Overview
The word resilience has a historical association with recovery from natural disasters and with very precise meanings in disciplines such as engineering and ecology. However, the word resilience has traveled an evolutionary path from such precisions to a more inclusive way to describe a characteristic of individuals, households, communities, or regions (Dabson, Heflin, & Miller, 2012). Wilbanks (2008) defined a resilient community or region to possess the characteristics to (a) anticipate threats, opportunities, and potential for surprises, (b) reduce the impact of these threats, (c) respond appropriately when these threats materialize, and (d) recover afterward. Resiliency of rural residents may best be summarized based on their trajectory. Over time, rural residents have demonstrated not only resilience but resistance and recovery, three of the elements identified by Norris, Stevens, Pfefferbaum, Wyche, and Pfefferbaum (2008) as trajectory, with the fourth being long-term dysfunction. In addition to individual characteristics, traditional beliefs, and practices, environmental and geographical influences in rural communities tend to increase personal resistance.
Often, rural communities are viewed as vulnerable because of location; however, it is important to recognize that vulnerability is not a static state nor is it an attribute of an individual or system/community. According to Rance, Funfgeld, and Brown (2015), vulnerability “is characterize by a host of complex social and economic factors, often associated with entitlements and access of individuals or groups to resources relative to the geographic and institutional context in which these individuals or groups live” (p. 10). The tools that individuals possess to deal with challenges, change, or loss are what define their level of resilience and strengths. In other words, resilience does not make life easier or remove obstacles for individuals; rather, it provides psychological strength to understand that challenges are inevitable and that it is necessary to work through them. In any discussion of resilience, it is important for the reader to remember that resilience often exists within the context of risk.
Rural people and communities have demonstrated resilience in light of institutional and social changes that have occurred since the mid-twentieth century and have fundamentally transformed rural life (Brown & Schafft, 2011). While there are multiple reasons for rural resilience, overwhelmingly and universally the literature consistently attributes rural resilience and strengths to social capital (the quality of relationships between members of the community), value of kinship, and pride. This chapter will present information on the sustained ability of rural, frontier, and territory communities to respond, withstand, and recover from adversities as a measure of strengths of rural residents.
Learning Objectives
- 1.
Define resilience.
- 2.
Identify the characteristics of resilience and strengths in rural residents and communities.
- 3.
Explain community capacity.
- 4.
Define social capital, and explain its relevance for resilient communities.
- 5.
Identify areas for possible community advocacy to increase resilience.
- 6.
Understand the advantages and disadvantages of the social conditions of resilience.
Introduction
Rural communities have often been viewed as “behind” or less progressive than urban centers (Thomas, Lowe, Fulkerson, & Smith, 2011). This point of view is driven by a concept called urbanormativity, or the view that urban space in the USA is the norm, and rural communities are abnormal (Thomas et al., 2011). Urbanormativity contributes to the marginalization of rural spaces and communities and does not acknowledge the value and contribution of rural parts of the USA. Common thinking is that rural communities rely on urban centers for innovation and sustainability; however, amassed evidence suggests just the opposite. In fact, urban centers rely on rural communities for food, materials, and natural resources. Historically, rural areas have been the setting for many social changes in the USA; several groups seeking freedom from oversight and influence moved to rural areas to create their own society based on their own beliefs (Thomas et al., 2011). This tradition creates the backdrop for many rural communities today: resilient, self-sufficient, and independent. The following sections will provide an overview of the definition of community, the concept of community resilience, and community capacity.
Communities are traditionally defined as, “people, resources, organizations, structures, and systems in a close geographic proximity” (Pfefferbaum et al., 2013, p. 251), recognizing some imposed physical boundaries are inaccurate reflections of a community. In a rural context, a community may be thought of as a county or area that all utilize central community resources such as schools, churches, mail routes, or law enforcement. Rural communities are often subject to hardships due to economic circumstances, natural disasters, and shifts in demographic makeup of residents over time. Despite these challenges, many display an incredible amount of resilience and continue to thrive despite difficulties. Often, residents are credited with adapting and changing with the times, while “outsiders” often have difficulties understanding how this is accomplished.
Community resilience as a concept has gained attention in the public health arena as critical to the welfare of citizens, particularly in support of the US Department of Health and Human Services National Health Security Strategy to prepare for threats due to disease, natural disasters, and terrorist attacks (US Department of Health and Human Services, 2009). Community resilience is sometimes described as a goal, other times as a mechanism for ensuring preparedness for emergency situations and threats (Pfefferbaum & Klomp, 2013). Resilience can describe individuals or communities and can be simply defined as “the process of successfully adapting to, and recovering from, adversity” (Pfefferbaum & Klomp). Many counties, towns, and communities are subject to difficult circumstances or events, and residents who are able to return to pre-event levels of quality of life are considered to be more resilient (Besser, 2013). Based on this definition, resilience can be conceptualized as a dynamic process that is observed over time as the community identifies, responds to, and monitors potential threats. Resilience itself does not reflect the absence of hardship, rather describes continued progress despite adversity. Resilience at the community level is a phenomenon apart from the resilience of the residents, although the two are not completely mutually exclusive. Pfefferbaum and Klomp (2013) explain this important distinction by building on the familiar adage, “the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.” The collection of resilient community members joining their efforts is the backbone of community strength. However, a resilient community does not guarantee resilience in all residents and does not necessarily strengthen or impact individual community members. This chapter will be a discussion of community capacity, resilience, values, and strengths of rural communities, including examples of community programs that demonstrate the impact of community service delivery on residents.
