ARTICLE - Sustainable Communities ...
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Sustainable Communities Review
ARTICLE
Toward a New Community Resilience
Understanding: The Findhorn Ecovillage Case
Vicente Andrés Lombardozzi Andariza
University of Leeds
Correspondence: Diego Portales 365, Recreo
Viña del Mar, Chile; lombardozziv@gmail.com
Abstract
Community resilience is a recognized, important dimension of ecological communities.
However, although the resilience term at an ecosystem level is well developed, it
usually does not happen the same at the local and community level. In a world of
constant change, a lack of clarity of what resilience is could affect the community
development and its strategies to flourish and remain in time. This seems to be even
more relevant to ecological communities, which tend to face lots of difficulties to
emerge, generally not surviving more than two years after their creation (Forster &
Wilhelmus, 2005). Using Findhorn Ecovillage as a case study (Lombardozzi, 2019), this
paper reflects on the importance of community resilience, proposing a new definition.
It is concluded that at least four dimensions are needed to define a broad and robust
community resilience concept: economic, social, ontological, and institutional.
Introduction necessarily condemned to the waves of
We live in a highly globalized global uncertainty. One way to overcome -
world. Although this has created lots of or at least decrease- the vulnerability of
opportunities and benefits, like facilitating communities is to enhance their resilience.
communication over long distances, it has The importance of community
also increased vulnerability due to global resilience has been appreciated by the
crises. These phenomena can be seen in members of ecovillages. These ecological
climate change, where no country seems to communities have been framed as
be safe from the negative effects of examples of how a ‘degrowth world’ (one
industrialization. Globalization also which ends with the pursue of eternal
increases the probability of making local economic growth) would look like
communities more vulnerable, especially (Cattaneo, 2015). Therefore, they are more
when their economies depend highly on focused on making a community resilient
international tourism, as it happens with environment rather than a profit-making
some ecovillages, such as Findhorn, which structure, as Findhorn Ecovillage explicitly
hosts around 4,000 guests each year claims (Lombardozzi, 2019). This cultural
(Meltzer, 2018). But ecovillages are not and axiological difference makes ecological
22Sustainable Communities Review
communities a different field within was originally coined in physics and
community studies. It is important then to mathematics. In these fields, resilience
identify the specific characteristics of refers to the ability of a material or a system
community resilience in ecovillages, to to return to its equilibrium after a stressor
avoid the category fallacy, which tends to ‘move from it’. Sometimes resilience also
impose a category developed in a very means the time required to return to that
different culture onto another, as Kirmayer state (Bodi & Wiman, 2004 in Norris et al.,
et al. (2009) explain: 2008). This conception was differentiated
“Resilience depends on complex from resistance, which alludes to the force
interactions within systems, including necessary to move the system from its
physiological and psychological processes equilibrium (Norris et al., 2008).
within an individual and social, economic One rupture with the previous
and political interaction between concept occurred in ecology when its
individuals and their environment, or scholars realized that the ecosystems could
between a community and the surrounding express different forms of homeostasis or
ecosystem and the larger society. As a equilibriums, and therefore, resilience
result, resilience can only be understood by should not mean just coming back to an
considering systems in their ecological and original ‘pure’ and unique equilibrium, but
social context” (p. 102). also to adapt and modify the system to
But before going deeper into the create new equilibriums in response to the
characteristics of resilience in ecological external shocks (Kirmayer et al., 2009;
communities, it is important to highlight Norris et al., 2008).
that meanwhile, the resilience term at an This conception of resilience is closer
ecosystem level is well developed, it to the one that it can be found in social
usually does not happen the same at the sciences. When psychologically one refers
local and community level (Berkes & Ross, to a resilient individual, we do not tend to
2013). This lack of development can be understand it as an individual who is
understood when the history of the necessarily stubborn in a way that nothing
resilience term is exposed. Therefore, it extern affects him, but most of the
may be important first to discern the individuals that can thrive, adapting to
different disciplines where this concept is difficult circumstances. It is important to
used, and then approach it at its highlight, as Longstaff (2005 in Norris et al.,
community level. 2008) points out, that those resilient
Resilience: General overview systems are the ones that are very
adaptable. According to this author, the
Resilience is an interdisciplinary adaptability of a system is enriched when it
concept used in natural and social sciences. has diverse resources, resources that, as it
Although nowadays is mostly known by will be seen later on, are not only
the general public in its psychological economical.
