EP 67 The Reason Why You Need To Embrace Resiliency

Show Sponsor
Show Sponsor
Show Sponsor
Show Sponsor
Show Sponsor
Show Sponsor
Show Sponsor

The Reason Why You Need To Embrace Resiliency

[DR. PHILIP BERKE on resiliency] Many of these events, because of climate, are going to become more widespread. The places that are going to be exposed to intense fire regimes, to more flooding, are expanding. The hazard exposure is expanding, and the frequency is…

[TODD DEVOE] Hi, and welcome to EM Weekly, and this is your host, Todd DeVoe, speaking. And we get into the summer months; it got me thinking about the story of the ant and the grasshopper. And it’s really easy to be the grasshopper, right? I mean, we’re thinking about going to the beach, doing some surfing, maybe, if you’re in California. Head into the mountains of New York, into the lakes out there, beautiful (inaudible 00:00:55.20), you know? Go into the river, just getting out there and having a good time, right? It’s really easy to be the grasshopper.

Today, I’m talking to Dr. Philip Berke about community resiliency. And how, as emergency managers, we cannot afford to allow our community to be grasshoppers. We need to work hard on getting and keeping our community resilient.

However, before we get into the interview, we need to ask just one question. Do you have a profile on forums.emweekly.com? I don’t want you to miss out on the opportunity to meet and talk to the leading thought leaders in emergency management, such as Dr. (inaudible 00:01:35.29). One of the emergency managers and thought leaders. He has a profile over there at forums.emweekly.com. And join the conversation, go over there, start a profile, it doesn’t cost anything. Get in there, ask questions, join the profile. And if you are a thought leader of emergency management, I’d love to have you over there, continue that conversation and grow our great community. I’d like to see you around forums.emweekly.com. Join now and join the conversation. Let’s talk to Philip Berke.

[TODD DEVOE] Hi, and welcome to EM Weekly. I’m really excited to be talking to Dr. Philip Berke. And again, this is one of the presenters from Prep Talks. And his talk is really something that’s really close to my heart, and it’s land use planning for community resilience. And this is something, as a professor in the recovery side, that I really talk to my students about using tools such as zoning laws, things like these, take people and make the community safer. And there are many, many different examples of this across the country of where they were able to use these things, and not a (inaudible 00:02:43.19) way, in any means. But in a way to make the community safer, land swaps, things like that. So, Dr. Berke, welcome to EM Weekly, and how are you doing today?

[DR. PHILIP BERKE] I’m doing very well, thank you.

[TODD DEVOE] So, Dr. Berke, tell me a little bit about yourself and your research that you’ve done, specifically in the planning for community resilience.

[DR. PHILIP BERKE] Ok, well, I teach and do research in the area of urban planning and resilience to hazards and climate. And I’ve been doing this for quite some time, decades. And (inaudible 00:03:17.28) business and I find it becoming more and more important, and we’re getting more and more (audio cuts off 00:03:22.18) with what we do. And so, it’s an exciting time in one sense, but in another sense, it’s a (inaudible 00:03:30.24) time because of the challenges that we face in terms of how we design and locate our communities with respect to the growing risks that we face.

[TODD DEVOE] So, Dr. Berke, how did you get into this field of study?

[DR. PHILIP BERKE] The planning part found me. I was originally studying watershed hydrology in New England. And increasingly, I was encountering floods and people keeps asking, “Well, would you-” I was looking at watersheds and watershed protection, more water quality, water supply, watershed storage, snow packs, those kinds of things. But people– the flooding kept coming (inaudible 00:04:13.21). There’s instances even in New England, in Vermont, particularly. And I just got– it drew me into the whole notion that instead of keep reacting, and keep rebuilding, and keep on kind of this never-ending cycle, this downward cycle of disaster risks, why don’t we start thinking about anticipating and planning, and getting prepared, because we know these events are going to come?

And how can we, when we do experience them, do transformative types of activities? Not only to lower the risk to the communities we’re living but also, in the dark cloud, there’s a silver lining, and it appears these opportunities to make (audio cuts off 00:05:06.09) and make them maybe more equitable, include the housing situation, you know? Provide more economic opportunity because we’re not building in (inaudible 00:05:17.05) locations.

[TODD DEVOE] So, as you’ve been doing these studies and just talking about those things right there, of really mitigating the issues through, specifically, floods and things like this, regarding land use, you come to the realization that there is the ability to build sustainability and resilience in with land use modeling. And one of the things that I noticed, you’re now in Texas. And one of the things that I noticed is that in Harvey, they actually built homes in the reservoir. After that.