Defining Community Capacity
Many disciplines, including community health, economics, sociology, and public policy, are the home to research, literature, and general discourse on the topic of community capacity. Often, economic indicators such as poverty, employment, and even population growth are the focus of this work. Other scholarly endeavors highlight the importance of social and organizational gains such as education, community activity and participation, and satisfaction. Beckley, Martz, Nadeau, Wall, and Reimer (2008) propose that community capacity is better understood as a multidimensional concept, including structural and relational components and community assets. Structural components are most easily understood as the way a community is situated, including availability of natural resources, connections with or isolation from other geographic areas, local power structure, and/or political and governmental characteristics. Relational components consist of community leadership, cohesion, shared values, and traditions of community members. Community assets are commonly considered to be infrastructure, liquid financial assets, or entrepreneurial social structure. Additionally, there are a wide variety of outcomes that may indicate strong or weak community capacity outside of those traditionally considered. Beckley et al. (2008) proposed a multidimensional definition of community capacity, with four facets: “(a) capital, assets, or resources; (b) catalysts; (c) mobilization of those resources through social organization and relationships; and (d) end results or outcomes” (p. 60).
Alternatively, Pfefferbaum and colleagues (as cited in Pfefferbaum et al., 2013) proposed four interrelated domains of community capacity that both “describe and help create” the capacity for community resilience: (1) connection and caring, (2) resources, (3) transformative potential, and (4) disaster management. Connection and caring describe the relatedness, shared values, and community participation of members. Communities that foster involvement and engagement of residents in diverse groups and experiences (e.g., civic, social, etc.) increase the shared sense of belonging and investment in the community. For example, festivals and fairs can foster relationships, community pride, and belonging (Kulig, Edge, & Joyce, 2008). Community social networks can also be a source of hope and support during crises. Resources have traditionally been characterized as a wide variety of resource types: financial, natural, physical, human, and social. Above the existence of resources, Pfefferbaum and colleagues emphasize that the way that communities invest in and allocate resources is critical to resilience in the face of disruption or challenge. The structure and organization of a community, for example, ensure members can respond effectively and quickly in times of crisis. The transformative potential of a community addresses the members’ capacity to identify and frame their collective experiences, assess and consider strengths and weaknesses, examine past initiatives, and make plans and decisions for the community’s future. Disaster management includes activities set up in advance to mitigate risk, to be prepared for crises by way of developing and planning response, and speed recovery from unforeseen or unpreventable events. This process requires assessment of possible and likely threats, areas of vulnerability, resource needs, and determining appropriate actions. This is an ongoing process, where both short-term needs and long-term plans for recovery are included.
Sustainability, vulnerability, resiliency, and adaptability are terms frequently cited within the literature to describe how communities adjust and overcome adversity. These concepts have been the emphasis of resource and land management and how individuals and communities respond to natural disasters and/or extreme weather conditions (Harrington, 2005). Rural communities in the great plains and high plains of Kansas, for example, are known to experience severe weather conditions including drought, tornadoes, hail, and freezing temperatures and ice/snow, often affecting a region highly dependent on agriculture (Cross, 2001; Cutter, Boruff, & Shirley, 2003). In the 1930s, the drought and dust bowl (well-known natural disaster) affected the region through the loss of rich farming soil associated to wind and water erosion. Moreover, depleting groundwater, floods, and tornadoes/hail/severe storms remained persistently problematic (Borchert, 1971; Harrington, 2005). Yet, despite these conditions, communities in rural Kansas continue to thrive. Subsequently, Kansas has made vast efforts to respond to these environmental challenges experienced within their rural communities. Mitigating factors for overcoming these socioeconomic conditions have been adaptability and resiliency among farmers for adopting new methods of farming, while state and federal involvement through research programs have provided additional support for locals. Hence, the implementation of soil conservation practices through a Western Weather Modification Program is designed to increase rainfall and reduce hail damage (Nellis et al., 1997). Interestingly, no signs of increased rainfall through the program came about; however, overall hail damage decreased by 49%, damage to crops decreased by 27%, and provided an estimated cost benefit of $60,000,000 for the years 1979–1993 within six rural communities. The overall significance of this program resulted toward further adjustments to counter other environmental conditions (i.e., droughts, floods, etc.) through agriculture diversification (i.e., conversion to dryland farming), adopting efficient technologies, espousing crop rotations, increased irrigation, and water conservation programs (Eklund, Jawa, & Rajala, 1999; Harrington, 2005). Additional methods for adjusting to the environmental conditions are necessary for long-term sustainability (Harrington, 2005).
Though, not every country responds to the need or challenges typically seen in our example of Kansas. In 2003, the World Economic and Social Survey was released which focused on sustainable development, a fundamental concern in developing countries facing challenges with economic, social, and environmental issues (United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs [UNDESA], 2013). Their report offers insight not only to the challenges frequently encountered in rural populated areas but also solutions to overcome global challenges through a joint course of action among governments. The United Nations addressed the need for investing in rural infrastructures as determinant for increasing food production and sustaining natural resource management.
For instance, in agriculturally based countries such as sub-Saharan Africa, transportation accounts for 50–60% of total marketing costs, yet poor road conditions continue to remain; investing in basic infrastructure, such as roads, potable water, and supplying electricity, can reduce marketing costs and vitalize local economies through increased production. By addressing these long-term constraints, opportunities for expansion will be possible and attractive among private investors (UNDESA, 2013). Case in point, Uganda generates a 23% GDP for agriculture but has significant deficits in physical infrastructure. However, their government has recently invested toward improving physical infrastructure (primarily for irrigation projects) to increase productivity and enhance food production capacity. Researchers hypothesize Uganda’s annual productivity growth rate over the period 2016–2030 will increase from 2.4% to 3.7%, and agricultural output will increase 1.5% per year (UNDESA, 2013). These investments further support the need for commitment from the public as they will ultimately contribute to productivity gains.
