A Study Of Resiliency In Communities

Discussion

The following discussion, Figure 2 and Table 7 were developed for an article entitled Community Resilience: Strengths and Challenges in a special edition of 'Health and Canadian Society' devoted to resiliency. The discussion appears here with minor wording changes as appropriate.

Conceptual Framework

The data collected in these three Atlantic communities confirmed most of the draft framework (see Figure 1). Variables from the initial framework that were supported in the present study included five risk factors: economic disadvantage, educational disadvantage, cultural barriers, isolation, communal apathy and anger; four protective factors: social support, community involvement/participation, communal coping; and four positive outcomes: health status, health behaviour, community tone, community development.

Some components of the initial framework, however, were not predominant themes in these communities. For example, the physical environment, which includes transportation and housing, was rarely mentioned as an outcome reflective of resilience in these communities and environmental disasters were not typically identified as risk factors by participants. Nevertheless, it is important to note that physical environment could be a key issue in other communities. 'A strategy that would result in resilience for one community may not be a resilient strategy for another' (Kulig & Hanson, 1996, p.13). Finally, some themes were added, such as community connectedness, educational/retraining opportunities (protective factors), health services and economic growth (outcomes).

A framework for community resiliency is presented in Figure 2. As indicated by the 'plus' sign, in this model it is the combination of risk and protective factors which is linked to various outcomes. High levels of risk factors are assumed to be linked to poorer outcomes. However, the presence of community protective factors may balance out these risks and lead to more positive outcomes.

Figure 2: Revised Framework Of Community Resilience

Table 7. Risk and Protective Factors and Outcomes Related to Community Resiliency

Framework Components	Salient Themes
Risk Factors	Economic Disadvantage and Unemployment ~ Depressed economy ~ Financial hardship ~ Predictions of harder times Communal Apathy and Anger ~ Negative attitudes create barriers to communal coping Low Participation in Community Process and Development ~ Low public participation in community development-sponsored meetings ~ Volunteer burnout ~ Low levels of education associated with lack of participation Cultural Barriers ~ Fishing culture threatened ~ Cultural divisions within community Low Literacy/Education Levels ~ Common among fishing workers ~ Associated with negativity Geographic Isolation ~ Youth boredom ~ Problem for people without transportation ~ Distance from major medical facilities Social Isolation ~ Some newcomers experience social isolation
Protective Factors	Community Connectedness ~ Shared history, values and cultural traits; traditional customs and language ~ Religion ~ Knowing everybody and trusting each other ~ Community connectedness contributes to survival Social Support ~ Community as a whole ~ Family and friends ~ Local volunteer organizations Community Involvement and Participation ~ Opportunity for participation in community process ~ High level of voluntarism ~ Participation in recreational activities ~ Participation in public meetings for burning issues Educational/Retraining Services and Opportunities ~ Public schools offer good quality education ~ Schools promote culture ~ Adult upgrading and retraining has increased Communal Coping ~ Communities moving toward positive coping responses ~ Communities coping with current challenges
Positive Outcomes	Economic Growth ~ New economic and cultural initiatives ~ Growing entrepreneurism Community Outlook/Tone ~ Attitudes of determination and cautious optimism ~ Embracing education and other opportunities Community Organizations and Community Development ~ Organizations continue to play vital role ~ Ability to acquire resources Physical Health Status of Residents ~ Physical health not a concern for residents Health Behaviour of Residents ~ Health promotion has had positive impact on awareness and behaviour ~ Active health promotion in communities Health Services ~ Satisfaction with physical health services ~ Alternative sources of mental health support
Negative Outcomes	Mental Health Status of Residents ~ Anxiety, fear, uncertainty, depression linked to economic situation ~ Family tensions, breakdown and violence ~ Addictions to alcohol, drugs and gambling Communal Inaction ~ Failure to act in response to community problems Lack of Coordination of Community Organizations ~ Need for community organizations to collaborate