[TODD DEVOE] So what can we do to ensure that this is not happening, or is there a way to prevent that, as emergency managers?

[DR. PHILIP BERKE] Well, Texas is a tough place in the sense that there’s not a lot of history, particularly in the counties, because there are no land use controls and the counties are not allowed to have them. But that doesn’t mean they can’t plan; there’s still plenty of– you don’t have to use the regulatory (inaudible 00:06:21.03). There are plenty of other tools out there to guide throughout the development.

And I think we see a growing interest; we’re being asked by increasingly a number of communities, of municipalities within counties, to assist in the planning. And I really think that you can’t force it on anybody, although mother nature may be forcing us. And these disasters that we’re seeing aren’t natural. You know, hazard events that are occurring since time– you know, millions of years. But we’re making decisions just like the one you said, of placing a development in harm’s way.

And I hope that we’re going to see a realization that we can’t engineer our way out of these things, because it takes a question of land use, and where we build or how we design our communities, is increasingly important. So, I think I’m seeing a change in Texas; I’ve only been here four years, but I think I see– we make history every day, even though we don’t see the progress in any given day, we still can make change.

[TODD DEVOE] So, you alluded to this one quote that I like, regarding that not all disasters are natural. The idea that if there is an earthquake in the middle of the desert where there were no buildings, there’s really no disaster, it was just a large land movement.


[TODD DEVOE] But when you add homes into it, that’s when it becomes a disaster. So, the idea of using land use is really kind of the idea of disaster mitigation and removing that, the threat. Is that what we’re talking about?

[DR. PHILIP BERKE] Well, I mean, from an engineering perspective, we can remove the threat if we strengthen the buildings. If it’s flooded, if we heighten them, in particular. If there’s wind or earthquakes, we strengthen them more. We build a dike, or a (inaudible 00:08:28.11). But you’re still in a dangerous location. And can we always rely on the engineering approach? You know?

Should we say, look, the landscape is telling us certain things, and the weather is telling us certain things about where events– extreme hazard events may occur. Should we not always build in those places? And is it, particularly if we have a need for major investment, is it the kinds of places that we can get a return on investment, like a downtown, versus a low-density suburban neighborhood? Maybe the downtown, where there’s jobs and economic opportunity and so on. But that requires, you know, an investment that you can’t just pick and relocate. Although, increasingly, we’re going to be facing that.

I think some cities, there are some good examples of cities making choices, “Where should I retreat? Where should I avoid altogether? And where are the places where I should be investing in the engineering?” So, it takes a mixed approach. Often times, we tend to rely on the technological investments, and that can– we kind of constraint our suite or set of tools that we use to mitigate risk.

[TODD DEVOE] An example that I can think of is, in Santa Rosa, California, where the fires just went through. The mayor, or city councilor, I forget what she is at this point, I’m sorry. She was talking about the fact that her house, and she was sitting there, learning that her home was, at one point, in a fire way prior to the Santa Rosa fires, just talking about 60-something years ago. And she was like, “Oh, it’s kind of interesting that they rebuilt here.” And the trees are still there, and everything is still very beautiful. And then the fires came again and ripped through that entire place that was burnt in the past.

So we do have history of these places that have had these devastating events in the past, and we’re still building there. And it seems like, in the case of Santa Rosa, it looks like they’re streamlining the permit process, so people can build in the exact same place where their house burned down, and where the fire was before. So we know they’re building in hazard zones, you know? And so, it just seems to be that– what can we do, as emergency managers, to get our voices heard in this planning process?

[DR. PHILIP BERKE] Well, I think we can educate ourselves to realize that there is– I think there’s an incentive system in place, at the national level. I know, for example, you know, it’s a presidentially declared disaster, you get public assistance, individual assistance. The public assistance, the vast majority is paid for by the federal government, like 90%, I believe. And so, it’s a subsidy, so it’s like a moral hazard.

The national flood insurance program, it’s making tens of millions into the hole and further going into the red. You know, it’s because it’s subsidized insurance because you’re not paying the actual (inaudible 00:11:47.20) rates. And so, we have these kinds of– often times, we get large investments from the federal government (audio cuts off 00:11:55.27) and protect cities. So, where is the incentive? It’s always not there; it’s was distant (audio cuts off 00:12:03.08).