Additional challenges and/or concerns among these communities included the need for food security and income among the rural poor. Not only will increasing agricultural productivity improve economic conditions but also facilitate increased food availability while simultaneously generating income. Investing in rural communities is critical for an integrated approach to sustainability and decreasing poverty. Further, UNDESA (2013) recommends a rural development strategy through rural infrastructure investments to improve working alliances between rural and urban communities and implementing wider and inclusive access to public services to reduce rural/urban inequalities, disaster risk , and food insecurity.
Assessing Community Strengths
Effective and resilient communities build on their strengths, adjust for weakness, and recognized environmental and economic realities (United State Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service, 2012). Community members may wish to employ assessments t o help identify and guide their approach. A person serving in a leadership or evaluator role in a community assessment exercise is by the nature of the task, performing a political activity. Careful attention to empowering community residents and valuing their perspectives as a form of “truth” is critical to success (Tice, 2005). Put simply, “the strengths assessment requires an account of what people know and what they can do, however inchoate that may seem. It requires constructing a roster of resources existing within and around the community” (Tice, 2005, p. 100).
Assessing communities for capacity allows for recognition of both community strengths as well as areas of weakness. Those in a community development capacity who are aware of community capacities or strengths, as well as gaps or weaknesses , can ensure that necessary supports are in place prior to initiating any programs or initiatives (Goodman et al., 1998). One method of assessing community strengths that have gained particular attention in the field of social work is “community mapping” (Pitzer & Streeter, 2015). The concept of “mapping” is often thought of within the concept of geographic space but can also be extended to include abstract concepts such as social capital or assets. Mappin g community strengths can enhance the community members’ and outside helpers’ understanding of assets and enhance the self-efficacy of the community, potentially boosting engagement in further asset development (Pitzer & Streeter, 2015). As with any evaluation effort, during an asset mapping exercise, it is important to gather data or input from as many sources as possible. This means tapping the knowledge and expertise of both formal and informal community leaders, particularly those who have an understanding of the community history, values, and culture. Methods for gathering data from community members on assets are similar to other evaluation techniques, including interviews, focus groups, surveys, and secondary data analysis of economic, education, or health data. GIS mapping might also play a role in identifying existing structures, services, and resources.
Culturally relevant interviewing and assessment is critical to gathering quality data from these efforts; attention to language, interviewing techniques, body language, and the role and view of “outsiders” in the eyes of community members are all important considerations. For example, is it common for community members to share concerns with neighbors, or would they be more likely to speak frankly with a nonmember? Do spoken or unspoken social “rules” exist dictating who among community members may speak for the group? Do community members have particular ways of describing assets that might not resonate with a person who is unfamiliar with the community culture or history? Is the way that a person who is unfamiliar with the community asks questions that may elicit more or less information from community members?
Additional community strengths may be determined through utilizing secondary data sources, such as employment and labor market information, health data, and educational attainment data. Ratings of available services, safety, and natural resources may serve to highlight strong features of a community. Information on available housing units, average cost of property, number of businesses and how many people they employ, development projects and permits, use of open space, and much more is available through public records and archival data. These assets may be publicized and even used to leverage additional resources in the future (Community Tool Box, 2016).
Practitioners and scholars of the vocational rehabilitation counseling (VRC) profession may be left with the simple question: “Why and how is assessing for community strengths and weaknesses an important consideration when working with clients?” By understanding the strengths a community holds (i.e., strong community involvement, high demand for specific jobs, access to transportation, etc.) and weaknesses that currently exist (e.g., transportation barriers, lack of access to community resources, and insufficient job opportunities), rehabilitation counselors can capitalize on the strengths and counter weaknesses through a collaborative effort with their clients. However, facilitating change based off assessing for strengths and weakness is a community-based approach whereby stakeholders, governmental agencies, and community leaders are actively involved toward implementing positive change within their district. Yet, when community participation is absent and people of position in structural and social hierarchies oversee planning, implementation, evaluation, reporting, administration, and financial control, failures tend to occur among these stakeholders, often leaving residents in a state of dismay (Boutilier, 1993; Laverack, 2006; Syme, 1997). Furthermore, inequalities in health, and overall well-being, tend to be negatively affected when policy makers have too much control in the decision-making process; as a result, communities must have a sense of ownership and be empowered to address any concerns they possess (Laverack, 2006).
The importance of assessing for strengths and weakness within rural communities cannot be overstated. To illustrate this case and point, Averill (2003) conducted research in Grant County, New Mexico to identify a standard measure of community-based attributes and strengths that could eventually lead to positive change. Historically, this geographic region is an isolated mountainous and dessert terrain area with small communities consisting of several hundred residents within each. The economic conditions have traditionally operated through copper mining, cattle ranching, farming, logging, and now tourism, though challenges remain consistently problematic for these rural communities (Averill, 2003). Key issues or concerns identified by participants involved in the study included (a) prescription medications were typically elevated in cost, and accessibility and affordability for obtaining medicine were challenging; (b) limited access to healthcare, specialty care, hospice services, and emergency care was concerning for the elderly and their families; and (c) social isolation and loneliness due to living within remote areas were reported. Though the weaknesses conveyed have been repeatedly discussed throughout the text, the researchers identified three principle strengths found among this population for overcoming the barriers encountered and comprise of the following: (a) age, cultural diversity, economic, and vocational history led to increased knowledge for sustaining health, caring for sick and injured family members, and methods for reducing time away from work when confronted with illness; (b) healthcare professionals who decided to relocate or remain within Grant County were passionate about improving healthcare services through creative and problem-solving techniques, staying up to date with current practices within their medical field, and believed in community partnerships for positive change; and (c) community-based practices by planners, educators, advocates, healthcare providers, and individuals within administrative and leadership roles, actively participated in reducing fragmented service delivery (i.e., inadequate healthcare), increasing educational opportunities, and enhancing social services.