perspective, which mainly signifies the Sustainable communities and resilience
individual’s ability to thrive under stress
and adversity (Kirmayer et al., 2009), The Brundtland report in 1987 called
Sherrieb et al. (2010) claim that the concept the world attention to the urgency of
23Sustainable Communities Review
sustainability. In this report, sustainable in the Age of Climate Disruption, ecovillages
development was understood as a are aligned with the efforts of reducing the
“development that meets the needs of the ecological impact (necessary to reduce the
present without compromising the ability dynamics that increase the climate crisis
of future generations to meet their own that threatens the resilience of societies).
needs” (World Commission on Again, one example of this is Findhorn
Environment and Development, 1987). Ecovillage, which has the lowest registered
Although different political trends emerged ecological footprint of the industrial world
from the previous report (such as ‘strong’ (Nissen, 2014).
v/s ‘weak’ sustainability), practically all of Lastly, one of the main characteristics of
them accept that sustainability involves ecological communities is their strong
environmental, social, and economic social ties, which is a form of social capital,
dimensions. that creates -among other benefits- a strong
Ecovillages, which are one of the most feeling of ‘belonging’. Furthermore, as
representative types of sustainable Lombardozzi (2020) explains, ecovillages
communities, try to be an example of are a ‘new type’ of community: an organic
sustainable life (Andreas & Wagner, 2012). community. This means that, differently
They generally mention the previous from ancient communities, sustainable
sustainability dimensions on their purpose, communities tend to organize themselves
although sometimes the social dimension is with ‘organic solidarity’ (a cohesion based
mixed with the economic one – or this last on diversity more than in a forced
one is underestimated, and not explicitly similarity). This kind of solidarity,
considered (Lombardozzi, 2020). differently from its opposite (mechanic
However, ecovillages’ structures manifest solidarity), is characterized by flexibility, a
efforts to strengthen resilience on its very important characteristic of resilience.
economic dimension. In the opinion of
Jackson & Svensson (2002), the economic Dimensions of resilience: Economic
global disintegrates local communities. dimension
That is why ecovillages try to develop
strategies of ‘localization’, that is to say, to The concept of resilience is
empower local communities rather than popularly associated with its
foreign multinational commercial players. psychological-individual level. However,
The way to enhance localization is societies and communities can also be
diverse and it depends on the community resilient (Sonn & Fisher, 1998 in Kirmayer
itself, but some common strategies are the et al., 2009). It is important to analyze then,
seek of energy and food autonomy (directly the different dimensions associated with
produce on-site), thus, with lower external resilient communities, of which the
energy inputs. One example of this strategy economy is one of the most important.
can be seen on Findhorn, where all the Briguglio et al. (2008) frame economic
electric energy is produced by their wind vulnerability as the exposure that an
turbines (Lombardozzi, 2019). economy has to external shocks due to its
As Ludwig (2017) describes in her openness to external markets. This
book Together Resilient, Building Community economic openness is operationalized as
24Sustainable Communities Review
“the ratio of international trade to GDP” (p. could be understood that the services
4). The more open the economy, the more offered within the community might make
susceptible it to be affected by external it more vulnerable than the products, due
shocks. According to the authors, the way to these last ones are easier to deliver to
to counteract this vulnerability is through long distances beyond the community. This
economic resilience, which is understood as framework can be especially important to
the policy-induced ability of an economy to ecovillages, which economies tend to
withstand or recover from the effects of depend highly on in situ tourism, due to
those exogenous shocks. The way to the different kinds of spiritual, ecological,
increase the economic resilience would be or educational workshops they offer
enhancing its four main dimensions: good (Miller, 2018; Lombardozzi, 2019).
