situated on the island of Oahu in the Hawaiian archipelago	Cyclones, hurricanes, drought, heavy rainfall, warmer oceans, coastal erosion, tidal flooding
Memphis, Tennessee	US Mid-South	Situated on the Mississippi River; New Madrid Seismic Zone	Riverine and flash flooding, heat, drought, earthquakes, tornadoes, snowfall
New Orleans, Louisiana	US Deep South	Situated on the Mississippi River near the Gulf of Mexico; Surrounded by wetlands	Riverine, flash, ponding, backwater, urban, and coastal flooding, storm surges, hurricanes, coastal erosion, extreme heat
Saint Paul, Minnesota	US Midwest	Situated on the Mississippi and St. Croix Rivers	Flooding, snow accumulation, extreme winter temperatures, thunderstorms, windstorms, tornadoes, extreme heat

provides a summary of each city’s region in the U.S., characteristics of its location, and natural hazards present.

3. Materials and Methods

To explore the extent to which U.S. cities are developing emergency management capacity in connection with resilience toward future disasters, we focused on five cities in different regions of the U.S. as case studies, representing a range of natural hazards. We developed a maturity matrix as a tool for evaluating a city’s progress in emergency management based on drivers and indicators of health and wellness found in the CRI developed by the Rockefeller Foundation and Arup Group, and the Resilience Maturity Model (RMM) developed by the Smart Mature Resilience Project. CRI Indicator 3.4 was delineated in four categories representing the four phases of emergency management: recovery, response, mitigation, and preparedness. In some cases, data for selected cities was limited due to fewer emergency management policies at the city level, but we found that the associated county had in-depth emergency management policies. Each city was evaluated and scored on each criterion based on their mitigation, response, recovery, and preparedness policies, both unadjusted and adjusted to account for county policies. These individual scores were then averaged to determine overall city scores, as a means to determine status and progress on building emergency management capacity. The model developed for evaluation was informed by the CRF and CRI and aligned with the four dimensions of resilience outlined in the RMM.

Maturity matrices or models provide opportunities to evaluate an organization’s progression of growth and improvement over time. Through a versatile set of indicators that can be modified, a maturity model can be created and applied to various industries and organizations to assess status and progress toward a desired state [23,24,25,26]. As shown by Veleva and Ellenbecker [27], maturity matrices and models can involve quantitative and qualitative indicators that cover key global issues, provide flexibility on what is included and measured, promote continuous improvement, and encourage various levels of stakeholder engagement [27]. Maier et al. [24] maintained that a maturity matrix is well-suited to inform organizational strategy development, where an organization can use such a tool to determine where it stands in relation to the selected indicators at a point in time and can use the same tool over time to assess progress toward more optimal levels in the matrix [24].

This section describes our approach to the study and is further divided into four areas: Section 3.1 covers the CRI and its indicators, as well as the main resilience drivers developed by the Rockefeller Foundation and the Arup Group. Section 3.2 discusses the Smart Mature Resilience Project’s Resilience Maturity Model and Section 3.3 describes the resulting emergency management maturity model developed in this work. Section 3.4 focuses on evaluation based on the model.

3.1. City Resilience Index and Indicators

The CRI created by the Rockefeller Foundation and the Arup Group [28] has four main categories split into separate goals, or drivers, as follows:

• The Leadership Strategy category has the drivers of effective leadership and management, empowered stakeholders, and integrated development planning.
• The Health and Wellness category has the drivers of minimal human vulnerability, livelihoods and employment, and safeguard to human life and health.
• The Economy and Society category has drivers for finance including contingency funds, social stability and security, and collective identity and mutual support.
• The Urban System and Services Category includes drivers for reliable mobility and communications, continuity of critical services, and reduced physical exposure.

The drivers are split further into 52 indicators, which are assessed based on 156 qualitative and 156 quantitative questions. The qualitative questions are scored on a linear scale between one to five on the best-case and worst-case scenarios for that area while the quantitative questions are scored on relevant city data in a specific unit where a score from one to five is then automated [28]. Then, the CRI assesses the qualities of resilience—integrated, inclusive, reflective, resourceful, robust, redundant, and flexible—in the city systems. This research focused on Health and Wellness indicator 3.4: Effective emergency services [28] which fall under the Effective Safeguards to Human Health Driver, as shown in

Table 2. CRI City Resilience Indicators for safeguarding health [28].