The resulting outcomes by which Grant County was assessed provide insight into a rural community that would normally be seen as disadvantaged based on barriers frequently encountered. Therefore, constituents must first identify the deficits/weakness to foster a healthy understanding of strengths frequently overlooked. It is not uncommon to focus exclusively on the weaknesses without regard to the resiliency for overcoming challenges identified earlier. Although there is no question that streamlining and improving services are crucial for the betterment of residents and the functionality of a community, recognizing strength-based characteristics can spur change in appropriate areas. For example, rather than assuming Grant County is in dire need of financial resources for educating families on caring for the sick, resources can be allocated to focus on problematic areas not countered through the strengths found among the residents.
Distinguishing Characteristics of Resilient Communities
In previous sections, we have presented aspects of community capacity that contribute to resilience. These have included both material assets (e.g., funds, natural resources) and people. In many communities, the residents and social infrastructure are the greatest asset. Social capital , defined as “relationships between people, characterized by trust and the normal of reciprocity” (Putnam, 2000 cited in Besser, 2013, p. 118), has been linked to higher levels of civic engagement, community cooperation, and quality of life among community members (Besser, 2013). Kulig et al. (2008) suggested in their model of community resiliency that community experiences and sense of belonging in the community drive a shared outlook among residents. Then, when community action, an event, or circumstance occur, members are better poised to come together to respond in a cooperative and unified way.
Social Infrastructure
The social infrastructure of a community influences the level of connectedness, shared values, and commitment of residents. Social infrastructure is defined as the place where the community functions (e.g., meeting places, community centers), where organizations are built and exist, and where social capital can develop (Flora, Flora, & Gasteyer, 2016). Locales provide public spaces where people are nurtured and relationships are formed. For some residents (e.g., those with human service needs), these public spaces may serve as important sources of social interaction in their lives. Examples of spaces that support social networks include faith-based centers (e.g., churches, temples, mosques), parks, tenant or neighborhood centers, youth organizations, health clinics, child-care programs, libraries, and schools. In rural areas, these places may be spread out or may be situated centrally and a distance from many residents’ homes, making transportation a potential barrier to participation if it is not available.
Flora et al. (2016) described two kinds of social capital that may serve to enhance community cooperation among residents: bonding and bridging. Bonding social capital is the relationships between groups of individuals who share a common identity or ideology. Bridging social capital is the relationships that exist between members of diverse groups of people. In some rural communities, there is little diversity among members, thus decreasing the need for bridging social capital. Bonding social capital is more effective at motivating people to come together and volunteer time and effort to reach group goals. In communities where multiple groups of people exist, having high levels of bridging social capital and moderate levels of bonding is most advantageous in supporting cooperative work toward a community vision, which is a key aspect of resilience (Flora et al., 2016).
Community Pride
In many rural communities, residents share a sense of pride in where they are from. This pride emanates from a sense of shared values (e.g., “small town values”) among community members. Rural communities cultivate a strong sense of history, beneficence, purpose, autonomy, and respect for others (Hoffman, 2011). Interviews with rural residents who left and then returned to their communities revealed several important draws and aspects of community pride (Cromartie, von Reichert, & Arthun, 2015). Residents valued connections, raising children near their extended family, peace and safety, and opportunities for outdoor recreation. The lifestyle in rural areas is described as, “clear skies, slower pace, clean air, and close social networks” (Coll & Haas, 2013, p. 103), giving residents much to be proud of.
Rural residents are also proud of their values and the people who live in their communities. Often their pride comes from juxtaposing rural residents and their values against urban dwellers. For example, they consider themselves to be patriotic, God-fearing and religious, honest and law abiding, hardworking, and democratic. They consider city residents to embody the opposite of these virtues: un-American, lazy, corrupt, secular, and heavily controlled by those running industry (Flora et al., 2016). The cultural capital they perceive as rural people provides them with pride in where they are from and a strong desire to stay where they believe the people are “good.”
Sense of Belonging
Rural residents, particularly in small towns, share a sense of belonging and value for social connections. It is considered part of human nature to readily develop social bonds and attachments under a wide variety of conditions (Baumeister & Leary, 1995), and the conditions of small town, rural life, are certainly amenable. Particularly in the circumstances of scarce resources, it is often in the best interest of all to cooperate and share resources so that everyone can benefit and be protected from external threats. Social psychology researchers have also found that proximity matters in forming social bonds; we are more likely to develop relationships with those we live near or spend much of our time with (Baumeister & Leary, 1995).
