Perceptions of Urban Community Resilience: Beyond Disaster Recovery in the Face of Climate Change

Abstract

Resilience of human systems has increasingly become a popular topic of research. The aim of this article is to present a juxtaposition of public officials’ and residents’ perceptions of community resilience along the three-class typology of resilience (basic, adaptive, and transformative) using Dayton, OH as a case study. A two-pronged data collection approach was designed to recruit public officials and residents. This approach was structured using the Community Capitals Framework. A multi-chain referral sampling process (and subsequent snowball sampling) was initiated subsequently. The data were gathered through semi-structured interviews with 75 participants. The interviews were analyzed using a three-tiered deductive structural coding approach. The findings highlight the similarities and differences in resilience perceptions between public officials and community members along the three-class typology of resilience that could inform creative policy initiatives. The factors that might undergird residents’ and public officials’ perceptions of resilience are discussed. Based on these perceptions, the importance of social capital, communication infrastructure, and addressing chronic stressors are discussed as important strategies to build community resilience, in addition to focusing on essential community infrastructure systems (such as roads, energy, water, sewer, and gas systems).

1. Introduction

Resilience of human systems has increasingly gained ground as both a targeted process of societal development and as a research topic in its own right [1]. As resilience often transcends both the natural and social sciences, it has become a basis for decision-making in studies examining the complex interactions between society, land use management, and policy [1]. While a large body of literature exists on community resilience, there are still significant gaps in knowledge and an imminent need for further research, especially social sciences research [2].

Most studies exploring community resilience focus on a single hazard event (such as a wildfire, flood, or earthquake), or focus on the dynamics pertaining to one system (such as energy systems or infrastructure), or explore post disaster recovery dynamics of a community [2]. Wise et al. [3] describe these focuses as addressing specific resilience as opposed to general resilience where the focus is on broader community capacities and ability to cope, acclimate, and adapt. By focusing on general resilience, this article addresses a gap in the literature that has not received much empirical research attention. Resilience could be subjective and context specific to different groups [4]. The main aim of this article is to present a juxtaposition of public officials’ and residents’ perceptions of community resilience, using Dayton, OH as a case study. Specifically, this article explores the similarities and differences in community resilience perceptions held by residents and public officials and what factors might undergird such perceptions. Social scientists should pay attention to capacities that help communities adapt and the processes and relationships through which community resilience emerges over time, to assist public officials with developing policies to build community resilience [4]. Within that context, this article also discusses the resources and assets perceived as important for community resilience and the opportunities for building community resilience.

Community resilience is described in the literature using a variety of methods. Numerous articles, such as [2,5,6,7,8], have explored community resilience using a more theoretical literature review approach. Several studies [9,10,11,12,13] have explored community resilience using a survey approach. However, few studies, such as [4,14,15], have examined community resilience using a qualitative interview-based approach. Out of these, Adekola, Fischbacher-Smith, and Fischbacher-Smith [15] is one of few studies to explore community resilience perceptions held by different stakeholder groups. Adekola, Fischbacher-Smith, and Fischbacher-Smith [15] contend that it is important to explore perceptions held by different stakeholder groups to achieve desired policy outcomes and identify implementation gaps. In addition, Chondol et al. [12] contend that limited research has explored community resilience perceptions of government officials and recommend further studies. Therefore, by adopting a qualitative approach and by examining stakeholder perceptions held by different stakeholder groups, this study addresses an important methodological and knowledge gap in the body of literature.

Exploration of community resilience perceptions held by different stakeholder groups could add several important contributions to the community resilience body of knowledge. First, it could demonstrate where similarities and differences in perceptions are, and such insights could inform public officials. Second, differences in perceptions could point out the gaps in resilience strategies that need to be addressed through policy and new initiatives. Third, the perceptions of public officials could point out the limitations and challenges they face within the functions they are responsible for and the official lines of authority/responsibility, and such insights could inform community members on what areas require constructive community-inspired solutions. Fourth, the perceptions could elucidate how communication and other vital collaborative processes could help public officials and community members to work together to build community resilience.