If we put out a levee, even though you’re in a 100-year floodplain, you’re no longer in a floodplain. You know? So, these incentives, there’s also– if I’m a mayor of a city or a city council member, this event can occur every 20 years, although that window– the (inaudible 00:12:25.17), I think, are collapsing. Because of climate. (inaudible 00:12:29.05).


[DR. PHILIP BERKE] You know, what was my incentive? You know, I’ll take the chance, if something is going to happen, you know, (audio cuts off 00:12:40.08) four years, whatever. So, there’s a lot of– I think structural conditions that are, in terms of the policies, particularly the policy incentives that are out there, that work against proactive planning and looking ahead. And I think that if we– there are some incentive programs.

So, working against it at a national level, I think it’s very important, we have to get some changes. We keep going in the hole with federal benefits. I think that’s at the national level. I think at the local level; there are certain things that we can take advantage of that many communities don’t, in terms of, for example, the incentive system built into the community (inaudible 00:13:28.28) system. Under the national flood insurance program. There is a hole in the incentives structure that– I’ll lower my flood insurance premiums if I do certain things, particularly if I take (inaudible 00:13:41.13) actions of buy-outs, relocations, that kind of thing. I get big point reductions for the whole community, in terms of the flood insurance.

I also think that we need to be arguing, at the local level, that the 100-year– many of these events, because of climate, are going to become more widespread. The places that are going to be exposed to intense fire regimes, to more flooding, are expanding. The hazard exposure is expanding, and the frequency is (inaudible 00:14:18.14). So we can get a hold of– (inaudible 00:14:22.02) tells us this, and there’s plenty of information out there. What was once a 500-year floodplain is now a 100-year floodplain. (inaudible 00:14:33.05) has been arguing that.

What was maybe– what could occur as an extreme fire event every 50 years is now being in 25 years, or 20. So these things– or hurricanes are another example, that there is increasing scientific information that the hazard areas exposed to severe events are going to be increase, expanded. So maybe we need to be thinking about flood insurance, or hazard insurance, where people who weren’t insuring before, they should be. Making that clear to the banks and mortgage, with mortgages and so on. Our public investment for infrastructure, roads, sewer, that kind of thing, maybe we should be taking this into account.

[TODD DEVOE] Yeah, I mean, I know that in California, that’s one of the big things that everybody always talks about in purchases, it’s earthquake insurance. Because the home values that are here are way over the federal limit, as far as– they’re not going to get their homes replaced at the federal level. So they have to have insurance sort of, to know that you’re going to have a home again after an earthquake.

[DR. PHILIP BERKE] Right. (inaudible 00:15:45.22), you got a huge loan.

[TODD DEVOE] Right, right.

[DR. PHILIP BERKE] That’s happening.

[TODD DEVOE] Right. I know that Craig Fugate is going around the country talking about flood insurance and how things need to change, due to the fact that a few times it’s come close to, if not run out of money. And I know that there’s a push on that right now, as far as changing what the flood insurance is, and how it works. And like you said before, working on the mitigation aspects of it.

Throughout the history, there has been a few times. I can think of the one in Illinois; I can’t think of (inaudible 00:16:20.15) off the top of my head. And just recently, in Chelsea, Iowa, where they moved the entire town, you know? And you’re seeing towns taking that proactive– this happened in ’93, there was a big flood over there, and then they had another one. So the entire town is moving up out of the floodplain, and they’re changing the area that was a floodplain back into, you know, farming, or into parks, and those types of things.

And those of us that grew up along rivers, I’m from New York, upstate New York, Albany, with the Hudson River right there. And every year, during the fall, we knew that certain portions of the Hudson River were going to flood. And so, it’s something that we can predict. Like you said before, it’s something that it’s not out of the ordinary. Can we do more incentives to make towns like that, make that proactive–

[TODD DEVOE] Can we do more incentives to make towns like that, make that proactive decision to move?

[DR. PHILIP BERKE] Yeah, I think we can. I think the national flood insurance program, these repetitive laws, in some of these areas, we see repetitive laws over, and over, and over. Somebody was telling me, 1% of all the structures insured by the national flood insurance program caused 25% of the damages over the last decade because of the cost– repeating of the laws. So, overtime, you know, there is a cost to the community; there’s a cost to the state, because (inaudible 00:19:10.26) a match and it turns over. There are costs, (audio cuts off 00:19:14.10) with the federal government.