Category 2: Health and Wellness
Driver 3: Effective Safeguards to Human Health
Indicator 3.1 Robust public health systems	Indicator 3.2 Adequate access to quality healthcare	Indicator 3.3 Emergency medical care	Indicator 3.4 Effective emergency services

.

As a means to inform policymakers’ actions to build more resilient cities with respect to emergency management, we developed and tested an assessment tool informed by emergency management aspects of the CRI. By assessing progress on Indicator 3.4 based on the emergency management policies a city has in place and will implement, policymakers can observe gaps and overlaps, as well as opportunities for stakeholder engagement and collaboration as they progress and enhance emergency management capacity.

3.2. The Smart Mature Resilience Project Resilience Maturity Model

The RMM was designed for European cities to enhance their own resilience and assess their current maturity stage. The maturity model allows for assessment and reassessment as a city’s resilience maturity advances as more policies are created and stakeholders are involved. The five levels of maturity are presented as starting, moderate, advanced, robust, and vertebrate, while focusing on resilience efforts across four dimensions: leadership and governance, preparedness, infrastructure and resources, and cooperation [29].

Table 3. Resilience Maturity Model level description adapted from [29,30].

Maturity Level	Description
Starting	The city (or other municipal departments) starts to develop resilience-based policies. During this time, the city’s government will identify relevant stakeholders to take part in the process for the development of the resilience action plan.
2. Moderate	At this level, the city resilience action plan includes holistic policies for expected and unexpected disasters and communicates the strategy to public and private companies, NGOs, emergency services, volunteers, and other critical infrastructures.
3. Advanced	The resilience plan includes broad stakeholders and is structured to create continuous improvement. The city now changes from guiding the resilience policy to facilitating stakeholders selected resilient strategies.
4. Robust	The stakeholders are directly guiding and actively participating in resilience development as aa part of their daily actions while providing feedback and sharing lessons learned,
5. Vertebrate	Finally, all efforts by the stakeholders are coordinated, integrated and aligned with the city resilience plan, and the city is actively participating in local, regional, and international policies and stakeholders.

describes the five levels of maturity according to the RMM.

The four dimensions of the RMM (leadership and governance, preparedness, infrastructure and resources, and cooperation) are divided into separate subdimensions. The leadership and governance dimension includes the creation of a resilience office, a resilience action plan, certification creation, and a resilience learning culture. The preparedness dimension focuses on risk assessment, prioritization in risk scenarios, conducting training with emergency services and stakeholders, and developing education services. Infrastructure and resources are associated with assessing current initiatives and funding opportunities for development of resilience, deploying disaster relief funds, contingency planning for critical infrastructure, implementation of monitoring services for shocks, stresses, and risk, and measures to increase critical infrastructure redundancy and resilience. Finally, the cooperation dimension establishes stakeholder involvement within the local, national, and international levels [29,30].

The subdimensions are further divided into multiple indicators that influence the maturity level the city receives. In the first level, the starting level, there are 18 indicators across all four subdimensions. At the moderate level, there are 21 indicators across all the subdimensions with most of in the leadership and governance dimension and the infrastructure and resources dimension. The advanced level also has 21 indicators, but the indicators are evenly distributed throughout each subdimension. There is a decrease at the robust level with only 14 indicators, but the vertebrate level increases to the final 17 indicators. Overall, most of the indicators fell between the moderate and advanced level for city resilience [29].

3.3. Emergency Management Maturity Model Design and Development

In the Lowell Center for Sustainable Production Indicator Framework developed by Veleva and Ellenbecker [27], there are five maturity levels with level one focusing on facility compliance and conformance indicators. Level two goes beyond compliance and focuses on facility material use and performance indicators, and level three covers facility effect indicators. At level four, the supply chain and product life-cycle indicators are applied, and the final level focuses on sustainable system indicators [27]. The Climate Resilience Maturity Framework developed by Greenwood et al. [23] also proposed a five-level model as a tool for organizations to evaluate progression from basic legal compliance toward system level resilience. The five- level maturity model is also evident in the Rockefeller CRI as well as the Smart Mature Resilience Project’s RMM.