Community resilience has been defined and described in a multitude of ways [2]. This article largely follows the three-class typology of resilience: basic (bouncing back to a similar state), adaptive (adapt to new or dynamic conditions by changing fundamental characteristics of the system), and transformative (substantial and explicit changes to social–ecological systems) [16,17,18,19]. While most pertinent literature consider disaster events as disruptions, this article adopts a broader view of disruptive events. This article recognizes two types of interconnected disruptive events: acute shocks and chronic stressors. Acute shocks are sudden events such as natural disasters, disease outbreaks, mass shootings, or terrorist attacks etc. Chronic stressors are continuing community dynamics that weaken the fabric of a neighborhood such as poverty, racism, food insecurity, and high unemployment. Chronic stressors could weaken the resilience of a community by themselves or could make a community more susceptible to harm from acute shocks. The next section reviews the pertinent literature on community resilience.

2. Review of the Literature

The body of literature on resilience in general and specific to disturbance recovery is broad and can be found in a wide variety of disciplines from psychology to engineering and from behavioral sciences to environmental sciences [2]. Resilience literature also examines a range of scales from an individual to planetary systems (and systems in between such as public infrastructure and regional economies) [2]. Recently, there has been a proliferation of community resilience research focusing on natural hazards and disasters such as flooding, hurricanes, wildfires, or earthquakes [7,20]. Such research examines how specific social systems, built environments, or ecological systems individually or collectively contribute to resilience [20]. The synthesis of the literature discussed below focuses on the conceptualizations, manifestations, and operationalization of community resilience. The review abridges literature relating to disaster recovery, community change adaptation, and factors that enable disaster recovery and adaptation. For this purpose, a community is identified as a collective dynamic entity of constituents living within certain geographic boundaries (or space), sharing common interests and a shared fate [4,5,6,7].

2.1. What Is Community Resilience?

Holling [21] (p. 14) is credited as one of the first researchers to coin resilience as the “measure of the persistence of systems and of their ability to absorb change and disturbance and still maintain the same relationships between populations or state variables”. Subsequent research describes the ability as the ability to absorb, resist, or deflect the impacts of a shock [2]. Folke [22] contends that “Resilience is about cultivating the capacity to sustain development in the face of expected and surprising change and diverse pathways of development and potential thresholds between them”. Vulnerability, described generally as susceptibility to harm, might be considered as inversely related to resilience: the more resilient, the less vulnerable [16].

While no broadly accepted single definition of community resilience exists, the varied definitions commonly focus on a communities’ ability to plan/prepare for (and identify vulnerabilities), withstand, absorb, and rapidly recover from disasters to successful long-term adaptation towards changing social–economic–environmental conditions, as central to resilience [4,5,23,24]. Within this view, community resilience could be perceived as a strategy for promoting effective disaster readiness and response; or as a model consisting of a set of capacities; or as a process that links a set of adaptive capacities to a positive trajectory of functioning [6]. It can be imbued that as a strategy, or as a model, or as a process, the three dynamics represent critical and interconnected facets of community resilience.

Compared to other definitions, Wilbanks [25] (p. 10) provides a broader definition of community resilience as “one that anticipates problems, opportunities, and potentials for surprises; reduces vulnerabilities related to development paths, socioeconomic conditions, and sensitivities to possible threats; responds effectively, fairly, and legitimately in the event of an emergency; and recovers rapidly, better, safer, and fairer”. This broad encompassing definition highlights how resilience could be viewed as an umbrella concept consisting of different precautionary, reactive, and recovery measures to be undertaken in reference to a disturbance event or changing conditions. In an attempt to better structure these different measures, some of the literature adopts a three-class typology of resilience: basic (bouncing back to a similar state), adaptive (adapt to new or dynamic conditions by changing fundamental characteristics of the system), or transformative (substantial and explicit changes to social–ecological systems) [16,17,18,19].