So, I think the realization of that; it needs to be increasingly coming into play. I also think that you know, there’s huge amounts of social suffering for part of the community, particularly for those that can’t afford to rebuild and don’t have the resources. So, there are wise ways of doing this. And I’m thinking of one place, particularly, that seems to have the whole package in place. I can tell you about (inaudible 00:19:46.18), around Virginia.

There, the high tides, (inaudible 00:19:55.09) is the tide book. Because people got them during the lunar ties, where they have to move their cars up to higher levels, in elevation. And it’s just the storm water; the infrastructure is working properly, and so on. So what they’ve done is they said, look, certain parts of our city are really at high risk. Some of those high-risk parts don’t have– are individual homes, and can we afford to protect them and keep rebuilding? Can we afford to actually build structural flood controls? It’s very expensive, no, we can’t.

So we’re going to take a long-term approach, and we’re going to do a gradual retreat. We’re going to use FEMA buy-out money because we get it anyway. And then we’re also not going to expand our infrastructure into dangerous locations. We’re not going to expand water, sewers, roads, those kinds of things over time. And we’re not going to increase any zoning densities. Now, the downtown in (inaudible 00:21:05.24) and the sea port areas, they’re at high risk. They’re low elevation and flooding. We’re going to invest there because it’s a wise investment, in terms of structural flood controls.

But we’ve also have got higher level areas that are higher in elevation in certain parts of the city, that could use (inaudible 00:21:27.03). And there’s open spaces, vacancies. We could raise the densities, and we can create vibrant, little neighborhoods. We’re a growing city, so we’re going to open up, we’re going to expand the infrastructure, we’re going to put incentives in for tax abatement, these kinds of things (audio cuts off 00:21:44.09).

We’re also going to provide help with the low-interest loans, these kinds of things, in terms of the relocation. In terms of some houses in the higher risk areas cannot afford– some households can only afford– even with the FEMA buyout. So they’re using a whole suite of tools, and there are a lot of good examples out there. Like the town you mentioned, there are places that are completely relocating. But it’s sort of like, why do we need to get in that position? Why do we need to keep growing in these dangerous locations that are going to experience repetitive loss?

Even if you’re elevating, you’ve still got streets, and sewer, you’ve still got paving. Like, along the river, and that paving is going to cause more run-off down the street. You’re still putting– I can get into our research a little bit on kind of how communities think about silos.

[TODD DEVOE] Please do.

[DR. PHILIP BERKE] Yeah. We’ve done a major research project– two major research projects. One is where we looked at a couple of hundred local governments, and we looked at their hazard mitigation plans. And we found that mitigation planning is silo. It’s socially isolated from other urban sectors, like housing, transportation, water, sewer, parks, and recreation, that do planning within those sectors and guide and (inaudible 00:23:17.26) a process of urbanization occurs because you have all of these different sectors unfolding opportunities for development.

But the hazard mitigation is not part of that. And so, what we see is like, affordable housing plans, (audio cuts off 00:23:36.22), federal housing and urban development, or DOT. USDOT, transportation plans that ignore hazard mitigation. I’ve seen right after hurricane Sandy, a hazard mitigation plan and the comprehensive plans for cities, a hazard mitigation plan (inaudible 00:23:56.09) identify its own– say, this is loss. Ok, a loss variant. A repetitive loss qualifies for FEMA, repetitive loss funding for (inaudible 00:24:06.15).

Same exact area, I’ll see the comprehensive plan or the transportation plans, it’s like, stand infrastructure, raise the densities, do mixed-use, do smart growth in dumb locations. Same place, same areas, and many communities before Sandy were doing this. Why is this (inaudible 00:24:27.26) affordable housing in a 100-year floodplain? So I get affordable housing funds from HUD, I need to create what’s called a consolidated plan, and so on.

So, mitigation is isolated. And so, what we need to do is be able to weave mitigation into the way we think about urbanization and development in hazardous areas. And right now, we’re too isolated, and we’re just not taking that holistic approach. And so, we have– what we’ve done is we’ve had another research project that said, how can we better integrate? So we come up with a tool– it won an award in a research avenue, and I want to thank the Department of Homeland Security, office of university research, for supporting this over the years, where we’ve come up with an award-winning research, that was given the best article of the year award by the academic department of the American Planning Association.

So we’re proud of that, we advanced ourselves as academics. But more importantly, we work hard on creating a plan integration for resilience score card, where we can get communities to look and actually score different geographic areas, neighborhoods, downtowns, that kind of thing, within the community, and look at the different plans and the different policies, and different kinds of development tools the communities are using, that actually are those policies, using those tools, increasing vulnerability, or decreasing vulnerability. Are they raising density, or are they calling for expanding the infrastructure? If they are, is there anything about mitigation? How are we going to mitigate the risk?