Community Action and Civic Engagement
This shared sense of belonging also influences residents to get involved in community activities, and civic engagement is considered by some to be an expectation. Everyone needs to take a turn and contribute (Cromartie et al., 2015). Communities are often making decisions about needs and what infrastructure to invest in. Choices such as water supply, public spaces, schools, waste processing, landfill space, and maintenance of roads and bridges are some examples of decisions that communities must make based on their shared values. As a result of the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1981, federal support of local communities was drastically reduced (Flora et al., 2016). Previously, rural community governments relied on the general revenue-sharing stipulations to assist with their local budgets, and this stipulation was eliminated in 1987 (Flora et al., 2016). This leaves rural community leaders with less support from the federal government than before and with greater responsibilities for local infrastructure. Resilient communities stand apart from others in their level of planning, investment, and cooperation in addressing these challenges. Much of their success comes from the shared sense of responsibility that residents feel to get involved with community activities and civic engagement.
Residents
Rural residents are as varied as those living in other regions, and the traits outlined in the following sections are considered along a continuum. These points are not meant to assume that all rural residents feel, behave, and believe the same ways or are ubiquitous people. However, several themes among resilient communities are highlighted in the following sections in an effort to celebrate the strengths of rural residents that have not been historically recognized.
Outlook or Mentality
Rural residents have long celebrated a different outlook or mentality than those who live in the suburbs or rural areas. This worldview is closely tied to the rural experience, which “has allowed them to retain a physical and mental toughness and to preserve a code of commitment to family and kin that has long ago boon lost in the rush to a commodified human existence” (Harkins, 2004, p. 206). Residents look back on difficult circumstances with pride and recognition of the rewarding aspects of their experiences, even lamenting their way of life as “disappearing” (Harkins, 2004). While rural areas and residents are not disappearing, the shift toward urban life as the reference point reduces the cultural visibility of rural living in media and popular culture (Ching & Creed, 1997). In addition to commitment to family, rural residents also have a respect and reverence for their natural surroundings that is often absent in their urban or suburban counterparts .
Many residents have learned that if they are to achieve something, it will be because of hard work and the support of their family and neighbors. They invest in their homes, properties, and community in order to build a legacy for their children and future families. Sacrifices and going without are in favor of future sustenance. They may have a mistrust of persons in power and outsiders because of past interactions where they lost or had things or people taken from them by governments, banks, or private industry (Flora et al., 2016). They rely on their faith, resilience, dedication, and family to continue to meet their own needs.
Coping with Adversity
Various fields of study operationalize and conceptualize resilience and coping as two separate entitles. The concept of resilience is increasingly used to investigate the dynamics and processes that help individuals deal with hardship. Coping on the other hand continues to be conceptualized as the cognitive and behavioral responses of individuals to deal with hardship (Skovdal & Daniel, 2012). Coping is broadly defined as “expending conscious effort to solve personal and interpersonal problems and seeking to master, minimize or tolerate the stress of conflict” (Srivastava, Singh, & Srivastava, 2014, p. 218). The level of coping an individual may exhibit is influenced by maturity, experiences, and opportunity. Research suggests that coping is also influenced by, but not limited to gender, age, ability/disability (including type of disability and age of onset), educational level, social networks, poverty, and health status. Coping and resilience are not expressed or employed uniformly among rural residents or communities, whereas some people may rise to the challenge others may fold under the pressure.
Rural residents face multiple adversities that place ongoing stress on them including financial hardship, natural disaster, isolation, limited services, and lack of transportation. These multiple stressors require rural residents to have social support in the community. Bushy (2000) identified three levels of social support from a rural perspective: (a) support volunteered by families and friends, (b) local emergency services and community and religious organizations, and (c) formal services, which usually require a fee. Letvak (2002) stressed that it is the quality of support that is available, not the quantity for many rural residents. The majority of rural residents usually select the first two levels of support.
In a study of stress fa ctors that are unique to rural police officers, Oliver (2004) found that in addition to the stress that urban police officers face, such as organizational, external, task-related, and personal stressors, rural and small town officers also face security because of geographic isolation (and limited number of officers), social factors (everyone they encounter while off duty knows they are police officers), working conditions (low pay, inadequate equipment and training), and inactivity stressors (long period of boredom, low crime rates, resident reluctant to call the police). Although many of the observations in the study were not associated with high levels of stress, a number of critical areas were suggesting that initiatives need to be taken to address these unique factors.
Coping involves both negative and positive strategies . In a study of social support, coping, and medication adherence among rural HIV-positive women, Vyavaharkar et al. (2007) found that coping by denial/avoidance was a predictor of nonadherence to medication, which was an unexpected result. Conversely, the study found the participants that engaged in more active coping in response to HIV-related life stressors were more likely to adhere to their medication regimen, which was an expected outcome. In addition, the use of spiritual activities by participants mediated the effect of social support on medication adherence. Among rural clergy in England, Brewster (2012) found that for clergy who were responsible for three or more rural churches, the most frequent coping strategies are self-controlling, planful problem-solving, and positive reappraisal. The strategies used less frequently are seeking social support, distancing, accepting responsibility, and escape avoidance. Gratitude as an affective trait, often culled through religiosity, is also negatively correlated with psychological disturbance and positively related to well-being, positive affect, and satisfaction with life (Rosmarin, Pirutinsky, Greer, & Korbman, 2016).
In rural communities, coping with adversity is considered as ingrained in both culture and communities. For example, one of the hallmarks of coping with adversity in rural areas was the great depression. Some believe that the depression in rural America began almost a decade before the great depression and as urban areas quickly recovered and gained economic growth, rural areas never recovered. Some rural residents were able to maintain their land and grew food on which to live, while other moved away. Both of these outcomes demonstrate a coping response of rural residents to their situation. Resilience, a key feature in coping, is both an individual characteristic but can also be relationally developed. In studies of children raised in difficult circumstances, a subset of children grew up to be successful adults who “worked, played, and loved well” (Walsh, 2003, p. 2). Some of the successful adults had even experienced trouble during adolescence but credited a person, or a faith community, as influencing them positively and helping them develop resilience. In another study of rural youth, supportive educational settings and strong adult role models were credited as building resilience among at-risk youth (Curtin, Schweitzer, Tuxbury, & D’Aoust, 2016). In close-knit rural communities, residents can help each other build resilience through contact, encouragement, and involvement.