2.2. Basic Resilience

Basic resilience refers to bouncing back or recovering to a similar state that existed before the disturbance event. Within a disaster recovery context, the pertinent literature describes resilience as the qualities (or characteristics or the ability) of a specific entity (such as a community and its constituents or an individual) that enables it to recover from a shock [4,20,26]. To that end, the IPCC [27] (p. 37) defined resilience as “the ability of a social or ecological system to absorb disturbances while retaining the same basic structure and ways of functioning, the capacity for self-organization, and the capacity to adapt naturally to stress and change”. As evidenced by the literature, maintaining functions, relationships between actors, and capacity for recovery following a shock is critical for basic resilience. Similarly, Kirmayer et al. [7] (p. 72) define community resilience as the “ability or the capacity of a community to withstand, recover from, and respond positively to a collective crisis or adversity”. Resilience of essential community infrastructure systems (such as transportation, water, energy, sewer, and natural gas systems) is largely focused on minimizing the magnitude of impacts and restoration/recovery to pre-existing fully functioning conditions [2,5].

The idea of “bouncing back” to pre-status-quo of broader complex systems (such as a community) has been criticized as being too narrow and recreating the original vulnerabilities [2]. Comparatively, learning, re-organizing, adjusting to change to minimize the effects, and coping are considered as critical components of proactive or forward-looking resilience [2,5].

2.3. Adaptive Resilience

Folke et al. [17] (p. 1) describe resilience as “the capacity of a social-ecological system to continually change and adapt yet remain within critical thresholds”. Sometimes referred to as “change at the margins” or “incremental reform”, this approach entails an acknowledgement of risk and adaptation undertaken, but limited to those that do not threaten the core attributes of the system [28]. Adaptive resilience concentrates on learning processes and medium-term/moderate adjustments to pertinent systems in response to drivers of change through policy changes [29]. According to Folke et al. [17] (p. 7), “while adaptability is part of resilience, it represents the capacity to adjust responses to changing external drivers and internal processes and thereby allow for development along the current trajectory”. Fazey et al. [30] notes that adaptability and flexibility, such as having a range of response options is going to be crucial in such a context. Preference for near-term stability over sweeping reform provides a strong incentive for adaptive resilience [28]. However, trying to adapt a community and its systems in a fast-changing complex environment could be challenging as the critical thresholds of the existing systems might not be able to withstand the pressures of new conditions. In addition, incremental adaptations might not be adequate in some communities if vulnerabilities and risks are significant, which may require transformational changes [31].

2.4. Transformative Resilience

As described by Folke et al. [17] (p. 7), “transformability is the capacity to cross thresholds into new development trajectories”. Transformative resilience represents the capacity of communities to change/reshape its systems, forms, functions, processes, structures in a deliberate and conscious way [29,32]. Transformative resilience involves a status change in which the structures, institutions, processes, and identity of a community evolves into a more-desired configuration that carries the communities’ values and functioning forward [7,33,34]. Transformative resilience requires a community intentionally altering social–ecological systems and material resources, which could be desirable when it is congenial with societal goals, but requires tremendous social agreement and political will [28].

Transformative resilience approach is sometimes referred to as bouncing forward and conducive when conditions are changing rapidly, such as due to climate change [18]. As the frequency and magnitude of climate disasters increase with devastating effects on communities, built infrastructure, and natural environments, communities would need to increasingly focus on transformations to become more resilient [30]. Transformative resilience as a response to climate change is at the forefront of many policy initiatives on climate adaptation and disaster risk mitigation, and opens a range of novel policy options that require further research attention [29,35]. Meeting the challenges of climate change in some communities will require unprecedented transformative solutions with careful consideration for implementation [36]. Catastrophic events could act as catalysts for community transformation or formation of novel communities especially in high vulnerability contexts (such as repeated storms or repeated wildfires) where collective action spurs the reconstruction process [4]. However, community-level actors cannot be left alone to guide their own resilience pathways, and in most cases, the public officials and the political leadership have to at least play some guiding and influencing role in the transition processes [1].