Consistent with the maturity models found in the literature, we developed a five-level maturity matrix, integrating the underlying rationales for level progression from Veleva and Ellenbecker [27], Greenwood et al. [23], and the RMM [29]. The model framework and selection of criteria were informed by the literature and the CRI and RMM to evaluate emergency management capacity for future disasters based on relevant city policies established or criteria policies. The model framework also illustrates where the criteria policies align with the dimensions of resilience set out in the RMM. Unlike the RMM, our approach did not include assessment of the stakeholder dimension, as our focus was on the presence of the emergency management policies themselves, and not on processes for developing them.

The criteria policies were selected based on their relevance as leading indicators of capacity across the four phases of emergency management: mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery. Selected criteria policies found in city plans, strategies, and programs included emergency response plans, climate action plans, community capability assessments, National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) compliance, resilient strategies, NFIP community rating systems, emergency management plans, and pre-disaster plans.

Table 4. Emergency management criteria policies.

Mitigation Policies	Preparedness Policies	Response Policies	Recovery Policies
Community Capability Assessment	NFIP Community Rating System	Emergency Response/Management Plan	Pre-Disaster Plan
NFIP Compliance	Climate Action Plan		Resilience Strategy

shows the distribution of policies across the phases of emergency management, based on the primary focus of such policies. However, we note that in practice these policies may address more than one phase.

The scores given to the cities were based on their development of relevant policies in the four phases of emergency management. A score of three was considered the standard, indicating that the city had a climate action plan and an emergency response plan in place. In the figure below, the standard has been highlighted. The emergency response plan was selected as one of the standard criteria policies since the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act requires local or tribal emergency planning committees to develop one [31]. The climate action plan was also selected as a standard criteria policy because many local communities have begun to implement them in order to outline specific actions the community will take to address adaptation strategies and reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. The community capability assessment was identified as a criteria policy due to its prominence in the U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hazard mitigation planning guidance [32]. NFIP compliance was also selected since all of the cities experience a flood hazard, and flood insurance coverage extends to communities that adopt the floodplain regulations set by NFIP [33]. A resilience strategy was also selected due to its connection to the CRI and prominence in the RMM. While the NFIP community rating system relates to NFIP compliance, it was also included as a criteria policy as a voluntary incentive program that encourages exceeding the minimum requirements of NFIP compliance [34]. Finally, pre-disaster recovery plans were included due to the National Disaster Recovery Framework established by FEMA discussing an effective recovery structure for communities impacted by disasters [35]. The resulting emergency management capacity matrix is shown in Figure 2.

3.4. Evaluation Framework

The city scores for dimensions and subdimensions of resilience were based on criteria policies on a scale of one to five, with one being very little or no mention of each criterion. If these policies were not implemented and the city had one policy that was a part of the criteria policies, it was given a score of one (starting) due to having minimal criteria policies. However, if the standard policies were not implemented, but the city had two or three other criteria policies, it would be granted a score of two (moderate). A score of four (robust) would be given if the standard policies were met in addition to one or two of the other criteria policies included. Finally, a score of five (vertebrate) would be given if the standard criteria policies were achieved and three or more additional criteria policies were also implemented. The four individual scores were then totaled and averaged to gain the overall score. In the event that the overall score was not a whole number, it was rounded to the nearest whole number. The scores were not meant to rank the cities against each other but to generate comparison for improvements cities can implement for emergency management improvements. The equation for the overall score for dimensions and subdimensions consisted of the four categories averaged and then rounded to the nearest whole number, as shown below.

$$Overall Score={\displaystyle \frac{a_{response}+b_{recovery}+c_{mitigation}+d_{preparedness}}{4}}$$

Lastly, the emergency management capacity for each city was assessed using the RMM maturity matrix itself across the subdimensions related to response, preparedness, mitigation, and recovery, based on the applicable policies in place. This generated a cumulative overall rating for emergency management capacity. The research design decisions involved tradeoffs related to policy access and availability, the place-based nature of emergency management, and related contextual variability. The limitations posed by the research approach are discussed further in Section 5.6.