governance (which is based on respect to According to Briguglio et al. (n.d.),
law and property rights), social cohesion, within the economic literature, resilience
market efficiency, and macro-economic has been used in three different ways:
equilibrium (for example, with low levels shock-counteraction (how quickly the
of unemployment). economy recovers from a shock), shock-
As it can be seen, the previous absorption (to withstand or resist the effect
conceptualization implies the economic of shocks) and to avoid the shocks (which
terms of vulnerability and resilience in a expresses the opposite of economic
macroeconomic way. This macro vulnerability). All these dimensions
framework could be limiting when exemplify a very important idea of
analyzing communities, which, as in the resilience: that economies (and
case of an ecovillage, express communities) are exposed to (external)
microeconomic dynamics. But when shocks and that resilience is the capacity of
communities are analyzed from a systemic that economy (or community) to cope -in a
perspective (Lombardozzi, 2020), the functional way- with those shocks, in other
previous economic resilience dimensions words, to avoid them, to resist to them (to
could be extrapolated from a country level not be destabilized) or to adapt to them.
to a community one. The previous responses can be
For example, in the case of ecovillages, the glimpsed -generally in a partial way-
economic openness could be throughout all the resilience literature,
operationalized as the percentage of the independent of the discipline implied. It is
community incomes that comes from important to analyze resilience from a
external buyers (people or companies that systems perspective. This paradigm allows
buy products or services that are produced extrapolating concepts from one discipline
or offered within the community). The to another. For example, the economic term
separation in the analysis of the offer of shock can be equalized to the stressor
products, on the one hand, and services on concept. Both represent an external input to
the other could be useful to make clearer the system that might disturb or alter it.
the economic openness of a community. One of the weakest dimensions of
For instance, considering the actual context the resilience of sustainable communities
of the COVID-19 virus, when external can be their financial dimension. Because,
people can hardly visit communities, it although these communities try to be
25Sustainable Communities Review
relatively self-reliant, at least in their because, as Adger (2000) claims, social
energy and food production, it is also true - resilience is “the ability of communities to
as Briguglio et al. (2008) show- that higher withstand external shocks to their social
GDP per capita is associated with the infrastructure” (p. 361).
highest level of resilience. This Hence, social capital is a
vulnerability was seen in Findhorn, complement to economic resilience.
especially with foreign members which do Especially when it is about communities
not belong to the EU and therefore did not that, as the ecovillages, try to be self-
receive its financial support (Lombardozzi, sufficient (Pickerill, 2016). While economic
2019). However, as it will be seen in the resilience gives the resources needed to
next section, this was counterbalanced by face stressors, social resilience -manifested
the social dimension of resilience. in social capital- could be understood as the
Having considered the importance lubricant needed to oil the economic
of the economic dimension, it is important structure. For example, one community
to understand that resources are not strictly could be rich, in terms of having lots of
limited to economic resources. As Norris et economic resources. But if those resources
al. (2008) define it, resources are “objects, are not well distributed (for example, if all
conditions, characteristics, and energies the communal property is owned just by
that people value” (p. 131). According to one member) the economic shocks can
these authors, vulnerability happens when destabilize more intensively the social
resources are not enough to respond in a structure, producing conflicts and making
resilient way, which means when resources members abandon the community. That is
are not robust, redundant, or rapidly why economic resilience considers social
mobilized as a response to external shocks, cohesion as one of its four dimensions. And
which might produce dysfunctions. This it is also the reason why the equitable
resilient response can depend on other distribution of income is a crucial factor of
dimensions beyond the economic, which social resilience (Norris et al., 2008).
will be explained in the next section. One example of the previous can be
seen in Findhorn Ecovillage. This
community is considered as one of the
Social dimension most resilient ecovillages in the world, it
has remained in time for several decades,
In the previous section, the and with a considerable number of
importance of the economic dimension of members (Lombardozzi, 2019). The
resilience was exposed. However, members that work for the community (i.e.,
economic resources are not the only quality not as independent worker or having a
that makes a community resilient (Magis, business) are paid directly from the
2010). The responses to shocks depend also resources that the community make with
on an integrated social network that can the different activities that they develop
face changes. If the economy is well within the community. And although the
organized but the social structure is not range of jobs done is diverse, from
able to mobilize the resources efficiently, cultivating, cooking, and organizing
the community will lack a robust resilience, workshops, their income ratio is 1 to 1.3
26Sustainable Communities Review
(FF, 2018). Therefore, the long life and environment, including especially other
success of Findhorn can be an example that social, economic, and political entities.”