2.5. Systems, Resources, Assets, and Processes Considered as Important for Community Resilience

This subsection outlines key resources from pertinent literature that are considered critical for community resilience, in addition to community infrastructure systems. Numerous research recognize the impact of chronic stressors (such as unemployment, food access, lack of affordable housing, poverty, water shortages, disinvested communities, and lack of transportation, etc.) as pre-existing or underlying community conditions that weaken a community and make it more vulnerable to acute shock events such as earthquakes, fires, and floods, etc. [2,26,37]. Sometimes coined “social vulnerability”, the potential for harm from a disaster event could be unequally distributed among the impacted population, based on larger social and cultural conditions [38]. Bergstrand et al. [39] measured community resilience and social vulnerability in counties across the United States and found that the most vulnerable counties also tend to be the least resilient.

It is important to note that social vulnerability factors often overlap or intersect [38]. For example, some ethnic minorities are more likely to be poor, less educated, and lack access to resources. The case of Hurricane Katrina and New Orleans provided vivid evidence of how intersecting chronic stressors made certain neighborhoods more vulnerable, led to greater harms, and recovery more difficult [38]. Systemic discrimination of different forms can contribute to greater social vulnerability in neighborhoods over time [38].

Numerous research attribute the ability to withstand and recover with minimum impacts and damage as emanating from a set of community capacities or resources (such as social capital, economic infrastructure, and communication) that can support the maintenance of certain critical functioning after a disturbance [4,5,40]. Some related research identify these community resources as different forms of capital or a network of adaptive capacities that could be collectively leveraged for resilience [5,6]. Different forms of capital include natural capital (ecosystems or natural environmental stocks that provide valuable services), social capital, as well as other economically defined forms of capital [33].

Multiple research exemplify the importance of social capital to community resilience. The role of social capital in community resilience could be complex and could be considered a key component of community resilience [4]. Rapaport et al. [41] examined the interconnections between social capital and residents’ perceived resilience and found that the nature and type of social relationships and interactions embedded in a community are stronger predictors of community resilience. Other studies, such as [42], arrived at similar conclusions. Sherrieb, Norris, and Galea [43] (p. 233) define social capital as the “set of adaptive capacities that can support the process of community resilience”. But this definition discounts the role of other important systems or factors such as communication infrastructure, assertive community leadership, and natural systems [4,6]. Social capital embodies the idea that social relations, social networks, voluntary associations, sense of community, place attachment, sense of inclusion, sense of belonging, citizen participation, and the structure/diversity of social relations can have synergistic constructive benefits to a community [5,6,30]. To this end, Aldrich [44] conceptualizes social capital as consisting of bonding, bridging, and linking interconnections that can help community members to self-support and self-organize during and after disaster events. The concept of social capital manifests the idea that resilience is a clustered phenomenon that occurs in groups of people embedded in a web of meaningful relationships that is crucial to facilitate the flow of resources and ideas [7,33]. Community activities, such as creating community gardens or green spaces, foster resilience through the establishing social networks [33]. In addition, citizen participation (involvement and engagement) in formal and informal community organizations is widely believed to be a fundamental element for building social capital [6].

Good strategic communication is essential for community resilience [6]. Communication within the context of resilience could accomplish the transfer of information to residents during emergencies, the coordination of recovery personnel, or the provision of opportunities for members to articulate needs, views, and attitudes on long-term community challenges [6]. Top–down (e.g., government agencies providing emergency information to citizens) and bottom–up (e.g., neighbors connecting with each other to recover following a disaster) communication is important for building resilience [45]. Access to timely and accurate information on the threat implications of a disaster, what residents could do to minimize impacts, support resources available, and recovery efforts in place is critical for responding to and recovering from disasters and for building trust [26,33,45].