Economic disadvantage and unemployment were prevalent risk factors or challenges cited by community members. These risk factors reflect indicators of risk identified in the literature on healthy communities; specifically, the proportion of the population living below the low-income cut-off point, of welfare recipients (Health Canada, 1993), and of people using food banks and related services (Healthy Cities Toronto, 1994). Cultural barriers and divisions were evident only in the Acadian communities. Educational disadvantage was a problem primarily for displaced fishers. Some residents referred to environmental disasters, such as explosions and storms, but most focused on the fishery crisis. Geographic and social isolation posed barriers for newcomers and people without transportation. Communal apathy and anger were evident in the tendency to blame forces external and internal to the community, and expressions of powerlessness and resentment. Hancock (1993) notes that communities may not accept their responsibility or role in promoting health when other levels of government are responsible for providing services. Kenkel (1986) identifies other pertinent risks prevalent in small communities: little access to people modelling diverse ways of coping; collective denial of a problem; and rapid changes associated with 'boom' and 'bust' communities.

Clearly, many of the economic problems and unemployment experienced by these three communities were environmental in nature. Thus, some risk factors were beyond the control of the community and its residents. Our study focused exclusively on resiliency at the community level. Various levels of the external environment - regional, provincial, national (Stokols, 1992) - must also be considered. Checkoway and Zimmerman (1992) note other factors which contribute to the deterioration of community conditions: changes in the national or global economy and employment patterns; shifts in class composition and social structure; reductions in public expenditures; and disinvestment of private institutions from neighbourhoods to other locations outside the community. Although questions related to risk and protective factors at levels beyond the community (e.g., provincial, federal) were not asked, participants often reflected on the influences of factors beyond the community. To illustrate, the changes in TAGS and Employment Insurance schemes had major impact on these Atlantic communities. Consequently, there is a need to recognize the environmental context and not to 'blame the victim.' Social support from family and friends, the community as a whole, local volunteer organizations, churches and service organizations were considered protective factors or strengths in all three communities. These factors are reinforced in the literature. Garbarino et al. (1992) refer to the importance to communities of cohesiveness, continuity in neighbourhoods, strong informal supportive networks, open supportive educational climate, and moral development through political, educational and religious institutions. The significance of public resources supporting the work of community organizations has also been noted (Healthy Cities Toronto, 1994). Resilient communities are characterized by the presence of community leaders who build cooperative and collaborative approaches and work with a supported network of community development organizations, self-help groups and advocacy groups (National Forum on Health, 1997, p.17).

There was evidence that the communities were moving toward positive attitudes and coping, depicted in entrepreneurism, retraining and optimism. Examples of communal coping in all three communities reflected collective solutions to shared problems. When one or more persons perceive a stressor as 'our' problem (a social appraisal), rather than 'my' or 'your' problem (an individualistic appraisal), communal coping can occur (Lyons et al., 1995). A resilient community is likely to have a significant number of people with a communal coping orientation. Communities may be thought of as resilient when they respond to crisis or adversity in a way that strengthens the community, its resources and its capacity to cope (Reid et al., in press). When confronted with adversity, resilient communities can pull together and effect desired change, such as creating jobs. 'This kind of civic cooperation facilitates social reintegration, counters social isolation, and helps deal with upheavals in the economy'(National Forum on Health, p.17).

The findings reveal that some aspects of community life, such as culture, can serve as risk or protective factors. Cultural barriers and divisions around language issues within communities were designated risk factors, while shared cultural traits and traditional customs and language were classified as protective factors (see Table 1).

Two concepts in the literature could guide the identification of resilient outcomes at the community level - competent community and healthy community. Competence is associated with behavioural outcomes. Iscoe (1974) describes the competent community as 'one that utilizes, develops, or otherwise obtains resources, including ... the fuller development of the resources of the human beings in the community itself' (p. 608). Variables reflecting community competency include commitment to the community, perceptions of identity, management of relations with the wider society, and mechanisms for facilitating participant interaction and decision making (Eng & Parker, 1994). Public/community participation was evident in voluntarism and recreational activities, but less in school and public meetings. Community sustainability, like community capacity, emphasizes community involvement in meeting its needs and dealing with issues, and uses community members' skills in problem solving (Kulig & Hanson, 1996). Community development organizations were surviving despite risk. Community development addresses problems and solutions from a systemic, rather than an individualistic perspective. Social and economic development (Brown, 1994), education, political involvement and community action are encompassed in the community development process (Casey, 1994). Previous experiences with community development may contribute to a community's resilience in dealing with subsequent adversity. The sense of community and community connectedness (linked to shared history, values and cultural traits, social traditions, involvement in church organizations, the small size of the communities and communal trust) may also foster competence.

