A Study Of Resiliency In Communities

Introduction

Resiliency, or the ability to bounce back, has been studied in the context of individuals and families. However, it is unclear whether the attributes of this concept are applicable to the community setting. In order to more fully understand resiliency and its potential use for health promotion and population health programs, the researchers conducted a study of three small coastal communities in Atlantic Canada which have been hard hit by the collapse of the groundfish industry. The three communities selected as sites for the study were Isle Madame and Cheticamp in Cape Breton, Nova Scotia, and Dildo in the Trinity Bay region of Newfoundland. Funded by Health Canada, the research was carried out by the Atlantic Health Promotion Research Centre (AHPRC) at Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia. The major objectives were to identify markers which distinguish communities that recover, and to examine how communities rebuild following adversity.

Soon after the initiation of the project, the research team was approached by colleagues at the Regional Centre for Health Promotion and Community Studies (RCHPCS) at the University of Lethbridge. They proposed to conduct a parallel study in the Crowsnest Pass area in Alberta, a mining region in the foothills of the Rockies. The result has been a collaboration between the two centres. A summary of the Alberta project is included (Appendix A).

Resiliency has been described as the capacity for successful adaptation, positive functioning or competence despite high risk, chronic stress, or following prolonged or severe trauma (Egeland, Carlson and Sroufe, 1993; Cowen, 1991). Resiliency is a concept that has traditionally been applied to individuals. More recently, it has been expanded to include families (McCubbin and McCubbin, 1993). However, our previous work suggests that, in addition to families, it can be applied to systems such as groups and communities.

Resiliency is not a simple concept. It must be seen as a complex, dynamic interplay between certain characteristics of individuals or systems/aggregates, and the broader environment (Egeland et al., 1993; Horowitz, 1987). At the systems level, the concept of resiliency can be applied to groups and broader social systems within which individuals live and interact (Reid, Stewart, Mangham and McGrath, 1995). These include families, schools, clubs and organizations, community groups, neighbourhood, and communities of all sizes (cities, towns, villages). Such groups and systems are organisms with an identity of their own which is greater than the sum of their component parts (i.e., the individuals).

Resilience is the capability of individuals and systems to cope successfully in the face of significant adversity or risk. This capability develops and changes over time, and is enhanced by protective factors within the individual/system and the environment, and contributes to the maintenance or enhancement of health (Reid et al., 1995).

The present study examined resiliency in three at-risk communities in Atlantic Canada. In particular, we attempted to identify resilient outcomes in these communities. An outcome may by considered resilient if it indicates positive adjustment to stress/adversity, competence, health or functioning. The evaluation of both risk and protective factors is also central to the study of resiliency. Risk factors are variables that have been linked to later maladjustment. They are markers of risk status (e.g., low socioeconomic status) which may be used to give a statistical index of risk, or to identify groups of individuals for the purposes of investigation or intervention. Protective factors are variables that ameliorate or decrease the negative influences of being at risk.

At the community level, risk factors have not previously been examined. However, based on studies at the individual or family level, it can be speculated that communities with high levels of poverty and unemployment, communities that are geographically isolated, and communities that have experienced natural or man-made disasters would be at risk. Risk factors associated with communities are diverse in nature.

The literature addressing the development of individual resilience frequently identifies community attributes that provide a protective or supportive environment for individuals and families which may, in turn, suggest protective factors for communities themselves. Possible examples of such community protective factors include stability, cohesiveness, continuity in neighbourhoods, strong informal supportive networks, ideology, open supportive educational climate, community activism, and moral development through political, educational and religious institutions (Gabarino, Dubrow, Kostelny and Pardo, 1992). Likewise, Cowen (1991) notes the potential for key social institutions (e.g., schools, churches, worksites) either to enhance or obstruct positive psychological health outcomes which he links to resilience. Another protective factor for communities may be the educational level of community members. A broad category of community protective factors is social support which is an important resource for coping with stressors and risks (Thoits, 1986). Social support influences health status, health behaviour and the use of health services (Stewart, 1993). The informal webs of family and other ties are part of a community's social support network, and are mechanisms of social support. Indigenous lay helpers, co-workers, community leaders, volunteers and self-help mutual aid groups (Pearlin, 1985) can provide community-level support.

The self-knowledge inherent in self and collective efficacy learned from experience and from observation and interaction with others may be a factor which contributes to community resiliency. Community resilience may depend on having individuals, families and community-based organizations that provide models of resilient behaviour and attitudes, and thus opportunities for its citizens to acquire self-efficacy (e.g., within a group context). Learning from past experience with adversity is inherent in the concept of resiliency, and points to another link with self/collective efficacy.

Community development may be yet another protective factor associated with community empowerment. Community development is a process which addresses problems and solutions from a systemic, rather than an individualistic perspective. Education, political involvement and community action are also components of the community development process. Thus, it is possible that previous experiences with community development may contribute to a community's resilience in dealing with subsequent adversity. Community development implies community involvement. World Health Organization (WHO), 1991, offers process indicators of community involvement which can be assessed using qualitative methodology, such as changing involvement, relationship building, intensity of participation and changes in self-reliance.