Synthesizing the above literature, several points can be highlighted that are pertinent and important within the context of this research study. It is evident from the literature that planning for and preparing prior to a disaster and maintaining community functioning, relationships between actors, and capacity for recovery following a disaster are critical for basic resilience. Staying within the bounds of current systems while proactively adapting for changing conditions provides strong motivation for adaptive resilience. However, incrementally adapting a community and its systems in a fast-changing complex environment could be challenging. While transformative resilience, especially within the context of climate change, opens up a range of novel policy options, transformational initiatives require tremendous social agreement and political will. Frequent climate disasters could act as a catalyst for transformation, but the process needs to be carefully guided by public officials and political leadership. The presence of certain community assets or qualities (such as strong social capital, or effective communication) seems to enhance a community’s ability to withstand, maintain critical functioning, and recover after a disturbance. Conversely, the extent of (and overlapping) chronic stressors impacting a community makes its residents more vulnerable to harm from a disturbance event. Within this context, the main aim of this research was to explore the similarities and differences in community resilience perceptions held by the residents and the public officials along the three-class typology of resilience and what factors might undergird such perceptions. The next section outlines the methods adopted and describes the research site.

3. Methods

This study’s broad purpose was to explore community resilience perceptions held by public officials and residents of Dayton, OH. The data were gathered through in-depth semi-structured interviews with 75 participants. Similar studies, such as [14,15], adopted a similar data collection approach. A research review was conducted to understand the dynamics that needed to be explored and to frame the interview guide for the semi-structured interviews. Resources from 100 Resilience Cities and Second Nature were also used to frame and draft the interview guides. Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval governing human subjects research was obtained concurrently. When needed to ensure adequate information gathering, the original questionnaire was adjusted and fine-tuned as the interviews progressed. Probes were used as necessary. The interviews were conducted between April and August 2020, during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic under unprecedented circumstances.

A two-pronged approach was adopted for sampling and participant recruitment. First, the Community Capitals Framework (CCF) was used to structure participant recruitment and initial purposive sampling process. This approach has previously been successfully employed in the literature [13]. Flora and Flora [46] present the CCF as a systems approach to examining and understanding community dynamics. The CCF analyzes 7 capitals (natural, financial, political, social, human, cultural, and built) to understand the strengths and weaknesses within each community and how the capitals could be leveraged to recover from a disaster or negativity [46]. The CCF has been used to study community recovery after a tornado [47] and wildfires [48]. The descriptions of different types of capitals outlined by Flora and Flora [46] and an asset mapping effort were undertaken to identify the key community stakeholders that would fall into the 7 types of capitals of the CCF. Biernacki and Waldorf [49] note that initiating multiple referral or sampling chains represent greater sensitivity and attentiveness to information, where the sample initiation and progress is deliberately developed and controlled.

A referral sampling chain was initiated for each of the seven capitals. Once the initial participants that aligned with the 7 capitals were identified, snowball sampling was used to identify additional participants within each capital until data saturation. A total of 42 key stakeholders were interviewed under this effort. Public officials were asked to respond to the questions in their official capacity. If the participants represented a community organization (such as within social or cultural capital), they were asked to respond to the questions within their organizational context.

A second effort was undertaken to reach the residents through the neighborhood associations. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, several neighborhoods did not have monthly meetings. Therefore, it must be noted that the voice of some neighborhoods (especially vulnerable) that did not have access to pertinent technology are not represented in the findings. A total of 80% of the active neighborhood associations were reached for participation. A total of 33 residents representing 18 different neighborhoods were interviewed. Snowball sampling was used after the initial set of interviews to identify additional participants and the interviews continued until data saturation. Resident participants were requested to answer the questions within the context of the neighborhoods they lived in.

Considering the challenges presented by the COVID-19 pandemic, all semi-structured interviews were conducted and recorded using Zoom. Each interview lasted around 45–60 min. Verbal informed consent was obtained from the participants at the beginning of each interview. Participants were encouraged to express their ideas and thoughts freely with guaranteed anonymity. Extensive notes were taken during the interviews for context and additional data. Some questions such as “what does the word resilience mean for your work/community?” were presented to both key stakeholders and residents. Both sampling processes (key stakeholders and residents) ended at the point of data saturation, at which point no new insights from the data emerged from additional interviews.