English and Hicks (1992) define a healthy community as 'a system which promotes its own growth, development and health...has people who strive for physical, mental and spiritual health for all, and recognizes the impact of community decision making on the health of the inhabitants and the habitat' (p. 63). These communities reported good physical health and increased evidence of health promotion programs and healthy behaviours as resilient outcomes. Most community representatives were satisfied with formal health care services. However, emotional and behavioural health problems - depression, family tensions, addictions, etc. - were viewed to be problematic and were attributed to the economic and employment situation. Indicators of community risk may include community members' behaviour or lifestyle (e.g., amount of alcohol consumption) and the proportion of the population showing a high level of psychological distress (Health Canada, 1993). Despite these insights from the healthy community literature, there are differences that must be taken into account in applying healthy community indicators to community resilience; the concept of community resiliency implies communities that are distinctly at risk, which is not true of the healthy community concept.

It was remarkable that the vast majority of risk factors, protective factors and resilient outcomes cited by participants were similar across the three communities. The few exceptions pertained to local services, to differences created by culture in the Acadian communities and to differing levels of cooperation among local organizations.

Comparison of Community and Individual Resilience

Behavioural competence and social competence despite risk are frequently noted as resilient outcomes for individuals. Other indicators of positive adjustment (Luthar, 1993; Staudinger, Marsiske & Baltes, 1993) include emotional health and physical health. Just as the notion of resilient outcomes at the community level has links with the concepts of community competence and healthy community, community protective factors seem to be related to a number of individual level concepts.

The concepts of social support, empowerment and coping which are related to individual resilience can be extrapolated and expanded to the community level to become community support, community empowerment and communal coping. These three concepts were designated as three broad categories of community protective factors (Figure 1). Protective factors for individuals - educational attainment, supportive relationships and positive school environments (Conrad & Hammen, 1993; Egeland, Carlson & Sroufe, 1993) - were evident at the community level in the positive educational services and support from community organizations. Finally, support-seeking, problem-solving skills, planning for future events and positive expectations of the future are protective factors which pertain to both individuals and communities. In contrast, sense of community and community connectedness can be differentiated from self-esteem and self-efficacy - protective factors for individuals - in that they reflect collective interdependence rather than individual independence.

Individual risk factors include low socioeconomic status, transitions, minority racial status (Egeland, Carlson & Sroufe, 1993; Luthar, 1993; Baldwin, Baldwin & Cole, 1990), and poor neighbourhoods (Luthar, 1993). According to this study, poverty and cultural barriers are significant risk factors not only in individual resilience but in community resilience.

Community resilience may be directly related to the level of community empowerment, or sense of control over its policies and choices. Empowerment - a reflection of perceived control -was particularly evident in community involvement and participation, communal coping and action, and community development initiatives in these communities. In contrast, communal apathy and inaction experienced by some residents point to perceived powerlessness of some sectors. Despite the neglect of empowerment in the resilience literature which focuses on individuals, it is relevant to perceived competence. Wallerstein (1992) defines empowerment as 'a social action process that promotes participation of people, organizations, and communities toward goals of increased individual and community control, political efficacy, improved quality of community life, and social justice.' Experiencing the benefits of change brought about by their own hands instills citizens, community groups and communities with feelings of confidence and competence (Gottlieb, 1982). When a community moves through the process of resiliency, it becomes more successful at mastering adversity and change (Kulig & Hanson, 1996).