Getting Along and Creating Networks
Rural residents, by definition , live in areas with lower population density, meaning that there are fewer choices for making friends and acquaintances. This often means that most people know each other, and there is reduced anonymity and privacy compared to what it is like living in areas with greater population density. Slama (2004) referred to this experience of little privacy as the “fishbowl phenomenon” (p. 10). This familiarity has some drawbacks (e.g., people may be less prone to express unpopular opinions, greater stigma for those who do not fit social norms) but also has some benefits. Rural residents in small communities are apt to be familiar with the needs of their neighbors, and this often mobilizes support and assistance when it is needed (Leipert & George, 2008). For example, residents may take up a collection, offer transportation, or bring food or other material goods to families when a crisis occurs. Often this help comes without the expectation of recognition or praise and from people who have limited resources themselves. For some, rural culture may represent more traditional gender roles and social norms , which may be problematic for some members who are nonconforming. For example, Leipert and George (2008) reported results of qualitative interviews where residents were asked to describe rural values and community pride, and participants shared narratives of male dominance and judgment and shunning of those who did not fit in to social norms. In some small rural communities, people are intolerant of differences, and distrusting of outsiders makes it hard for some people to fit in (Leipert & George, 2008). Despite these difficult circumstances, overall, rural culture is community oriented, and residents often share a commitment to helping others. This culture of helping each other allows for greater resilience in times of crisis.
Recommendations for Service Delivery
As you have learned in other chapters, persons with disabilities are overrepresented in the rural population—some estimates that more than one in five residents in rural areas have a disability (Seekins et al., 2011). Resilient communities are strengthened by the ability to serve and provide assistance to their neighbors. Those with access to rehabilitation and human services are in better positions to help meet the needs of the community; however, professionals practicing in these areas must be attuned to strategies and approaches to partnering with community members for greater effectiveness.
Importance of Relationship Building and Working Alliance
For professionals working in rural communities, the importance of relationship building is clear. As we have mentioned, rural communities come with their own unique cultural norms and expectations, and learning these ways of communicating and relating is critical to working well with residents (Slama, 2004). If you are an “outsider” to a community, building trust may take some time. Methods designed to get to know residents and learn about the community will help build trust, although patience is necessary to allow these relationships to develop. Chipp et al. (2011) suggested that providers get to know elders and respected residents who can help them understand the community and needs better. This will in turn result in gaining the respect of others. Authors cautioned new practitioners against isolating, recommending they spend time in the community (attending church, going to market, volunteering , attending community events) and get to know their neighbors. Providers who isolate are often rejected, as this goes against the value of community. In some cases, a provider may have to repair mistrust from past providers whose missteps left hurt feelings or unfulfilled promises. Being flexible and taking on extra responsibilities as needed will also help to develop social capital and trust among community residents.
Collaborative Service Models
Examinations of rural health disparities have demonstrated individual “neighborhood effects” are evident in population studies of community health (Hartley, 2004). The assumption that rural culture is based on an agrarian history and ignores other cultural differences does not help us address health and health disparities in modern rural America. Findings illuminated regional differences in health consequences for rural residents, prompting examination of the questions, how do local cultures differ from one region to another, how can we detect these differences, and how can we use this knowledge to improve health (Hartley, 2004)? Public health and medical officials have addressed some of these challenges by collaborating with community groups and individuals in order to more efficiently and effectively meet the health needs of rural residents. Some of the challenges addressed by these collaborative health models included limited access to financial resources, trouble recruiting and retaining staff, inadequate transportation resources to cover the broad geographic areas, and smaller hospitals with limited resources for treating patients (Berkowitz, 2004). “Turning Point” grants, funded by the Robert Wood Johnson and W.K. Kellogg Foundations, resulted in several successful collaborations that brought services and resources to underserved areas with high rates of poverty and health inequity (Berkowitz, 2004). Community residents and organizations were paramount to ensure that community concerns were addressed adequately and took lead roles in grant writing and fundraising. Including residents in these planning efforts is critical to identify aspects of community culture that are supportive of, or provide risk to, health of residents.
Social Valorization Within the Consumer’s Community
Rural communities foster a culture where people “take care of their own.” This may come in the form of “closing ranks” around a person with particular needs, especially those who may be considered vulnerable. This culture of care and protection is well-intentioned, but may limit the perception of a person being capable of contributing to a given community. Social valorization is the idea that in order to achieve full inclusion into a society, one must hold a valued social role within their community (Wolfensberger, 1983). In some rural areas, people who have disabilities are assumed to be “a drag on the economy,” unable to work, and only contributing financially via disability benefits (Seekins et al., 2011). How others treat us is a reflection of our value in their opinion, and this in turn influences the way we behave. When others treat us as though we are capable, we are more likely to assume this role and are apt to achieve more (Wolfensberger, 1983). In a community where people are very familiar with one another, it may be difficult to change an image of a person to allow for assuming a role with greater social value. Wolfensberger suggests several strategies to enhance the social image of a person including enhancing competency, addressing needs, introducing age and culturally appropriate activities and schedules, and ensuring autonomy and promotion of rights. Close attention to the language used to talk with, and about, this person is also important to ensure that devaluing messages are not being sent inadvertently (Wolfensberger, 2000). An individual may leverage existing relationships (e.g., family, friends) to identify and access activities that the person would like to assume and they believe would be considered of value to the community. In fact, rural residents with disabilities are more likely than the general population to be self-employed and serve in elected roles and as volunteers (Seekins et al., 2011). Accessible arrangements can facilitate continued community participation for many residents who have disabilities, thus enhancing the human capital and community capacity.