4. Results

In order to inform numeric evaluation using the Emergency Management Maturity Model, the policies in place for each city were reviewed. We found that all five cities had a climate action plan, resilience strategy, and NFIP compliance in place, while only two cities were using the NFIP community rating system and had a pre-disaster plan. All but Honolulu had a distinct emergency management plan in place, and three of the five had implemented a community capability assessment. In the cases of Buffalo, Memphis, and Saint Paul, applicable policies were also found at the county level. A discussion of applicable policies for each city is provided in Section 4.1, Section 4.2, Section 4.3, Section 4.4 and Section 4.5.

Table 5. Criteria policies in place.

	Preparedness		Mitigation		Recovery		Response
	Climate Action Plan	NFIP Community Rating System	Community Capability Assessment	NFIP Compliance	Resilience Strategy	Pre-Disaster Plan	Emergency Response/Management Plan	Other
Buffalo, NY	X *		X *	X	X		X *	X
Honolulu, HI	X	X		X	X	X		X
Memphis, TN	X			X	X *		X	X
New Orleans, LA	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
Saint Paul, MN	X		X *	X	X		X

* Indicates a policy incorporated at the county level. X: Indicates a policy exists.

shows the criteria policies in place for each city.

According to the Rockefeller CRI [28], the Index is intended to measure performance over time rather than provide a comparison between cities. This study focused on determining scores for each city based on established emergency management policies, using a scale of one through five to indicate status and progress toward effective emergency services and building capacity for emergency management. As discussed previously, the policies were organized under the four phases of emergency management, correlated to RMM dimensions of resilience, providing a score for each phase and an overall averaged score.

4.1. Buffalo, New York

Buffalo received an average score of two when considering city policies alone, with individual scores of two for response, one for recovery and mitigation, and two for preparedness. However, we found that several policies had been implemented at the county level that included the city in their scope. When county capacity was added, Buffalo achieved an overall score of four, representing enhanced capacity due to collaboration with the county.

The individual scores that incorporate the county and city policies were as follows: response (four), recovery (four), mitigation (five), and preparedness (four). The Erie County Climate Action Plan adopted in 2024 was a significant contributor to the higher overall score since it contained multiple strategies and a climate vulnerability assessment for Erie County, which includes Buffalo [14]. These strategies were divided into consumption and waste, transportation, housing and neighborhood resiliency, economic and workforce development, commercial energy conservation and renewable energy, nature-based solutions, and agriculture and food systems. Additionally, the strategies contained multiple action items defined by the time horizon, sphere of influence, and the lead county entity. Therefore, the Plan contained a balance between local government efforts, state wide initiatives, and community involvement and engagement, resulting in the higher overall score for the county and city.

Another major contributor to the higher overall score was the Erie County Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan published in 2019. The plan details the hazards present for the city and county, the roadmap for emergency response operations, the planned damage assessment, and redevelopment plan. The higher overall score reflects the 2022 Erie County Community Capability Assessment, as it links to range of planning elements like the emergency operations plan, climate action plan, streambank buffer protection program, building codes, etc. Thus, the depth and breadth of planning raised the overall score due to strengthening the preparedness score, mitigation score, and the response scores.

4.2. Honolulu, Hawaii

Honolulu received an overall score of five at the city level and when adjusted to include county policies. The individual scores for both the adjusted and unadjusted scores were as follows: response (four), recovery (five), mitigation (five), and preparedness (five). Honolulu is both a city and a county and this led to no change with any of the policies at a city and county level. While there was no change with the policies gathered for Honolulu, the information in each policy provides a comprehensive understanding regarding what the county and city are currently working to improve, the hazards present, community actions that can be undertaken, and more. This is evident in the Resilient Oahu policy published in December 2019 as well as the One Climate One Oahu climate action plan published in 2020. Also, the pre-disaster plan covers land use development, the effects from climate change, hazards present like coastal erosion, strong winds, tropical cyclones, floods, tsunamis, earthquakes, drought, wildfires, volcanic gas, landslides, etc. [36]. The pre-disaster plan (updated in 2020) also includes a vulnerability assessment, mitigation strategy and actions, emergency shelters, and a repetitive loss analysis, showing how the county and city is working to improve its emergency management [36].

While Honolulu did not have a separate emergency response plan, there were other factors in their policies that merited a score of four for response. While the pre-disaster plan was categorized for recovery, Honolulu’s pre-disaster plan included many elements that would be covered by an emergency response plan. The resilience strategy and climate action plan covered emergency response elements as well. Considering these three policies, it was evident that Honolulu had plans in place that collectively addressed emergency response.