The interviews were then transcribed verbatim and analyzed using deductive structural coding and analysis methodologies. The key stakeholder interviews and resident interviews were coded and analyzed separately until the comparative analysis stage. A three-tiered coding approach was adopted. A codebook consisting of an initial set of descriptive codes was developed using pertinent research on community resilience and the interview questions. Answers to questions such as “what does the word resilience mean for your work/community?” were coded using structural coding. New descriptive codes were recognized and the codebook updated as the coding progressed (most new codes pertained to importance of certain resources or challenges). The codes were then organized into groups under a pattern coding effort using the three-class typology of resilience: basic, adaptive, and transformative. Thirdly, a comparative analysis was undertaken between the pattern coded key stakeholder data and the resident data to identify similarities, differences, and major themes along the three-class typology of resilience. No causality was implied in the comparative analysis. Findings were shared, presented to, and discussed with participants to obtain feedback and to ensure accuracy and validity.

Description of the Research Site

Dayton, Ohio has a rich historical legacy filled with innovative entrepreneurial spirit. The city is known as the birthplace of aviation. Dayton claimed more patents per capita than any other U.S. city in 1900 [50]. As depicted in Figure 1, Dayton is located at the intersection of highways I-70 and I-75, making it an ideal location for manufacturing industry. Its entrepreneurial climate nurtured innovators such as Charles Kettering, inventor of the automobile self-starter, and air travel pioneers Wilbur and Orville Wright. The city also nurtured companies that would become stalwarts on the Fortune 500 list, including National Cash Register (NCR), Mead Paper Company, Standard Register, Reynolds and Reynolds, and Dayco and Phillips Industries [50]. However, with globalization and automation, the city lost many of its renowned manufacturing giants.

The city and its residents have struggled to overcome adversities following the loss of NCR, General Motors, and consequently thousands of manufacturing jobs. The effects of industrial and manufacturing decline are still visible in some neighborhoods with abandoned industrial buildings. Many neighborhoods in Dayton are identified as food deserts (areas that lack availability and access to fresh and nutritious food), as depicted in Figure 2 (neighborhoods colored in orange) and Dayton has one of the highest poverty rates in the United States of America, among mid- to large-sized urban areas [51]. But Dayton has pride, grit, and a knack for problem solving. Daytonians also value art. Dayton is one of the smallest cities in the country to have an orchestra, ballet company, dance company, and an opera company.

Recently, Dayton has experienced a resurgence. In the last decade, the city has seen a significant shift in the economic growth of the downtown area with new apartments; an increase in local restaurants and bars; and other small businesses that keep money in the community. One of the most notable ventures is the development of the Gem City Market. The Gem City Market is a community owned local grocery store developed and led by residents and located in a food desert.

According to National Weather Service, on Memorial Day in 2019, the Dayton area was struck by 19 tornadoes, and 15 of those happened within the Montgomery County, where Dayton is located. Many properties and neighborhoods suffered damages as a result. There was a mass shooting in 2019 in one of the historical restaurant districts of the downtown. There was also a white supremacist rally in downtown Dayton in 2019. The city also experienced a significant water main break in 2019. It is not an underestimation to state that Daytonians have experienced several disturbance events recently

Dayton’s climate is also changing. The city has experienced an overall increase in temperature, warmer winters, record breaking heat in the summer, and periods of flooding followed by seasonal droughts. The change in weather within the region has led to crop damages for farmers, increased energy demand in the summer, and failures in infrastructure. According to the Great Lakes Adaptation Assessment [52], the average temperature in Dayton is expected to increase by about 3–4 degrees Fahrenheit by the mid-century. Based on climate models, precipitation will continue to increase in Dayton with wetter winters, springs, and falls, but with drier summers, when agricultural crops are growing in the region [52]. These weather conditions might yield more hot days, frequently occurring heat waves, flooding during spring and fall, more single heavy rainfall events, and delayed spring planting [52]. However, warmer winter might also mean a longer growing season. With these expected conditions, it is clear that the city, its infrastructure, its systems, and Daytonians can expect to experience changing future climate conditions.

