Whole Community Preparedness for Smart, Connected Cities
| Whole Community Preparedness for Smart, Connected Cities | |
|---|---|
| |
 Whole Community Preparedness Workshop | |
| Team Organizations | NIST |
| Point of Contact | Aaron Deacon Alison Brooks Allison Hu Bill Pugh Carlos Tamayo Chase Klingensmith Chelsea Collier Cheyney OFallon Debra Deininger Kerstin Nold Kimberly LaGrue Lauren Tarin Maleah Girigsby Mariela Alfonzo Michael Dunaway Nick Kaufmann Pam Nerurkar Patricia Sagert Pilisiwe Masiba Raimundo Rodulfo Richard Wong Rommia White Ruthbea Clarke Sanjana Senthilkumar Sean Jenkins Shandi Treloar Stephen McPeake Vanessa Enoch Vasudha Gadhiraju Vincent Scipione Wilfred Pinfold |
| Participating Municipalities | San Antonio TX |
| Sectors | Public Safety |
| Initiative | |
| Status | Master Planning |
| Last Updated | May 22, 2025 |
Summary
Help shape the future of disaster response and recovery! This interactive workshop, led by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), will explore innovative technology applications and strategies to improve public safety planning and community resilience in smart cities and communities.
Your participation will help define the framework for a cutting-edge cyber-physical-social system that enhances multi-agency collaboration and community disaster planning and response. Don’t miss this opportunity to contribute to a groundbreaking initiative that empowers cities and regions to manage complex crises more effectively.
Presentation
Question #1
What capabilities should be developed to support communities in times of disaster or civic emergency?
Answer:
In times of disaster or civic emergency, communities must develop a range of integrated capabilities to ensure effective preparedness, response, and recovery. Experts emphasized the importance of shifting focus from reactive emergency response toward proactive preparedness and mitigation. This includes investing in predictive analytics for scenario planning and resource allocation, ensuring the right aid reaches the right place at the right time. The use of GIS and geographic intelligence in planning was also highlighted as a critical capability.
Connectivity and communication infrastructure were identified as foundational. Experts stressed the need for robust, redundant communication systems—including localized mobile towers and analog or low-tech alternatives—especially for rural or underserved areas. Equally important is ensuring that communication is trusted, multilingual, and accessible across various levels of technology reliability.
Another key takeaway was the value of social capital and community-led planning. Experts pointed out that social preparedness—regular community engagement, local leadership structures, and clear, authoritative guidance—can be as impactful as hard infrastructure. Programs that foster local networks, such as community dinners, were seen as effective tools for building resilience.
Finally, the integration of private sector capabilities and critical infrastructure into emergency planning was seen as essential. Since private entities often own much of the infrastructure, embedding their capabilities into the city’s planning and response framework ensures a more holistic and coordinated effort. Across all phases—mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery—clarity on roles, shared resources, and trusted information flow is vital for effective community support.
Question #2
(a) Should a community-focused information and decision support system be designed as
- A dedicated system to be reserved for local/civic preparedness, response, and recovery only?
- A dual-use system having utility for both Blue-Sky (normal) and Gray-Sky (crisis) days?
(b) If dual use, what functions should be incorporated into a community operations system or portal?
- e.g., public access to city services; licensing and permitting; traffic cameras; support to business operations, etc..
Answer:
The expert group strongly supported the development of a dual-use community information and decision support system—one that functions during both normal operations (blue-sky days) and emergencies (gray-sky days). The key advantage of this approach is that it allows communities to build familiarity with the system in everyday life, making it more effective and trusted when crises occur. However, the group highlighted the need for clear modes of operation, such as a visual or audible signal (e.g., a "red button" or special alert) to indicate a shift into emergency mode, ensuring the system garners the necessary attention and urgency when needed.
At the same time, participants noted that not all functions should be dual-use. For example, emergency alert systems may lose effectiveness if overused in non-crisis times due to notification fatigue. They emphasized the need for priority access and preemption mechanisms in emergencies—similar to FirstNet's emergency prioritization of broadband communications. The system should also be opt-in with predefined roles, ensuring residents and responders know their responsibilities and can act quickly during disasters.