although ecovillages might not express so (Kirmayer et al., 2009, p. 66).
high GDP per capita levels, their social From this perspective, the social
structures can enhance its resilience, dimension of community resilience is a
counterbalancing the financial capital by capacity of the system. It is the ability of the
social capital. community to create an environment, or
At this point, it is important to social structure that facilitates the
highlight that although the concept of robustness of social capital. This resource
resilience has been traditionally understood involves an organic network of
and framed from the individual relationships, based mainly (but not
perspective, this has been problematic, exclusively) on primary (affective)
because sometimes it ignores the social and relationships, that can help community
cultural context and also that “a collection members in moments of adversity.
of resilient individuals does not guarantee Examples of these dynamics are the social
a resilient community” (Norris et al., 2008, cohesion produced for seeing the rest of the
p. 128). Therefore, the community should community members as a family
not be understood as an abstract (Lombardozzi, 2020), or the formal groups
subproduct of the social interactions of within the community that helps each other
individuals (individualist methodology), without money involved, for example,
which could fall under an ‘atomistic fallacy’ taking care of children when their parents
(Kirmayer et al., 2009), but as an entity with are busy (Lombardozzi, 2019).
the agency (systems perspective), i.e., with Ontological dimension
Norris et al. (2008) and Keck & Sakdapolrak
(2015), framing resilience as a set of As it was seen in the previous
capacities from the community; section, according to Norris et al. (2008) the
recognizing the fact that community decrease of inequality is a key factor of
resilience was born from systems theory social resilience. These authors also
(Magis, 2010). established that the stability of livelihoods
However, this perspective does not ignore is another key parameter of social resilience
the agency of the individual, but as an — and it is a factor of individual resilience
element of the system that the community as well (Ungar et al., 2013). Although the
represents. In the words of Kirmayer et al. stability of livelihoods is related to
(2009): “Resilience of the community itself inequality, this last one is not the only
involves the dynamics of the social factor of the former. That is why this
response to challenges that threaten to stability should be considered as a
damage or destroy the community. These dimension itself.
dynamics may involve adaptations and For example, the stability of livelihoods
adjustments of individuals, groups, and could be affected by climate disasters.
organizations with the community (seen as However, as it can be seen in the study of
components of the community as a system) Kirmayer et al. (2009), not all the
as well as interactions of the whole adversities of communities are produced
community with its surrounding by sudden impersonal events such as
27Sustainable Communities Review
climatological catastrophes, but also by environments of action” (Giddens in
long social and political factors that are not Beriain, 1996, p. 26).
so discrete and explosive.
The previous reflection is very Institutional dimension
important to understand the particular
characteristics of community resilience. In the previous section, it was seen
Otherwise, this concept could be confused how resilience involves the reduction of
with other kinds of resilience. For example, risk and therefore the enhancement of
psychological resilience implies a response security. The community can do this not
to a disturbance. In other words, the only by adapting or resisting stressors, but
individual must face a problem to express also avoiding them, considering they are
resilience. If the individual avoids that “aversive circumstances that threaten the
stressor, that may weaken him, and this well-being or functioning of the individual,
could be considered as a lack of resilience. organization, neighborhood, community,
On other hand, resilient communities try to or society” (Norris et al., 2008, p. 132); and
limit risks and reduce threats (Magis, 2010). that to keep the same structural function of
For example, if one economic crisis the system even when reorganizing is a
emerges, an economic resilient response characteristic of social resilience (Folke,
can be to avoid those shocks (Briguglio et 2006).