4.3. Memphis, Tennessee

Memphis achieved a four in both the adjusted and unadjusted scores. The individual scores for the city alone were as follows: response (four), recovery (three), mitigation (four), and preparedness (four). With the only added policy being the resilience strategy when adjusted to include the county, the adjusted individual scores were: response (four), recovery (four), mitigation (four), and preparedness (four). While the overall averaged score remained constant there was variation in the individual scores due to the county’s involvement in the Mid-South Regional Resilience Plan released in 2019. Participation in the regional plan was reflected in the increased scores related to post-disaster response. Additionally, the resilience plan recommendations were organized well by hazard impact, budget considerations and recommendations, complexity of implementation, and identification of potential lead organizations.

4.4. New Orleans, Louisiana

New Orleans achieved a five in both the adjusted and unadjusted scores. The individual scores for the city itself were as follows: response (four), recovery (four), mitigation (five), and preparedness (five). When adjusted with the county, the individual scores were as follows: response (five), recovery (five), mitigation (five), and preparedness (five). While the average score did not indicate a change, the individual scores in response and recovery were higher, reflecting additional county policies such as the New Orleans Reforestation Plan adopted in 2023 [37], Resolution R-21-182 (Renewable Portfolio Standards) released in 2021 [38], and programs like the Communities Local Energy Action Program (LEAP) which New Orleans piloted in 2022 [39].

4.5. Saint Paul, Minnesota

Saint Paul achieved an overall adjusted and unadjusted score of four. However, the individual scores for response and mitigation increased when adjusted to include county-level policies. Saint Paul received a three in response, four in recovery, three in mitigation, and four in preparedness, considering city policies alone. With the addition of county policies, the adjusted scores were four in response, four in recovery, four in mitigation, and four in preparedness, largely due to Ramsey County’s Comprehensive Emergency Operations Plan (2023 edition) that builds upon the Emergency Response Plan and includes capability assessment [40]. Ramsey County policies include extensive hazard identification, disaster response, disaster recovery actions, broadly increasing the emergency management planning capacity. The overall scores based on city policies alone and the adjusted scores, including applicable county policies, are shown in

Table 6. Overall scores—unadjusted vs. adjusted for county policies.

City	Response	Recovery	Mitigation	Preparedness	Score
Buffalo, NY	2	1	1	2	1.5 = 2
Buffalo w/County	4	4	5	4	4.25 = 4
Honolulu, HI	4	5	5	5	4.75 = 5
Honolulu w/County	4	5	5	5	4.75 = 5
Memphis, TN	4	3	4	4	3.75 = 4
Memphis w/County	4	4	4	4	4 = 4
New Orleans, LA	4	4	5	5	4.5 = 5
New Orleans w/County	5	5	5	5	5 = 5
Saint Paul, MN	3	4	3	4	3.5 = 4
Saint Paul w/County	4	4	4	4	4 = 4

. Figure 3 (below) provides a visual summary of the overall scores shown in Table 6.

4.6. Average Maturity Scores

In accordance with the RMM approach, the cities each received a cumulative maturity score. From the highest possible score of 50, the average was 29.6 (59%) with a standard deviation of 3.2, with the exception of New Orleans with 34 and Honolulu with 33. Buffalo, Memphis, and Saint Paul were rated within the standard deviation with those cities achieving scores of 26, 27, and 28. While this methodology is not designed to compare between locations but rather individual evolution over time, this research does provide some insight into relative preparedness, particularly in the elements and actions that create overall resilience.

