Communities have the potential to function effectively and adapt successfully in the aftermath of disasters. Drawing upon literatures in several disciplines, we present a theory of resilience that encompasses contemporary understandings of stress, adaptation, wellness, and resource dynamics. Community resilience is a process linking a network of adaptive capacities (resources with dynamic attributes) to adaptation after a disturbance or adversity. Community adaptation is manifest in population wellness, defined as high and non-disparate levels of mental and behavioral health, functioning, and quality of life. Community resilience emerges from four primary sets of adaptive capacities—Economic Development, Social Capital, Information and Communication, and Community Competence—that together provide a strategy for disaster readiness. To build collective resilience, communities must reduce risk and resource inequities, engage local people in mitigation, create organizational linkages, boost and protect social supports, and plan for not having a plan, which requires flexibility, decision-making skills, and trusted sources of information that function in the face of unknowns.

/pdf/community-resilience-as-a-metaphor-theory-set-of-capacities-2h7ia9h483.pdf

Community Resilience as a Metaphor, Theory, Set of Capacities, and Strategy for Disaster Readiness

ContextThe September 11, 2001, attacks against the United States provide a
unique opportunity to examine longitudinally the process of adjustment to
a traumatic event on a national scale.ObjectiveTo examine the degree to which demographic factors, mental and physical
health history, lifetime exposure to stressful events, September 11–related
experiences, and coping strategies used shortly after the attacks predict
psychological outcomes over time.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsA national probability sample of 3496 adults received a Web-based survey;
2729 individuals (78% participation rate) completed it between 9 and 23 days
(75% within 9 to 14 days) after the terrorist attacks. A random sample of
1069 panelists residing outside New York, NY, were drawn from the wave 1 sample
(n = 2729) and received a second survey; 933 (87% participation rate) completed
it approximately 2 months following the attacks. A third survey (n = 787)
was completed approximately 6 months after the attacks.Main Outcome MeasuresSeptember 11–related symptoms of acute stress, posttraumatic stress,
and global distress.ResultsSeventeen percent of the US population outside of New York City reported
symptoms of September 11–related posttraumatic stress 2 months after
the attacks; 5.8% did so at 6 months. High levels of posttraumatic stress
symptoms were associated with female sex (odds ratio [OR], 1.64; 95% confidence
interval [CI], 1.17-2.31), marital separation (OR, 2.55; 95% CI, 1.06-6.14),
pre–September 11 physician-diagnosed depression or anxiety disorder
(OR, 1.84; 95% CI, 1.33-2.56) or physical illness (OR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.88-0.99),
severity of exposure to the attacks (OR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.11–1.55), and
early disengagement from coping efforts (eg, giving up: OR, 1.68; 95% CI,
1.27-2.20; denial: OR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.07-1.64; and self-distraction: OR,
1.31; 95% CI, 1.07-1.59). In addition to demographic and pre–September
11 health variables, global distress was associated with severity of loss
due to the attacks (β = .07; P = .008) and early
coping strategies (eg, increased with denial: β = .08; P = .005; and giving up: β = .05; P =
.04; and decreased with active coping: β = −.08; P = .002).ConclusionsThe psychological effects of a major national trauma are not limited
to those who experience it directly, and the degree of response is not predicted
simply by objective measures of exposure to or loss from the trauma. Instead,
use of specific coping strategies shortly after an event is associated with
symptoms over time. In particular, disengaging from coping efforts can signal
the likelihood of psychological difficulties up to 6 months after a trauma.

/pdf/nationwide-longitudinal-study-of-psychological-responses-to-3rv7309hsx.pdf

Nationwide longitudinal study of psychological responses to September 11

BACKGROUND: Disasters are traumatic events that may result in a wide range of mental and physical health consequences. Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is probably the most commonly studied post-disaster psychiatric disorder. This review aimed to systematically assess the evidence about PTSD following exposure to disasters. Method: systematic search was performed. Eligible studies for this review included reports based on the DSM criteria of PTSD symptoms. The time-frame for inclusion of reports in this review is from 1980 (when PTSD was first introduced in DSM-III) and February 2007 when the literature search for this examination was terminated. RESULTS: We identified 284 reports of PTSD following disasters published in peer-reviewed journals since 1980. We categorized them according to the following classification: (1) human-made disasters (n=90), (2) technological disasters (n=65), and (3) natural disasters (n=116). Since some studies reported on findings from mixed samples (e.g. survivors of flooding and chemical contamination) we grouped these studies together (n=13). CONCLUSIONS: The body of research conducted after disasters in the past three decades suggests that the burden of PTSD among persons exposed to disasters is substantial. Post-disaster PTSD is associated with a range of correlates including sociodemographic and background factors, event exposure characteristics, social support factors and personality traits. Relatively few studies have employed longitudinal assessments enabling documentation of the course of PTSD. Methodological limitations and future directions for research in this field are discussed. Language: en

/pdf/post-traumatic-stress-disorder-following-disasters-a-1o925caorq.pdf

Post-traumatic stress disorder following disasters: a systematic review

http://www.cpcnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Miller-_-Rasmusssen-2009.pdf

War exposure, daily stressors, and mental health in conflict and post-conflict settings: Bridging the divide between trauma-focused and psychosocial frameworks

Despite the ubiquity of disaster and the increasing toll in human lives and financial costs, much research and policy remain focused on physical infrastructure–centered approaches to such events. Governmental organizations such as the Department of Homeland Security, United States Federal Emergency Management Agency, United States Agency for International Development, and United Kingdom’s Department for International Development continue to spend heavily on hardening levees, raising existing homes, and repairing damaged facilities despite evidence that social, not physical, infrastructure drives resilience. This article highlights the critical role of social capital and networks in disaster survival and recovery and lays out recent literature and evidence on the topic. We look at definitions of social capital, measurement and proxies, types of social capital, and mechanisms and application. The article concludes with concrete policy recommendations for disaster managers, government decision makers, and no...

http://daldrich.weebly.com/uploads/1/5/5/0/15507740/aldrich_american_behavioral_scientist_2014.pdf

Social Capital and Community Resilience

Results for 160 samples of disaster victims were coded as to sample type, disaster type, disaster location, outcomes and risk factors observed, and overall severity of impairment. In order of frequency, outcomes included specific psychological problems, nonspecific distress, health problems, chronic problems in living, resource loss, and problems specific to youth. Regression analyses showed that samples were more likely to be impaired if they were composed of youth rather than adults, were from developing rather than developed countries, or experienced mass violence (e.g., terrorism, shooting sprees) rather than natural or technological disasters. Most samples of rescue and recovery workers showed remarkable resilience. Within adult samples, more severe exposure, female gender, middle age, ethnic minority status, secondary stressors, prior psychiatric problems, and weak or deteriorating psychosocial resources most consistently increased the likelihood of adverse outcomes. Among youth, family factors were primary. Implications of the research for clinical practice and community intervention are discussed in a companion article (Norris, Friedman, and Watson, this volume).

Christopher M Byrne

Papers

60,000 disaster victims speak: Part I. An empirical review of the empirical literature, 1981-2001.