Given the above background and community context, Dayton is a fitting place to explore community resilience perceptions. The city grapples with many economic hardships experienced by other rust belt cities. But it also has success stories to share. Dayton is already impacted by climate change with projected changes to come. But Dayton and its residents take pride in their innovative and problem-solving mindset, and in the art that brings them together.

4. Findings

The findings presented in this section describe the major themes that were frequently and consistently mentioned by the participants. Selected participant quotes are provided to support the findings and these quotes are representative of the ideas that were frequently mentioned by the participants and exemplify the findings. The findings are organized into four sections. The first three sections describe the public officials’ and residents’ perceptions of resilience along the three-class typology of resilience (basic, adaptive, and transformative). This section also highlights the similarities and differences between the perceptions of public officials and residents. The fourth section lays out the major community resources and assets that participants perceived as important for community resilience.

4.1. Perceptions of Basic Resilience

Public officials in general, especially those officials responsible for emergency management, and several community members, associated resilience with disaster recovery and disaster preparedness. As one public official described “I think of it primarily as an emergency response, but not entirely because you’re eliminating then the proactive side, the preparation side of hardening the infrastructure, putting protocols and practices in place”. Similarly, a participating resident described resilience as “I guess the ability to weather the storm or bounce back from these events”. However, compared to public officials, the residents perceived disturbances more broadly, and their perceptions demonstrated the ability to overcome a variety of adverse events, as one participant described: “resilience to me is in the face of negativity, coming and making a positive of it…whatever it might be, a tornado, or COVID-19, or mass shootings and that type of thing, so it’s kind of like the adage, we all get knocked down, but our community keeps getting up”. Several residents described how they felt impacted by the mass shooting that happened in Dayton in 2019 and efforts to recover. Therefore, it can be argued that residents view a disturbance event (and thus needing recovery efforts) as any event that impacts the human fabric of the community (such as a mass shooting) in addition to events that impact physical infrastructure.

Public officials attributed short-term disaster recovery efforts as largely focused on infrastructure and restoration of services considered essential community infrastructure systems. A public official described that “So for me, resiliency is very much related to those things like natural disasters where if the region or the community experiences a problem or a natural disaster, how quickly can we return the grid back to its state”. Similarly, another public official noted “I would say it is very heavily infrastructure-focused though, and the reason that happens is because the disaster is infrastructure-focused. We lose homes, we lose schools, we lose buildings, we lose bridges, we lose trees, power lines. All that stuff is infrastructure”. Comparatively, many residents spoke about the importance of restoring the human dynamics, in addition to physical infrastructure, as demonstrated by the below quote:

“So I think, for me, resilience is really the ability to bounce back, when challenges come, how quickly can we, I think, recover. How quickly can we… From kind of the spiritual standpoint. So it’s not just on the surface level things are back to normal, but really healing and becoming whole again, in essence.”

Within that context, residents perceived resilience to be the ability of the residents to band together, heal, connect, and to get through difficult times. Resident perceptions of disaster recovery were also more integrative and holistic in nature compared to public officials. For example, one participant stated that

“So if we’re talking about recovering people who are renters that maybe are thinking they’re ready to be permanent homeowners, that can swirl into an affordable housing conversation. And then attached to that, it could turn into, how are we building up our infrastructure that supports folks like that, that may not be living where they used to live, so now their commute to work is different, or maybe they’re not near the schools that they used to go to?”