Of the five cities, New Orleans appeared to be most advanced in its emergency management capacity for future disasters, and this could be attributed at least in part to its involvement with the 100 Resilient Cities framework and its emphasis on systemic leadership to drive resilience. In the Leadership and Governance dimension, the city scored 14 out of 20 possible points (70%) because it has aligned, integrated, and connected with regional, national, and international organizations regarding resilience management, and the resilience action plan is undergoing periodic updates. The focus on continuous improvement is reflected in the scoring. Similar to New Orleans, Honolulu scored high in part to its involvement with the 100 Resilient Cities framework. Differences are noted in the Infrastructure and Resources dimension, specifically in the resources to build resilience subdimension. Besides the small difference, Honolulu is taking action to continually improve its resilience. Buffalo, Memphis, and Saint Paul all had similar scores, but there were some key differences among them. In the municipality subdimension, Memphis received a three while the other two cities received a two. This subdimension contained multiple indicators in order to achieve the next level. Buffalo and Memphis have achieved parts of the subdimension at the moderate level. At the moderate level, a city must establish a resilience department or committee and a cross-department coordination board; align, integrate and connect the resilience action plan with regional plans; adopt climate change preventive actions; and promote equality of access to services and basic infrastructure to vulnerable stakeholders. Memphis has achieved the moderate level based on Resilient Shelby and the Mid-South Regional Resilience Plan. Figure 4 illustrates the city scores achieved for each subdimension and the cumulative scores achieved.

Throughout the RMM, the subdimensions include multiple indicators that suggest whether a city would be placed at the starting, moderate, advanced, robust, or vertebrate level. Many cities achieve one or two of the indicators, but not all. This is especially reflected in the evaluation of Buffalo, Memphis, and Saint Paul. As more indicators are met, the locality can then achieve the next maturity level; therefore, this model is particularly useful to inform efforts over time and should be used to reassess the cities as their resilience strengthens.

5. Discussion

There are numerous models and methodologies related to community resilience that can be found in the literature [41,42,43], and each contributes in different ways toward assessing strengths, weaknesses, and opportunities for improvement. The common themes for measurement models include a reliance on transparent and practical indicators or metrics to demonstrate resilience capacity [44] and taking into account hazards faced by a community and their ability to build capabilities and capacities to respond to and manage related risks [41,43,45]. Our approach was aimed at assessing emergency management aspects of city resilience and was thus built upon the Rockefeller Foundation initiatives that focus on city resilience. Consistent with the themes from the literature, our model applied a comprehensive set of indicators across the dimensions of resilience identified in the RMM, and was designed to measure progress and capacity for emergency preparedness, mitigation, response, and recovery in cities that face a range of natural hazards, as part of building capacity for city resilience. Consistent with the aim of the CRI, our model provides a tool for cities to identify strengths and vulnerabilities, assess performance improvement over time, and plan for a more resilient future. While our approach is consistent with the RMM and CRI, the scores generated were based on integration and adaptation of these tools for policy-based criteria and indicators. As such, the resulting scores are unique to our model and are not meant for comparison with scores generated using other tools.

As stated previously, the model is not intended as a means to rank each city against the others, but rather to compare how each city is prepared for future disasters and recognize where cities can improve. While this work focused on evaluation of emergency and resilience plans holistically, this methodology could be used to derive broader resilience capacity. It is important to note that resilience is more than a set of plans and associated systems and each locality has acted and received at least some moderate recognition for their efforts. Thus, (1) Buffalo, (2) Honolulu, (3) Memphis, (4) New Orleans, and (5) Saint Paul all provide insight into actual development of resilience.

5.1. Buffalo, New York

While there was a lack of policy data for the city of Buffalo, Erie County has released and published multiple policies and participated in various state-wide efforts to realize resilience. For example, Erie County has achieved the Climate Smart Communities Silver Certification in 2021, one of thirteen in the state, and also received the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) Clean Energy Community Highest Tier Achievement Grant in 2022 [13], created a Heat Emergency Plan [46], completed a Climate Vulnerability Assessment [47] and Climate Ambassador Program [48], and implemented the Erie County Low-Income Program for Sustainable Energy (ECLIPSE) [49].

Buffalo’s designation through the Climate Smart Community certification does show that there are local efforts for mitigation and adaptation methods. Buffalo’s certification report shows that there are riparian buffer efforts and a watershed-based flood mitigation plan as well as brownfield cleanup efforts. The report examines the green infrastructure plan, Rain Check 2.0 and how the zoning codes were updated to include a stormwater management section. Buffalo’s Green Code has resulted in improving its preparedness with a few focused policies [50]. In the future, the NFIP community rating system [34] could support further maturation efforts.