The conversation emphasized two-way communication and community agency as vital elements—allowing residents not just to receive information but also to influence what they get and how. This supports equity and increases trust, especially when supported by multilingual capabilities and analog options for when digital systems fail. Participants also stressed the importance of geofencing and hyper-local alerts, especially for visitors or transient populations, and advocated for leveraging existing platforms like 311 systems and smart kiosks to distribute relevant information.
Lastly, cross-jurisdictional challenges were flagged as a barrier. While dual-use systems are ideal, they can be hard to implement when multiple jurisdictions are involved—particularly if there's no routine collaboration. In such cases, some argued for designing systems with adaptable emergency-only layers or use cases that work across boundaries without requiring full unification of day-to-day operations.
Question #3
What Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) should be developed and integrated into a community information sharing and decision support system for disaster preparedness and recovery?
(i.e., What do we measure, and How do we measure it?)
Answer The response outlines a broad and thoughtful approach to developing Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for community information sharing and decision support systems in disaster preparedness and recovery. A major theme is equity and inclusion—suggesting KPIs should measure not only overall system performance but also the distribution of outcomes across different neighborhoods and demographics. Rather than using only high-level citywide averages, the group recommends disaggregating data to identify how various communities are affected and whether outreach efforts are truly reaching vulnerable populations.
Another important dimension is communication and engagement. KPIs should assess who receives information, who understands it, and who takes action as a result. Beyond message delivery, the response stresses the importance of measuring participation in educational efforts and drills, and identifying barriers to engagement. This includes measuring improvements over time in response capabilities as a result of repeated drills and testing—highlighting a feedback loop for continuous improvement.
Operational response metrics such as emergency response times, availability of personnel, and information bottlenecks are also recommended as key KPIs. The lack of KPI training and measurement protocols in current emergency management training programs is flagged as a gap. Participants note that existing systems often can collect this data, but there's a missing layer of performance management tailored to emergencies.
Finally, the conversation touches on the value of international standards, particularly ISO standards for smart cities, which can offer a flexible framework for cities to contextualize resilience and preparedness metrics. The group also emphasizes the importance of measuring at multiple levels—individual, household, neighborhood, city, and region—and across all disaster phases: mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery. Together, these ideas advocate for a multi-scale, people-centered approach to resilience measurement.
Question #4
How should operational considerations—i.e., efficiency of command/control/coordination—be balanced with civic considerations such as transparency/access/equity and the maintenance of public trust?
Answer The conversation centered on how to balance operational efficiency—such as command, control, and coordination—with civic values like transparency, access, equity, and public trust. There was a strong consensus across groups that transparency and trust must be foundational. Participants emphasized the need for regional collaboration, particularly among city councils, to overcome institutional silos and improve emergency management. This includes top-down leadership and policies that enforce cross-jurisdictional cooperation.
Building public trust emerged as a critical theme. One group highlighted the importance of consistent, small, value-driven actions and the need for community members who can "cross-pollinate" ideas across groups. They advocated for using plain, accessible language in public communications and emphasized community empowerment through genuine engagement and responsive leadership. Japan’s approach to emergency management was cited as a model, particularly its inclusive and multilingual “Welcome App” for public awareness.
Data privacy was also a concern. Participants noted the ethical implications of using personal data during emergencies and recommended re-establishing consent even in urgent situations. They stressed the importance of classifying, managing, and educating the public about open data to promote equitable access and responsible use. Cities, they argued, must take responsibility for helping residents understand and benefit from available data.
Finally, the discussion highlighted the need to center community voices, especially in historically underserved areas. Successful engagement, as shown in Cincinnati trauma center projects, required involving trusted local figures—like ministers and community center staff—in outreach efforts. By ensuring those with lived experience are actively involved, governments can craft strategies that are both culturally responsive and trusted by the communities they aim to serve.
Library