Building Social Capital and Social Networks
Social capital is defined as the relationships between people living in a particular society. When one person values another and cares about their well-being, successes, failures, and so forth, there is said to be high levels of social capital between them. The idea that your success is my success, for example, would indicate high social capital. For strangers, there is little and perhaps no social capital expected (Robison & Ritchie, 2010). Social capital and social networks are incredibly important in our lives; leveraging these relationships is often how we find employment opportunities, garner social support, and pursue shared goals (Phillips, Robison, & Koscuilek, 2014). For those who have small social networks and struggle to connect with others (e.g., because of disability, personality traits, or environmental factors), indirect social capital may become important. Findings indicate that social capital can be “inherited” and used to the advantage of a person other than it previously belonged (Phillips et al., 2014, p. 38). This may be in the form of employment opportunities, wages, or other goods or services. The idea that social capital can be “shared” or used to benefit another person is important in a rural community where social capital is often high between residents. A service provider working with an individual may encourage them to think about their list of family members, friends, and other social connections and consider who might be willing to help them—either directly or indirectly by reaching out to another person on their behalf. Similarly, a professional who is new to a community may seek to build their social capital by investing in relationships with other residents and find mentoring or other guidance from someone who is highly valued and respected within the community. Relationships are important everywhere, but this is especially true in rural towns and communities.
Building Natural Supports
The most effective and long-lasting supports provided to individuals in need of human services come in the form of “natural supports.” All of us need some level of support to succeed and some more than others. Natural supports are most often considered part of existing relationships in a person’s life, for example, assistance garnered from a friend, family member, or coworker as opposed to a paid professional (Wehman & Bricout, n.d.). Natural supports are most often discussed related to employment but may also serve to encourage a person to take a more active role in the community or fulfill some other personal goal. In communities where residents are highly interdependent, natural supports are already a fact of life and constantly occurring. Stepping in to help a friend or neighbor when it is needed, with the expectation that you can count on the same kind of support in return, is very consistent with the provision of natural supports. In rural communities, finding transportation, learning a new skill, or locating a needed item are things that you may naturally think to pick up the phone or go next door to see about. For individuals with smaller social networks, helping them identify people in their community or at work who might be willing and able to help them with something may be the only way to get that need addressed.
Community Advocacy to Address Needs
In rehabilitation and human services, advocacy is ongoing to help meet the needs of service participants. In rural communities, this may require community advocacy to find a way to address gaps in availability and/or major barriers, and these needs may be shared more by residents than service recipients. For example, increased funding for community infrastructure, safety initiatives, or supports may be worthy causes that members of the community can share as a common goal. Common challenges, such as crumbling infrastructure, water supply safety and health, and availability of reliable and affordable utilities (e.g., internet access), are all targets of community action that impact all residents. For some, the financial burden incurred by not being able to rely on these basic services can mean the difference between getting by financially and needing to rely on outside help to meet their basic needs (Flora et al., 2016).
Saul Alinsky developed an approach for community organizing that has been replicated and modified in both urban and rural spaces nationwide (Flora et al., 2016). His approach, called the “power approach,” is based on the idea that power must be taken; it is not freely given away by those who have it. The goal of the power approach is to unify to allow people who are not in positions of power access to the ability to change their circumstances via the power of the group (i.e., “power in numbers”). Leadership (sometimes by an outside organizer) is necessary to facilitate the process of airing grievances and identifying issues to be resolved. Another critical aspect is identifying talents of group members that can be harnessed to further the cause. The group must gather necessary information on the scope of the problem, related issues, and available resources that can be applied to ameliorate the gap. Political advocacy becomes necessary once resources have been identified (e.g., state funding) to convince those who are capable of making the necessary changes to act (Flora et al., 2016).
Involvement by relevant community members is essential to fully understand the scope of the problem and help to evaluate possible actions. For example, if a need is identified for greater accessibility so that people who use wheelchairs and other mobility devices can get around safely and independently, residents who use these mobility aids must be part of this effort. Otherwise, it is unlikely that the situation will be understood and effectively addressed since those who are most knowledgeable of the scope of the problem and most effected were not consulted.
Future Implications
Building and maintaining community resilience in rural communities is an ongoing challenge. It takes the combined efforts of community leaders, residents, practitioners, and researchers. In addition, community resilience requires resources to sustain an effort beyond a single point in time. The question is how do rural communities leverage their assets today to be competitive in the future? Heijman, Hagelaar, and Heide (2007) examined rural resilience in terms of rural economic, ecological, and cultural systems as increasingly entangled, and the interactions between these systems suggest “changes in one domain of resilience can affect resilience in the other domains” (p. 384). To that end, future development of rural resilience for rehabilitation and other social and human services should be considered within the complexity of the relationship between rural competitiveness, regional specialization, and geographic typography. Because both resilience and sustainability deal with the future (Heijman et al.), rural resilience invites the exploration of potentially different balances and combination of services within a rural area.
