A Study Of Resiliency In Communities

Acknowledgements

This study was a collaboration between the Atlantic Health Promotion Research Centre and the communities of Cheticamp and Isle Madame, Nova Scotia and Dildo, New Foundland. It could not have been carried out without the support of many people in those three sites. To all the residents who took part in some way, we extend our sincere appreciation for your enthusiasm, openness and willing participation in this venture. In particular, the research team wishes to thank the advisory committees in the three communities for their assistance with the start-up phase, and for providing support and counsel for the local coordinators. We acknowledge the excellent work of Community Coordinators Paul Desveaux, Kevin LeBlanc and Sonya Smith, who helped us get to know their communities. And finally, we owe a huge vote of thanks to the 179 participants who so generously contributed their time, their thoughts and their experiences during the interviews and focus groups.

Two other individuals who deserve our special thanks for all their help are Jim Anderson, our Research Analyst at Health Canada, and Mary Ann Martell, Atlantic Health Promotion Research Centre, who transcribed the interviews and assisted in formatting the final report.

Executive Summary

The concept of resiliency involves the element of risk being mitigated by protective factors to produce a positive outcome or adjustment. It is a concept that was traditionally applied to individuals; more recently it has been expanded to include families. Our previous work suggested that it may also be relevant to communities. This study was designed to test the application of the concept at the community level, to identify factors related to risk, protection and outcome, and to examine how communities rebuild following adversity. Our purpose was to better understand resiliency at the community level and its potential use for health promotion and population health.

This cross-sectional, qualitative study examined resiliency in three small coastal communities in Atlantic Canada, all of which had been hard hit by the collapse of the groundfish industry in the early 1990s. The study communities were Isle Madame and Cheticamp (Nova Scotia) and Dildo (Newfoundland). From January to June 1996, 179 people took part in individual and group interviews. A total of 66 individual interviews and 18 focus groups (six in each community) were conducted. Interview and focus group guides were developed to explore indicators of risk factors, protective factors and outcomes (both positive and negative). Most of these consultations were carried out by a locally hired Community Coordinator in each site. Each Community Coordinator submitted ten written observations pertaining to issues explored in the interviews and focus groups.

Economic disadvantage, distress and hardship were prevalent risk factors or challenges cited by community members. Communal apathy and anger were evident in the tendency of some residents to blame forces outside and inside the community, and expressions of powerlessness and resentment. While community development activity was present in all sites, the level of citizen participation in community process was low. Cultural barriers and divisions were evident in the two Acadian communities of Cheticamp and Isle Madame. Low levels of education were a problem, especially among displaced workers. Geographic isolation posed a barrier for people without transportation, and social isolation was a problem for some newcomers.

The sense of community and community connectedness was considered a protective factor or strength in all three sites. It was linked to shared history, social traditions, religion, the small community size and communal trust. Participants associated the sense of connectedness with the communities' ability to survive hard times. Social support was readily available from the community at large, family and friends, and local organizations. Strong community involvement was reflected in high levels of voluntaries and participation in recreational activities. There was general satisfaction with educational services at both the public school and post-secondary/adult levels. In addition, there was evidence that the communities were moving toward more positive attitudes and coping responses. From all three communities there were examples of communal coping as citizens attempted to find collective solutions to shared problems.

With regard to outcomes, these communities reported satisfaction with physical health services, good physical health, increased evidence of healthy behaviours and active health promotion in all sites. However, emotional and behavioural health problems were viewed to be problematic and were attributed to the economic and employment situation. Participants also reported a failure to rally communally in response to the current hardship. A lack of coordination of community organizations posed a barrier to communal action. Other more positive outcomes were evidence of new economic development, a mood in the communities of determination and cautious but increasing hope, and the vital role that local organizations continue to play in community life. The results of the study revealed that, despite considerable risk in terms of employment and the economy, these three communities displayed remarkable resilience and guarded optimism about the future