Enhancing the analysis of rural community resilience: evidence from community land ownership

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

88 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Resilience, and specifically the resilience of (rural) communities, is an increasingly-ubiquitous concept, particularly in the contexts of resistance to shocks, climate change, and environmental disasters. The dominant discourse concerning (community) resilience centres around bounce-back from external shocks. In this paper, I argue that it is necessary to query this dominant, singular conceptualisation for two main reasons. Firstly, through reviewing the international literature, it is possible to construct a spectrum of (community) resilience research concepts from ‘reactive bounce-back’ through to ‘proactive human agency’, where the latter increasingly questions the reactive stance of much community resilience analysis. Secondly, the new findings I present from 17 community land trusts (CLTs) in Scotland demonstrate processes of proactive change being implemented by communities-of-place, rather than simply as reactions to external shocks or events. Communities’ aimed-for outcomes are far wider than shock-absorption, and include deliberately building their skills and capacity-base in a context of constant change, rather than in anticipation of singular events. As a result of bringing together empirical findings with a wider review of the resilience literature, I conclude that to persist with only the dominant narrative of a reactive, shock-related definition of (community) resilience unnecessarily constrains our analysis, since it bypasses evident proactive processes and wider adaptability outcomes. I further conclude that we need to continue to problematise resilience as a concept, in order to be more accurate with its usage. This is important in itself, and, I argue, a necessary precursor to enhancing dialogue between resilience and other concepts such as social capital. 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)36 - 46
Number of pages11
JournalJournal of Rural Studies
Volume31
DOIs
Publication statusPrint publication - Jul 2013

Fingerprint

landownership
social capital
bypass
disaster
climate change
analysis
land

Bibliographical note

1023361

Keywords

  • Bounce-back
  • Community land ownership
  • Proactive human agency
  • Rural community resilience

Cite this

@article{057aa8dcb5fb45718fac939dafd20158,
title = "Enhancing the analysis of rural community resilience: evidence from community land ownership",
abstract = "Resilience, and specifically the resilience of (rural) communities, is an increasingly-ubiquitous concept, particularly in the contexts of resistance to shocks, climate change, and environmental disasters. The dominant discourse concerning (community) resilience centres around bounce-back from external shocks. In this paper, I argue that it is necessary to query this dominant, singular conceptualisation for two main reasons. Firstly, through reviewing the international literature, it is possible to construct a spectrum of (community) resilience research concepts from ‘reactive bounce-back’ through to ‘proactive human agency’, where the latter increasingly questions the reactive stance of much community resilience analysis. Secondly, the new findings I present from 17 community land trusts (CLTs) in Scotland demonstrate processes of proactive change being implemented by communities-of-place, rather than simply as reactions to external shocks or events. Communities’ aimed-for outcomes are far wider than shock-absorption, and include deliberately building their skills and capacity-base in a context of constant change, rather than in anticipation of singular events. As a result of bringing together empirical findings with a wider review of the resilience literature, I conclude that to persist with only the dominant narrative of a reactive, shock-related definition of (community) resilience unnecessarily constrains our analysis, since it bypasses evident proactive processes and wider adaptability outcomes. I further conclude that we need to continue to problematise resilience as a concept, in order to be more accurate with its usage. This is important in itself, and, I argue, a necessary precursor to enhancing dialogue between resilience and other concepts such as social capital. 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.",
keywords = "Bounce-back, Community land ownership, Proactive human agency, Rural community resilience",
author = "S Skerratt",
note = "1023361",
year = "2013",
month = "7",
doi = "10.1016/j.jrurstud.2013.02.003",
language = "English",
volume = "31",
pages = "36 -- 46",
journal = "Journal of Rural Studies",
issn = "0743-0167",
publisher = "Elsevier",

}

Enhancing the analysis of rural community resilience: evidence from community land ownership. / Skerratt, S.

In: Journal of Rural Studies, Vol. 31, 07.2013, p. 36 - 46.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Enhancing the analysis of rural community resilience: evidence from community land ownership

AU - Skerratt, S

N1 - 1023361

PY - 2013/7

Y1 - 2013/7

N2 - Resilience, and specifically the resilience of (rural) communities, is an increasingly-ubiquitous concept, particularly in the contexts of resistance to shocks, climate change, and environmental disasters. The dominant discourse concerning (community) resilience centres around bounce-back from external shocks. In this paper, I argue that it is necessary to query this dominant, singular conceptualisation for two main reasons. Firstly, through reviewing the international literature, it is possible to construct a spectrum of (community) resilience research concepts from ‘reactive bounce-back’ through to ‘proactive human agency’, where the latter increasingly questions the reactive stance of much community resilience analysis. Secondly, the new findings I present from 17 community land trusts (CLTs) in Scotland demonstrate processes of proactive change being implemented by communities-of-place, rather than simply as reactions to external shocks or events. Communities’ aimed-for outcomes are far wider than shock-absorption, and include deliberately building their skills and capacity-base in a context of constant change, rather than in anticipation of singular events. As a result of bringing together empirical findings with a wider review of the resilience literature, I conclude that to persist with only the dominant narrative of a reactive, shock-related definition of (community) resilience unnecessarily constrains our analysis, since it bypasses evident proactive processes and wider adaptability outcomes. I further conclude that we need to continue to problematise resilience as a concept, in order to be more accurate with its usage. This is important in itself, and, I argue, a necessary precursor to enhancing dialogue between resilience and other concepts such as social capital. 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

AB - Resilience, and specifically the resilience of (rural) communities, is an increasingly-ubiquitous concept, particularly in the contexts of resistance to shocks, climate change, and environmental disasters. The dominant discourse concerning (community) resilience centres around bounce-back from external shocks. In this paper, I argue that it is necessary to query this dominant, singular conceptualisation for two main reasons. Firstly, through reviewing the international literature, it is possible to construct a spectrum of (community) resilience research concepts from ‘reactive bounce-back’ through to ‘proactive human agency’, where the latter increasingly questions the reactive stance of much community resilience analysis. Secondly, the new findings I present from 17 community land trusts (CLTs) in Scotland demonstrate processes of proactive change being implemented by communities-of-place, rather than simply as reactions to external shocks or events. Communities’ aimed-for outcomes are far wider than shock-absorption, and include deliberately building their skills and capacity-base in a context of constant change, rather than in anticipation of singular events. As a result of bringing together empirical findings with a wider review of the resilience literature, I conclude that to persist with only the dominant narrative of a reactive, shock-related definition of (community) resilience unnecessarily constrains our analysis, since it bypasses evident proactive processes and wider adaptability outcomes. I further conclude that we need to continue to problematise resilience as a concept, in order to be more accurate with its usage. This is important in itself, and, I argue, a necessary precursor to enhancing dialogue between resilience and other concepts such as social capital. 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

KW - Bounce-back

KW - Community land ownership

KW - Proactive human agency

KW - Rural community resilience

U2 - 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2013.02.003

DO - 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2013.02.003

M3 - Article

VL - 31

SP - 36

EP - 46

JO - Journal of Rural Studies

JF - Journal of Rural Studies

SN - 0743-0167

ER -