Rural community resilience is strengthened with alliance building between practitioners and the communities they serve. Thus, service providers should look to nontraditional outlet in which to expand services and reach rural clients. One such example is to borrow from the ideas for building resiliency in small town grocery stores from the Rural Grocery Summit. According to Nyquist (2016), as rural towns decrease in population size, it becomes more difficult to provide the basic services offered in larger communities (e.g., post offices, libraries, banks, health clinics). The disappearance of these retail-based services is now reappearing inside the grocery store. Offering these services provides vital services to the community. Through a partnership with public service agencies and healthcare providers, the grocery store is now an emerging means of service delivery (e.g., telemedicine, information kiosk) for access to service providers for those without transportation (Nyquist). The grocery store approach also can be applied in rural communities through the use of agriculture extension offices, which usually exist within each county. These extension offices can serve as locations for clients to meet appointments and information dissemination.
Future efforts to enhance and strengthen resilience of rural areas will need to address resilience at three levels: individual, group, and community. Lyons et al. (2016) found that fostering the development of groups can be an important part of increasing community participation and improving health and well-being outcomes in rural communities. In another study, Steiner and Markantoni (2013) found individual social resilience strengthens the community, thereby enhancing the overall resilience. Although community social resilience was found to be stronger than individual and community economic resilience, it was weaker than individual social resilience. The conclusion was that while overall resilience is the combination of all dimensions and levels of resilience, a community might face specific challenges related to social or economic dimensions and to individual or community levels. Resident in locations with more diversified services and resources reported being more resilient (Steiner & Markantoni). In addition, regional differences should be considered as well because location is as influential in resilience as culture. In fact, “there is nothing uniquely rural about the term resilience since it has also been adopted in the urban context, arguably with even more fervor” (Cheshire, Esparcia, & Shucksmith, 2015, p. 7). The study by Wells (2010; See Research Box 7.1) indicated that location was not as much a function of resilience as was income level. In the future, resilience should be defined beyond more than empowering people to endure hardships.
Research Box 7.1
See Wells (2010).
Purpose: To determine if (1) resilience levels vary in older adults living in rural, urban, or suburban areas, (2) the relationships of sociodemographic factors (age, income, education, marital, and employment status), social networks, health status, and resilience vary with the location in which older adults live.
Method : A cross-sectional design was used. Data were collected from 277 registered voters aged 65 years or over who lived in rural, suburban, or urban locations in New York State. The instruments used were the resilience scale, the SF-12v2, and the Lubben Social Network Scale—revised.
Results : No differences were found in resilience levels across the three locations. In regression analysis, stronger family tie networks, lower household income, and good mental and physical health status were found to be significantly associated with high resilience levels.
Conclusion : The location in which older adults reside did not affect resilience. The surprising association with resilience was low income. Mental health status was most strongly associated with resilience in older adults. Screening older adults for resilience levels and intervening when low levels are identified by implementing strategies to build resilience may be clinically relevant; however, further research is needed.
- 1.
What were the sampling biases of participants in this study?
- 2.
How might replicating this study with a more diverse population change the results?
- 3.
What other variable(s) would you include in this study?
It is about action planning to better utilize human service agencies to organize, collaborate, and provide integrative services in rural and remote settings.Their chances of ‘beating the odds’ against economic adversity through individual action is likely to be circumscribed by disadvantages they confront on a daily basis. How should resilience or a lack of it be judged in households like this? Moreover, there may be cases where a display of resilience in the form of speedy recovery from unemployment and poverty is a manifestation of a middle-class ability to navigate through the system.
Summary
As economic conditions evolve, weather patterns change, and resources flux, rural communities will continue to adapt and change as well. Rural communities are often lamented for difficult circumstances, but the resilience and strength associated with small towns and communities must not be overlooked. Community organizing and development is critical to help build more resilient communities. Residents who are empowered to assess strengths and weaknesses, set goals, and advocate for their needs are better equipped to respond to both anticipated and unexpected crises and setbacks. Utilizing public spaces to help residents connect and build relationships encourages greater development of social capital for all residents, also increasing the likelihood that residents will know and be familiar with one another’s needs in times of crisis. Planning ahead for events (predictable or not) also helps communities to respond more effectively. Community resilience is most evident in the times following an adverse or emergency event.
Professionals working in rural communities may have a role in fostering resilience in both clients and the community. One approach is to identify and build upon existing strengths. Community members are the best informants on strengths and barriers within a community; many already have associations or small government improvement groups that a professional may get involved with. Knowledge of resources, such as grants or other financial opportunities, and how to access them, may be of great help to a group that already has an agenda. At the individual client level, helping clients connect with their family, friends, and neighbors in a way that helps them leverage their social capital and maintain a valued social role within the community is important. Some of the greatest resources in a community are the people and the tradition of coping through adversity and taking care of each other.
Resources
Building Resilience in Rural Communities Toolkit: http://learningforsustainability.net/pub/BuildingResilienceinRuralCommunitiesToolkit.pdf
Housing and Urban Development: Promise Zones Initiative http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/comm_planning/economicdevelopment/programs/pz/overview
National Association of Development Associations: Vibrant Rural Community Case Studies https://www.nado.org/vibrant-rural-communities-case-study-series/
Rural Development Initiatives: http://rdiinc.org/newsletters/2014-10/how_resilient_your_rural_community
The Community Resilience Manual: A Resource for Rural Recovery & Renewal: http://communityrenewal.ca/sites/all/files/resource/P200_0.pdf
World Food Programme Rural Resilience Initiative: https://www.wfp.org/climate-change/initiatives/r4-rural-resilience-initiative