Community resilience : a policy tool for local government?

In many countries, local government has been a prime target of austerity measures. In response, local authorities are exploring a new repertoire of policy approaches in a bid to provide more with less. In England, local authorities have been drawn to community resilience as a pragmatic response to the challenge of deploying shrinking resources to support communities exposed to social and economic disruption. This application of resilience thinking is not without its challenges. It demands a working definition of community resilience that recognises the potential for communities to prove resilient to shocks and disruptions, but avoids blaming them for their predicament. There is also the practical challenge of developing and targeting interventions to promote and protect resilience. This paper sets out to explore these issues and establish the potential utility of community resilience as a policy tool through case study analysis in the city of Sheffield

A narrative based model of differentiating rioters

The present study applied a narrative analysis upon rioter accounts of their motivations during the August 2011 England riots. To the authors’ knowledge, this piece of research was the first to utilise narrative theory to explore the phenomenon of Rioting. Narrative accounts of twenty rioters were compiled from media, online and published sources. Content analysis of the cases produced a set of 47 variables relating to offenders’ motivations given when describing their criminality. Data were subjected to Smallest Space Analysis (SSA), a non-metric multidimensional scaling procedure and results revealed four distinct themes: the Professional Rioter, the Revengeful Rioter, the Victim Rioter and the Adventurer Rioter in line with previous research conducted on differing crime types (Canter et al, 2003; Youngs and Canter, 2011). The four narrative themes are consistent with motivations identified in previous theories

An argument against the focus on Community Resilience in Public Health

Background - It has been suggested that Public Health professionals focus on community resilience in tackling chronic problems, such as poverty and deprivation; is this approach useful? Discussion - Resilience is always i) of something ii) to something iii) to an endpoint, as in i) a rubber ball, ii) to a blunt force, iii) to its original shape. “Community resilience” might be: of a neighbourhood, to a flu pandemic, with the endpoint, to return to normality. In these two examples, the endpoint is as-you-were. This is unsuitable for some examples of resilience. A child that is resilient to an abusive upbringing has an endpoint of living a happy life despite that upbringing: this is an as-you-should-be endpoint. Similarly, a chronically deprived community cannot have the endpoint of returning to chronic deprivation: so what is its endpoint? Roughly, it is an as-you-should-be endpoint: to provide an environment for inhabitants to live well. Thus resilient communities will be those that do this in the face of challenges. How can they be identified? One method uses statistical outliers, neighbourhoods that do better than would be expected on a range of outcomes given a range of stressors. This method tells us that a neighbourhood is resilient but not why it is. In response, a number of researchers have attributed characteristics to resilient communities; however, these generally fail to distinguish characteristics of a good community from those of a resilient one. Making this distinction is difficult and we have not seen it successfully done; more importantly, it is arguably unnecessary. There already exist approaches in Public Health to assessing and developing communities faced with chronic problems, typically tied to notions such as Social Capital. Communityresilience to chronic problems, if it makes sense at all, is likely to be a property that emerges from the various assets in a community such as human capital, built capital and natural capital. Summary - Public Health professionals working with deprived neighbourhoods would be better to focus on what neighbourhoods have or could develop as social capital for living well, rather than on the vague and tangential notion of community resilience.</p

Contesting longstanding conceptualisations of urban green space

Ever since the Victorian era saw the creation of “parks for the people,” health and wellbeing benefits have been considered a primary benefit of urban parks and green spaces. Today, public health remains a policy priority, with illnesses and conditions such as diabetes, obesity and depression a mounting concern, notably in increasingly urbanised environments. Urban green space often is portrayed as a nature-based solution for addressing such health concerns. In this chapter, Meredith Whitten investigates how the health and wellbeing benefits these spaces provide are limited by a narrow perspective of urban green space. Whitten explores how our understandings of urban green space remain rooted in Victorian ideals and calls into question how fit for purpose they are in twenty-first-century cities. Calling on empirical evidence collected in three boroughs in London with changing and increasing demographic populations, she challenges the long-held cultural underpinnings that lead to urban green space being portrayed “as a panacea to urban problems, yet treating it as a ‘cosmetic afterthought’” (Whitten, M, Reconceptualising green space: planning for urban green space in the contemporary city. Doctoral thesis, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, U.K. http://etheses.lse.ac.uk/. Accessed 12 Jun 2019, 2019b, p 18)

Neuroprotection by adenosine in the brain: From A1 receptor activation to A2A receptor blockade

Adenosine is a neuromodulator that operates via the most abundant inhibitory adenosine A1 receptors (A1Rs) and the less abundant, but widespread, facilitatory A2ARs. It is commonly assumed that A1Rs play a key role in neuroprotection since they decrease glutamate release and hyperpolarize neurons. In fact, A1R activation at the onset of neuronal injury attenuates brain damage, whereas its blockade exacerbates damage in adult animals. However, there is a down-regulation of central A1Rs in chronic noxious situations. In contrast, A2ARs are up-regulated in noxious brain conditions and their blockade confers robust brain neuroprotection in adult animals. The brain neuroprotective effect of A2AR antagonists is maintained in chronic noxious brain conditions without observable peripheral effects, thus justifying the interest of A2AR antagonists as novel protective agents in neurodegenerative diseases such as Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s disease, ischemic brain damage and epilepsy. The greater interest of A2AR blockade compared to A1R activation does not mean that A1R activation is irrelevant for a neuroprotective strategy. In fact, it is proposed that coupling A2AR antagonists with strategies aimed at bursting the levels of extracellular adenosine (by inhibiting adenosine kinase) to activate A1Rs might constitute the more robust brain neuroprotective strategy based on the adenosine neuromodulatory system. This strategy should be useful in adult animals and especially in the elderly (where brain pathologies are prevalent) but is not valid for fetus or newborns where the impact of adenosine receptors on brain damage is different