5.2. Honolulu, Hawaii

Despite Honolulu’s high scores for city and county policies, the city still seeks to improve their emergency management capacity. One example involves retrofitting houses. By retrofitting homes, demand decreases for emergency shelter capacity, lessening economic impact in the wake of a disaster, and increasing the chances that residents can remain in their homes post-disaster [16]. This in part will benefit the cities and counties who are a part of the Community Rating System, a voluntary program of NFIP that rewards cities and counties that proactively implement community-wide floodplain resilience activities [16]. Honolulu is a part of the NFIP Community Rating System and it currently rates at an eight, meaning the city receives a 10% discount.

Locally planned Resilience Hubs provide additional resilience capacity that can be leveraged here. While these hubs can be defined by each neighborhood or local community for their own needs and goals, they must provide emergency shelter during a disaster and a central community gathering/information site and distribution center post-disaster, in addition to renewable energy and energy storage/supply, water and food stores, and medical supplies [16].

5.3. Memphis, Tennessee

Similarly to Honolulu, Memphis still received the same overall adjusted and unadjusted score; however, the individual scores differed between the two with the inclusion of the county’s resilience strategy. According to the Climate Action Plan 2022 Annual Report, Memphis will codify and implement new green building regulations by 2022 with full compliance by 2025 [51]. By having green building regulations, new buildings will have minimum requirements that increase the environmental and health performance of that building. Many of the civic buildings and the Memphis International Airport began seismic retrofits in 2015 and these retrofits were also expected to continue throughout 2021 [18].

Another way Memphis is improving their emergency preparedness is through riparian restoration. Typically, riparian corridors can be one of the most ecologically productive areas in a local ecosystem, and the root systems help stabilize the stream bank soil and absorb water [18]. By 2030, around 25 miles of stream banks will be restored, and by 2050, a riparian restoration plan will be implemented for a proposed 28-mile corridor [18]. Creating a Regional Shelter Coordination Plan also strengthens evacuation planning [18]. While the selected buildings would need to be retrofitted for both flooding and seismic activity, having multiple shelters would increase the cities’ and surrounding areas’ emergency preparedness for multiple natural disasters.

Interestingly, Memphis is in compliance with NFIP and has around 1264 policies implemented [52]. However, similar to Buffalo, it is not a part of the NFIP Community Rating System. For future disasters, being a part of the NFIP Community Rating System can support resident rebuilds in the aftermath of a disaster.

5.4. New Orleans, Louisiana

Much like Honolulu, New Orleans still received a five for both the adjusted and unadjusted scores. When including Orleans Parish, the individual scores for response and recovery were increased from a four to a five by improving their plans and ordinances. New Orleans emergency response for future disasters has heightened considerably through the adoption of the Floodplain Management Ordinance as a part of the City Zoning Ordinance in 2016. This ordinance meets and exceeds the NFIP minimum standards and regulates all new and substantially improved construction in Special Flood Hazard Areas. It also participates in the NFIP’s Community Rating System. While the city was currently rated as a class eight community, the updated New Orleans 2020 Hazard Mitigation Plan includes mitigation actions that will improve the city’s participation in the NFIP and CRS [20]. These actions have occurred since New Orleans presently rates as a class seven community, meaning a 15% discount exists for the community. In addition, the city has drafted and begun implementing the New Orleans Reforestation Plan, the City of New Orleans Comprehensive Recovery Framework, Citywide Park and Recreation master Plan, and the Net Zero by 2050: A Priority List for Climate Action in New Orleans [20].

5.5. Saint Paul, Minnesota

Saint Paul is similar to Memphis in that they both achieved an average adjusted and unadjusted maturity score of four, but both the response and mitigation scores increased from a three to a four, due to programs like Energy Smart Homes, the Sustainable Building Policy, Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure plan, Ramsey County Emergency Operations Plan, and the Multi-Hazard Management Plan. Interestingly, Saint Paul is in compliance with NFIP, but it is not a part of the NFIP Community Rating System, much like Buffalo and Memphis. The NFIP Community Rating System could be a unique way to help revitalize the green spaces along the Mississippi River beyond.

Additionally, Saint Paul plans to be carbon neutral by 2050. Xcel Energy has committed to delivering 100% carbon-free electricity by 2050, and this reduction alone would cause Saint Paul’s buildings to be 40% of the way towards carbon neutrality [53]. Due to this, there are multiple plans such as Partners in Energy that are helping reduce greenhouse gas emissions in sectors that have a high impact.