al., n.d.). Hence, differently to individual In the economy section, it was mentioned
resilience, within community resilience to that social cohesion is a dimension of
avoid shocks should not be considered as a economic resilience. In that section it was
lack of resilience. On the contrary, avoiding also defined that economic resilience is a
such shocks can be fairly considered as an policy-induced ability to withstand or
adaptation of the system, because as Keck recover from shocks, which exposes the
& Sakdapolrak (2015) state, the adaptive institutional dimension of resilience.
capacities of social resilience means the This institutional level can also be glimpsed
“ability to learn from past experiences and in the literature about social resilience. For
adjust themselves to future challenges” (p. example, Adger (2000) states that “social
5); i.e., these adaptive resilient capacities resilience is institutionally determined, in
are ‘pro-active’ (ex-ante) (Obrist 2010a, 289) the sense that institutions permeate all
or ‘preventive’ measures (Béné et al. 2012, social systems” (p. 354). Similarly, Keck &
31)” (p. 10). As Norris et al. (2008) claim, Sakdapolrak (2015) claim that the
the reduction of risks increases collective transformative capacities of social resilience
resilience. Risk can be understood as the refer to the “ability to craft sets of
probability that stressors or shocks impact institutions that foster individual welfare
negatively on the ontological (or economic) and sustainable societal robustness towards
security of the community, that is to say, future crises” (p. 5).
the impacts that may affect the “trust that However, at the micro-level, it could be
most of part of the human being have in the argued that institutional is an unnecessary
continuity of our identity and the dimension due to the horizontal and
continuity of our social and natural primary kind of relationships of
communities (Lombardozzi, 2020) and
28Sustainable Communities Review
therefore, that communities have only social related to climate catastrophes. Any other
capacities to respond to shocks. But this is kind of stressor, like economic shocks or
not strictly true. For example, within social disintegration, can also affect the
Findhorn Ecovillage there is an institution trust in the continuity of our social
called Findhorn Foundation. All members environment of action, negatively affecting
that belong to it are offered a job within the the ontological security of the community.
community. This increases the ontological Having considered all the previous
security of members, that do not have to dimensions, community resilience will be
worry about losing their jobs understood as the social and institutional
(Lombardozzi, 2019). Therefore, the capacities to adapt, resist, or avoid external
community can also have institutional shocks that threaten the economic and
capacities to cope with stressors. ontological security of community
members.
Conclusion
References
The present paper has reflected on
the importance of community resilience, as
a specific and different type of resilience. Adger, W. N. (2000). Social and ecological
Nonetheless, thanks to systems theory, resilience: Are they related? Progress in
when the community is considered as a Human Geography, 24(3), 347–364.
system, some similarities with other https://doi.org/10.1191/03091320070154
disciplines can be found. To withstand or 0465
adapt to external shocks are common Andreas, M., & Wagner, F. (2012). Realizing
abilities of other kinds of resiliencies. Utopia: Ecovillage Endeavors and
However, community resilience integrates Academic Approaches. RCC
another possible response: to avoid Perspectives, 8, 81–94.
stressors, as a peculiar characteristic which http://www.environmentandsociety.or
is not a proper response in other kinds of g/sites/default/files/ecovillage_research
disciplines, as it happens in the case of _review_0.pdf
psychological resilience. Beriain, J. (Comp. . (1996). Las consecuencias
Also, it was highlighted the perversas de la modernidad (J. Beriain
importance of enhancing economic (ed.); Primera ed). Anthropos.
security, to cope with shocks that might Berkes, F., & Ross, H. (2013). Community
affect the community’s functioning. This Resilience: Toward an Integrated
economic dimension was closely related to Approach. Society and Natural
institutional responses but also with social Resources, 26(1), 5–20.
support. It is important then, to understand https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2012.7
that a resilient community is characterized 36605
by a strong social network that can act in Briguglio, L., Cordina, G., Bugeja, S., &
times of crisis. These crises involve high Farrugia, N. (n.d.).
levels of risks and uncertainties, which not CONCEPTUALIZING AND
only may threaten the ecology of the MEASURING ECONOMIC
community, that is to say, they are not only RESILIENCE.