And we try to get these different plans, even the smallest, local governments; 5,000 people, 10,000 people, will have three or four plans in place. Largely, many of them come from the federal government mandates, some are internally (inaudible 00:26:35.00), generated by the community. Others are mandated by the states, and the states require comprehensive plans (audio cuts off 00:26:41.06). Every state, every community, has to have a hazard mitigation plan, required by FEMA. But it’s isolated. It isn’t weaving in mitigation into these other sectors of how we guide growth and development.

So the tool that will help communities think through, “Oh, there’s a conflict here, in this area.” Or “There’s an opportunity to better integrate the way we think of (inaudible 00:27:09.22) or make the different plans.” And so we try to get the communities to self-evaluate, we don’t do it as experts, but the tool can be used by the communities to self-evaluate. And that’s what we did with (inaudible 00:27:23.11). I was telling you before about the (inaudible 00:27:26.19) case study. We worked with them closely for over a year, while they self-evaluated their network of plans.

The planning department had never looked at a hazard mitigation plan when they did their comprehensive plan, ok? And they were an award-winning city because they received the Rockefeller Resilient Community– the Rockefeller Resilient Community, Resilient City Award. And they did a resilience plan, and had a strategy, and so on. But they never– up until they used the scorecard, they hadn’t integrated it in.

So they have a wonderful team there, the emergency manager, the planners, public workers, and so on, worked together. We were working with them for the period of a year, and they now have a comprehensive, integrated mitigation approach to dealing with the growing risks of the sea levels, and the hurricanes, and the flooding that they’re dealing. And they just completed a unified development ordinance, and to be consistent with the integrated network of plans that they have, so they’re putting teeth into the plans.

[TODD DEVOE] That’s awesome.

[DR. PHILIP BERKE] And we’re probably going to start this with New Hampshire, we’re working in a couple of communities here at Texas, on recovery from hurricane–

[TODD DEVOE] Harvey?

[DR. PHILIP BERKE] Harvey, yeah. How can I forget? My memory blocked it out; it’s such a frustrating– year. It’s drained us. We’re walking around (inaudible 00:29:03.19) — I won’t complain because the folks down there are suffering. And now, we should be doing the planning for the real rebuilding (inaudible 00:29:13.10). But together, coordinated (inaudible 00:29:18.13) effort, (inaudible 00:29:20.05) a long-term, proactive view. Even though we’re in a recovery mode, we can still be proactive because we’re getting resources.


[DR. PHILIP BERKE] You know, into the way they rebuild, it’s an opportunity to be transformed and build back better.

[TODD DEVOE] What does sustainability mean to you?

[DR. PHILIP BERKE] Sustainability? I think– oh. I think it’s about accounting for multiple values. Environmental, economic. We have improved environment, stronger economy, and then equity. Who benefits by that? That’s a holistic way, from an urban planning standpoint, when we manage growth and change of the human settlement patterns, are we getting– you know, an ecologically healthy place that uses the services that environment, water, air, and so on, and the services that provide that, keep that clean? Buffers around streams, keeping soils together with rich networks, biodiverse plant systems and so on.

So, and then recognizing that, and also, investing in our economy and recognizing in the sense that we’re talking about risk here, that the landscape offers us services, eco-services, to move the flood waters out, to store them, and so on. Or to provide more fire resilient areas. And who gets the benefit by making these improvements? So I mean that in a way that sustainability won’t happen unless you think of resilience, and resilience is dealing with the risk and the growing threats, and the uncertainty, and how we– you know, we have to plan, looking ahead, we have to be able to adapt, you know.

It’s just not one predictive plan, we have to look at multiple futures, and be ready to be flexible and adapt. We have to have better science because we have to have the monitor. We really have to pay attention to the signs, are we actually lowering the risk? Are we monitoring the risk, and you know? I can go on, but– you’re asking a professor.

[TODD DEVOE] No, that’s perfect. And I was going to follow-up with resilience, and you took it. So that was great. Ok, so just a couple more questions left. So, for those that are interested in getting touch with you, maybe getting contact with using that tool and what your research is doing, how can they find you?