In a report of our earlier study on individual resilience (Mangham, McGrath, Reid & Stewart, 1995), we proposed that several factors appear to contribute to resiliency in communities: mutual support, collective expectations of success in meeting challenges, high levels of community participation, organizing cooperatively, working hard voluntarily, egalitarian treatment of community members and optimism. The findings from this study confirm these speculations.

Methodological Issues

Triangulation in the three data collection strategies contributed to the richness and breadth of the data. The individual interviews elicited more in-depth, detailed information, while participants in the group interviews responded to each other's comments and expanded on their ideas to yield a broader perspective. Some groups focused on the needs and perspectives of particular populations, thereby revealing perspectives of community residents across the life span and in different employment situations. The observations, derived primarily from media accounts and reports of meetings, supplemented and reinforced the themes which emerged in the interviews.

This was a cross-sectional study which is a suitable strategy when a phenomenon has not been described before. In the future, longitudinal research could trace changes over time in risk factors, protective factors and resilient outcomes at the community level. These may vary depending on evolving environmental circumstances and developing resources. It is unclear how the various risk factors, protective factors and outcomes are related with a cross-sectional design. In order to determine if the risk factors cited caused the negative outcomes in these communities and if the protective factors identified would decrease the effects of these risks, a prospective study is needed.

There were several advantages and disadvantages associated with using community-based coordinators. These coordinators were intimately familiar with their own communities and could conduct the observations of community events, meetings and reports with ease. Furthermore, their credibility as 'insiders' enabled them to recruit participants for the individual and group interviews. It was helpful for these coordinators to have the assistance of on-site advisors through the research team members and the local advisory group. Finally, the use of indigenous research staff is congruent with premises of participatory research. Nevertheless, it became clear that these coordinators, selected by their community advisory boards, had not previously had the opportunity to be formally trained in interviewing skills in their educational programs or to conduct interviews. The transcripts from some of the earlier interviews indicated that, despite training, coordinators used the guide item-by-item rather than with adequate probing to elicit the required information. Therefore, the team held teleconference meetings with the community coordinators to discuss appropriate use of the guide and the Project Coordinator provided ongoing guidance and feedback. Furthermore, the team agreed that the Project Coordinator should conduct some of the focus group interviews in each community with the community coordinator, in order to provide on-site feedback and serve as a role model. In a future study, it might be preferable to use local coordinators for recruitment, scheduling of interviews and observations and to employ skilled/trained interviewers (research assistants) for conducting the individual and group interviews. Our collaborators in Alberta used this approach (Kulig, 1996; Brown & Kulig, 1997).

Implications for Health Promotion

Economic status, meaningful employment and social support are viewed to be key determinants of health in recent Canadian documents on population health (e.g., National Forum on Health, 1996). These determinants were emphasized in the interviews and observations. Accessibility, supportive environments, coping and public participation - premises of the Canadian health promotion framework (Epp, 1986) - were prevalent issues in these communities. This study of community resilience reinforced the significance of support and of coping at the aggregate level evident in support organizations, community connectedness and communal coping. There was evidence of empowerment - an important ingredient of health promotion - and of the positive impact of health promotion programs on healthy behaviours of residents. The greater importance attached to health determinants (e.g., economy, culture) than to health care services is also noteworthy in light of the directions recommended by the National Forum on Health (1997).

Social ecological models of health promotion consider the interactive effects of the individual and the environment. Health promotion interventions should therefore be multifactorial and target protective factors at all levels - community, provincial and national (Weissberg, Caplan & Harwood, 1991; Winkleby, 1994). 'To achieve resilience, a community must foster its own growth and development and value public participation in decision making while developing and using resources within and outside its limits' (National Forum on Health, p.17). The links between resiliency and health promotion are further explicated in a paper on resiliency and its implications for health promotion (Reid et al., 1995).

As protective factors may influence resilient outcomes, it is important to capitalize on community strengths and to enhance social support, voluntarism, communal coping, and community connectedness. Community development initiatives should be supported and community organizations should be encouraged to engage in greater outreach to involve more residents. In conclusion, this study revealed that despite considerable risk in terms of employment and the economy, these communities displayed remarkable resilience and expressed guarded optimism about the future.