29Sustainable Communities Review
Briguglio, L., Cordina, G., Farrugia, N., & 5
Vella, S. (2008). WIDER Research Paper Lombardozzi, V. (2019). Livelihood Options
2008/55 Economic Vulnerability and in Ecological Communities: The Findhorn
Resilience: Concepts and Measurements. Ecovillage case, Scotland (Issue August)
1–23. http://hdl.handle.net/10419/45146 [University of Leeds].
Cattaneo, C. (2015). Eco-communities. In G. https://ecovillage.org/solution/ecologic
D’Alisa, F. Demaria, & G. Kallis (Eds.), al-economics-thesis-livelihood-
Degrowth: A vocabulary for a new era options-in-ecological-communities/
(pp. 165–168). Routledge. Lombardozzi, V. (2020). Organizational
FF. (2018). Annual Report & Financial forms of a Chilean ecovillage : The “X
statements. Community” case (Vol. 2016, Issue
https://www.findhorn.org/wp- February).
content/uploads/2018/10/AR18V18-1- https://understandingecovillages.blogs
1.pdf pot.com/2020/01/sociological-thesis-
Folke, C. (2006). Resilience: The emergence organizational.html
of a perspective for social-ecological Ludwig, M. (2017). Together Resilient:
systems analyses. Global Environmental Building Community in the Age of
Change, 16(3), 253–267. Climate Disruption. Fellowship for
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.200 Intentional Community.
6.04.002 Magis, K. (2010). Community resilience: An
Forster, P. M., & Wilhelmus, M. (2005). The indicator of social sustainability.
Role of Individuals in Community Society and Natural Resources, 23(5),
Change Within the Findhorn 401–416.
Intentional Community. Contemporary https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920903305
Justice Review, 8(4), 367–379. 674
https://doi.org/10.1080/10282580500334 Meltzer, G. (2018). Findhorn Scotland. Love
221 in action. In F. Miller (Ed.), Ecovillages
Jackson, H., & Svensson, K. (2002). around the World 20 Regenerative
Ecovillage Living: Restoring the Earth and Designs for Sustainable Communities (pp.
Her People (Barcelona). Green Books for 24–33). Gaia Education.
Gaia Trust. Miller, F. (Ed.). (2018). Ecovillages around the
Keck, M., & Sakdapolrak, P. (2015). WHAT world, 20 Regenerative Designs for
IS SOCIAL RESILIENCE ? LESSONS Sustainable Communities. Findhorn
LEARNED AND WAYS FORWARD. Press.
Erdkunde, 67(March 2013), 5–19. Nissen, D. (2014). Lifestyle Change as
http://www.jstor.org/stable/23595352 Climate Strategy. Losnet, 61–62, 4–9.
Kirmayer, L. J., Sehdev, M., Whitley, R., Norris, F. H., Stevens, S. P., Pfefferbaum, B.,
Dandeneau, S. F., & Isaac, C. (2009). Wyche, K. F., & Pfefferbaum, R. L.
Community Resilience: Models, (2008). Community resilience as a
Metaphors and Measures. International metaphor, theory, set of capacities, and
Journal of Indigenous Health, 5(1), 62– strategy for disaster readiness.
117. American Journal of Community
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.080378010 Psychology, 41(1–2), 127–150.
30Sustainable Communities Review
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-007- Ungar, M., Ghazinour, M., & Richter, J.
9156-6 (2013). Annual research review: What
Pickerill, J. (2016). Building the commons in is resilience within the social ecology
eco-communities. Space, Power and the of human development? Journal of
Commons: The Struggle for Alternative Child Psychology and Psychiatry and
Futures, 31–54. Allied Disciplines, 54(4), 348–366.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315731995 https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12025
Sherrieb, K., Norris, F. H., & Galea, S. World Commission on Environment and
(2010). Measuring Capacities for Development. (1987). Our Common
Community Resilience. Social Indicators Future. Our Common Future, 300.
Research, 99(2), 227–247. https://doi.org/10.1080/07488008808408
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-010- 783
9576-9
31You can also read