[DR. PHILIP BERKE] Yeah. Well, we have a website, it’s called– one word, mitigation guide. Two words are mitigation and guide. If you type those in as one word, .org. And what you’ll see are two sets of studies, and what you won’t see is– there’s some research sided in there. But you’re going to see practical tools from the 190 local governments we looked at with our hazard mitigation plans; we pulled out best practices. You know that their plans are generally not strong and they’re isolated? There’s still different elements in these different plans, these 180 different plans, that are best practice.

And so, we tried to add it from public participation to land use strategies, to monitoring and the kinds of indicators the communities may be doing for monitoring, resilience. And so on. Dealing with climate change, (inaudible 00:33:28.25) vulnerability. So we have best practices there, that’s a whole website on that. There’s also, on the front page, something called the scorecard, you can click. And then you open up into a guidebook that I was talking about, and it’s designed for communities to look at their network of plans, and to try to better integrate as a process for self-evaluating.

Interested communities can contact us, and on a limited basis, we can work with them. We’re working with the (inaudible 00:34:01.04) in New Hampshire. They actually looked at the website and said, “We’re going to write a proposal to the National League of Cities to get a grant so that we can approve our planning. We want to build in resilience. And this scorecard, we want to use.” So (inaudible 00:34:17.09) to us, they got funded, won the award, and gave us a call later and said, “Hey, we got them, and we got our funding, we can use it.”

And we’re seeing that more and more. You know, like the National Institute of Standards and Technology, (inaudible00:34:34.14). Because they have a resilience planning guidebook, which is apparently well-known in the emergency management community. Steve Kauffman is the leader of that. And they want to partner with us in terms of integrating our resilience scorecard into the midst resilience planning guidebook. The guidebook is designed to help communities build resilience. This is an effective tool to do that, so we’re doing that. And we’re partnering in other communities. But (inaudible 00:35:11.15) was our big next push, and (inaudible 00:35:13.27) Texas, for rebuilding after hurricane Harvey, is another portion of the (audio cuts off 00:35:18.22). So.

[TODD DEVOE] Awesome.


[TODD DEVOE] Alright, so here comes one of the toughest questions of the day, and I know you’ll probably be able to handle this one pretty well. What book do you recommend to somebody who is interested in this field of study?

[DR. PHILIP BERKE] Well, if you’re interested in urban planning and interested in what I’m talking about because you can see (inaudible 00:35:44.04). The title of the book is Natural Hazards Mitigation, Recasting Disaster Policy and Planning.

[TODD DEVOE] Awesome, ok. And I see this other book that you have here, the Natural Hazards Mitigation, Recasting Disaster Policy and Planning. Is that your book?

[DR. PHILIP BERKE] The lead author is David Godschalk. He just passed away about a month and a half ago.

[TODD DEVOE] I’m sorry to hear it.

[DR. PHILIP BERKE] Iconic individual in the field of city and regional planning and disaster resiliency. And it was a joy to work with him. And I think that book, that book was selected as the– I think the 100 most important books in the 20th century for the urban planning field. And it was written and completed in 1999, but it tells so much that it’s still highly relevant for today.

[TODD DEVOE] That’s a– thank you for that suggestion for the book. And is there anything else that you’d like to say to emergency managers before we let you go?

[DR. PHILIP BERKE] It’s say good luck out there. There’s a huge weight, societal weight on your shoulders. You have deep admiration from me and my students at Texas (inaudible 00:36:58.21), and we’re going to keep at it here, we’re not going to give up.

[TODD DEVOE] Thank you so much, doctor. I really do appreciate your time today. And for those of you that haven’t checked out the prep talks, Dr. Berke has a really good Prep Talk, specifically in some of the stuff he spoke about today, and also a little bit more. So, Dr. Berke, thank you so much for your time, and I hope you have a wonderful rest of your week.

[DR. PHILIP BERKE] Thank you.


Related Shows

EP 59 What is a Resilient Community

EP 61 What Is Disaster Capitalism?

EP 63 How To Protect Critical Infrastructure

EP 65 Fresh on The mind of IAEM Canada’s President


LinkedIn: https: https://www.linkedin.com/company/em-weekly/

Twitter:‏ https://twitter.com/EM_Weekly

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/emweekly/

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/em_weekly/

EM Weekly Information

EM Weekly www.emweekly.com

Forums: https://forums.emweekly.com




Titan HST https://www.titanhst.com/

The Blue Cell http://www.thebluecell.com/

Show Sponsor
Show Sponsor
Show Sponsor
Show Sponsor
Show Sponsor
Show Sponsor
Show Sponsor

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.