In the literature, various authors have concluded that emergency management capacity is driven by responder capacity, adaptation and collective sensemaking [54,55,56]. While emergency management clearly plays an important role in city resilience, understanding of the role of emergency planning as an element of resilience could and should be expanded. Much of the related literature is in an “after-action” format, evaluating the results of the planning–response–outcome arc (how we did we anticipate and respond?). While that is useful, it adds many more confounding factors, namely, how well did responders actually respond in addition to whether planning was adequate? Perhaps this is why there is a seeming gap in the literature. Further, emergency management literature has expanded into more socio-technical work that includes a wider view of emergency management, driving upstream to more mitigation, and responding to pressing issues of climate change and sustainability [57], making important connections to both drivers and results of our collective efforts, not the technical methods that underpin community resilience. This research provides insights on planning and policymaking as an important element of building capacity for city resilience.

5.6. Limitations

This research applied a maturity model to explore emergency management efforts in five cities in the U.S. as case studies. While the cities were selected based on their location across the U.S. and range of natural hazards present, emergency management is location-based, and the results are not generalizable across a broader region. Further, this study was only a “snapshot” in time for limited view, based on available policy data.

The variability of approaches to emergency management and policy implementation in each city introduced challenges for the authors when evaluating a city’s criteria policies. The approaches taken reflect a city’s unique combinations of natural hazards and location-based social, cultural, technical, and political differences. While efforts were made to address this in the review of criteria policies, it is possible that policies were implemented in a way that was not visible to the authors, e.g., elements of a criteria policy could be addressed in other policies, plans, or programs. This could result in lower scores that may not fully reflect the criteria policies in place.

In addition, due to lack of full public access to city and county policies, such as with Saint Paul data, the researchers could not confirm that all applicable policies were reviewed. Only those policies or plans that were publicly available were included in the assessment, and therefore the results may not necessarily provide an indication of how or where attention and resources should be allocated.

There were also challenges with policy and operational overlap between jurisdictions and between cities and counties. While this jurisdictional issue occurs in most localities, only those with experience understand the actual implementation of plans and policy, where much can be driven by personality and politics as with formal plans. It is in everyone’s best interest to coordinate and leverage capacity, but there are many instances where this has not been the case. Given what was available, this was reflected in Table 5.

Lastly, this study was based on review of policies in place, but did not evaluate effectiveness of policy implementation. A city may implement a policy regarding preparedness, mitigation, response, or recovery, but this may not be indicative of the city’s actions to implement its policies or their effectiveness. Further, while the model does evaluate emergency preparedness, it may not fully account for a city’s capacity to anticipate unexpected disruptions given its focus on evaluating the policies available. The assessment model may be most useful when applied within a city or region itself by those with full access to local policies, plan, procedures, and knowledge of their implementation.

6. Conclusions

With many cities across the United States facing multiple threats, emergency response for potential disasters is needed at an alarming rate. Based on the 100 Resilient Cities Framework and Resilient Cities Index on emergency management, five cities’ policies were assessed. The purpose of the scores given to the cities was to evaluate where a locality could improve emergency management regarding mitigation, preparation, response, and recovery, which qualifies the locality to enter the City Resilience Index and obtain a resilience profile.

On multiple occasions, there was a county that overlapped with a city’s policy as was the case with the city of Buffalo and Erie County. Similarly, Shelby County and Memphis, and Ramsey County and Saint Paul, also had overlapping responses, but it was most evident with Buffalo. Shelby County and Memphis had separate policies that led to the city and county policies overlapping to create a comprehensive array of emergency management policies. Ramsey County and Saint Paul’s case was challenging since only portions of Saint Paul were included in Ramsey County policies, leaving a large portion of Saint Paul to create their own policies. The resulting patchwork of overlaps and gaps across city and county policies could prove to be a new avenue of research regarding local level emergency management.

With the overlap, the assessment of the city policies provided a limited analysis of capacity. In order to account for this limitation, overall and individual scores were created for the city and another set reflected the integration of city and county capacity. The adjusted scores showed a comprehensive analysis of the city and county’s efforts. By using such an evaluation methodology, a locality can examine specific phases of emergency management, and policymakers can be informed in efforts to adjust strategies to shore up gaps and leverage the existing capacity for the greater good.