Community Resilience to Climate Change: Theory, Research and Practice

213 We propose that approaches should address both individual and structural elements that could make a difference, while acknowledging that the range of individual strategies available may be largely determined by higher level political and economic factors (e.g., healthy eating may not be possible for someone on a low income due to the often higher price of “healthy” foods than “junk” foods, and is not necessarily about their individual conscious unwillingness to adopt a diet that the government tells them will be better for their health). Resilience and Social Justice The need for resilience research and practice development to engage with inequalities issues, and consequently the accompanying critique, is becoming increasingly urgent (Ungar, Ghazinour, & Richter, 2013). We propose that it is time for resilience to go beyond understanding how individuals cope with adversity, to challenge the structures that create disadvantages in the first place, and contribute to the development of a new wave of research that unites resilience research and practice development with social justice and activism. This process should invite the relocation of community members, researchers, and policy makers in dynamic, multilevel processes. They can then seek to challenge the contributory practices that conflate higher level causes with proximal determinants. Recognizing that an unjust system unavoidably demands resilience because it relates to adversity, we suggest, as does Bottrell (2009), that we begin by asking, (a) to what extent adversity will be tolerated, on the assumption that resilient individuals can and do cope; and (b) how much adversity resilient individuals should endure before social arrangements, rather than individuals, are targeted for intervention. However, we propose it is then necessary to consider broader shifts that might emerge from resilient moves at the individual/micro level, where there is potential for knowledge and practice to travel and spread and in the process target social determinants (Aranda & Hart, 2014). For instance, in our mental health–related projects we identify stigma and discrimination as key adversities faced by people with mental health problems, including people in our research team. Our work involves considering ways to challenge that adversity in our daily lives, in our local communities, and at a national level by media campaigns and lobbying. In addition, we notice that while a social justice–oriented understanding of resilience has been emphasized in adult populations (Brown, Payne, Dressner, & Green, 2010; Irizarry, 2008; Maxwell, Locke, & Scheurich, 2014), remarkably few resilience authors or researchers explicitly attempt to incorporate inequalities perspective when working with children and young people (Hart, Blincow, & Thomas, 2007; Prilleltensky & Prilleltensky, 2005; Ungar, 2015), and therefore there is a clear literature gap in addressing this in younger populations, for whom adults may assume they know best. At Boingboing, we use a strategic resilience-focused methodology to support disadvantaged children, young people (up to age 25 years), and their families in overcoming the adversity they face in their lives (Hart, Blincow, & Thomas, 2007), attempting to address this literature gap in practice. Our work has always been informed by an inequalities awareness and we have developed and applied the concept of an “inequalities imagination” (Hart, Blincow, & Thomas, 2007; Hall & Hart, 2004; Hart, Hall, & Henwood, 2003). We define adversity in relation to social disadvantage, and building on more recent and socio-ecologically contextualized definitions (e.g., Lerner, 2006; Ungar, 2008), we construct resilience as, “overcoming adversity, whilst also potentially subtly changing, or even dramatically transforming, (aspects of) that adversity” (Hart, Gagnon, et al., 2013). This creates the possibility for resilience-based interventions to have an emancipatory function (i.e., potential to overcome adversity and oppression) and contribute toward systemic change, for example by changing school policy to cultivate a more supportive and positive school culture that discourages discrimination, alongside targeted work to build resilience strategies in pupils to deal with stigma and bullying. Current resilience interventions based on an ecological understanding (e.g., Daniel & Wassell, 2002; Kourkoutas & Xavier, 2010) have the potential to target a number of dynamic processes at a range of levels and to overcome inequalities. Within the systemic approach, resilience researchers should introduce specific directions for interventions and social policies, through identifying processes that significantlymitigate the effects of adverse life conditions (Luthar & Brown, 2007). In most instances, however, practicalities of implementation result in interventions predominantly targeting factors proximal to the individual, while acknowledgment of more distal processes remains fairly cursory. For example, many practitioners feel comfortable with and skilled in helping people to make micro “resilient moves” in their lives but feel less empowered and knowledgeable about influencing or challenging policies. Boingboing supports the development of resilience research and practice that includes a strong inequalities dimension, underpinned by a co-production framework. According to the Social Care Institute for Excellence (2015), co-production is key in developing public services; the advantages include cost-effective services, integration, improved user and carer experiences of services, and increased community capacity. At Boingboing, our co-production work is carried out both with and as disadvantaged communities; most of the team working on our research themselves experience additional challenges and/or social exclusion. We focus on trying to include those of us who might be perceived as highly disadvantaged and marginalized in all stages of our research and knowledge transfer activities, amplifying the voices of others who experience social disadvantage, mental health problems, disability, and other vulnerabilities at different stages in life. We carry out co-productive resilience research and practice in our various identities as affiliates to the community of practice Boingboing. From this perspective, we have witnessed firsthand how the concept of resilience generates interest and momentum because it inspires (e.g., Big Lottery Fund UK, who award grants to good causes, made a £75 million investment in HeadStart programs in schools in England with much of the funding going to resilience-based initiatives; Big Lottery, 2013; KidsMatter primary school mental health initiative in Australia; KidsMatter, n.d.); therefore, there is a clear imperative to continue resilience research and practice to strengthen