Public officials responsible for emergency management noted that some aspects of disaster recovery could have a longer time frame and mused if certain dynamics of recovery would be a community responsibility. While certain things such as clearing out debris, repairing power lines, and clearing out damaged homes could be accomplished within a short-term, other things such as replacing/rebuilding damaged community assets such as a grocery store could take longer and there might be some confusion as to who bears the responsibility of restoring such damaged community assets. For example, a public official pondered,

“Okay, we don’t have any more demolitions, alright, so that’s one thing off the infrastructure list, but maybe we don’t have a grocery store in the neighborhood anymore because it got damaged. Well, is that still part of the disaster recovery effort, or is that part of now the obligation of the community and the businesses?”

Communication infrastructure and processes were perceived as a vital facet of basic resilience. A public official described the how the communication processes and restoration of the energy system after a disaster go hand in hand as

“We know how to keep the power on, and we know how to get it back on…We’ve got really great processes in place to handle… We have processes in place to take calls from police and fire departments with issues that they see, you know, lines down in the middle of intersections, where people are at risk. We have dispatchers. And then the communications efforts that go into that, making sure the media knows what’s happening and customers know what’s happening and when they can expect power to be back on”

It is important to note that even short-term disaster recovery approaches might need to change as a result of climate change. One public official described the needed change in the approach as

“I think that actually the chances are pretty good, we will have overlapping natural disasters. At a minimum, we won’t have recovered from the first one before the second one hits. At a maximum, we would have a wider spread debris field and disruption… And the emergency managers and staff have all grown up with a certain assumption about what this is gonna look like, and I think climate change just throws those assumptions to the wind, no pun intended.”

As the above data indicate, while both public officials and residents alluded basic resilience to disaster recovery and preparedness, there were notable differences in perceptions on what was considered as a disturbance event (and thus needing recovery efforts) and the community components (infrastructure, basic services, and human dynamics) that needed to be restored through recovery efforts.

4.2. Perceptions of Adaptive Resilience

While some public officials perceive the ability of a community to return to the status-quo as soon as possible after a shock as resilience, other officials perceive “build back better” or “bouncing forward” within a limited context as a better strategy. To this end, several public officials described similar sentiments such as

“it’s part preparedness, but also if we build back better, then we have better to start with, so we don’t have chinks in our armor that if something happens…So I guess just having better armor, and if we build back better, we will, and that can mean a lot of different things, including of course, our ability for our community to handle high water or the weather pattern changes that we’re seeing, and the ability to not only handle it, but be better afterwards.”

Similarly, a resident described the thought process behind restoring the trees in the neighborhood after a storm as

“If we can put them back, or put them back in different species or varieties because we can provide people with a huge advantage after the disaster…Maybe the folks in the neighborhood will feel safer because they have trees that provide coverage, or they have kids and families that wanna live there because of the infrastructure that it provides. You get a whole different sense of a neighborhood”

Both public officials and residents viewed “build back better” as establishing a better version of the current system such as updated infrastructure or restoring the trees in a neighborhood with better adapted species. Public officials responsible for essential community infrastructure systems such as managing the city’s water, roads, energy systems, and public spaces perceived “our ability to maintain the services” to be about adapting the system to changing conditions (environmental and demand conditions), especially within the context of climate change, in addition to disaster recovery and preparedness. Adapting a system for change included maintaining, repairing, and replacing relevant parts of the system, as a public official observed:

“So I also look at resiliency in terms of the grid as it exists today. The grid itself is well over 100 years old. Not all the parts and pieces are 100 years old, per se, but what we’ve built and put together. It’s probably one of the oldest working machines we have on the planet. So the other piece of resiliency to me is to make sure that we are performing the proper maintenance and replacement of our equipment to keep it as reliable as possible.”

Residents, comparatively, perceived adaptive resilience as making incremental changes to community characteristics, features, or assets in order to overcome numerous different and difficult situations of change. Several residents elucidated how Dayton withstood the impacts of the economic downturn (instigated by the departure of several big businesses, and the subsequent efforts to adapt) and/or efforts to overcome racial challenges. These efforts were described as efforts to progress forward “in the face of negativity” with certain historical legacy connotations, as evidenced by the below resident quote:

“I would say is its ability to keep moving forward and ideally upward even through the trials and tribulations that life will put in its path. In Dayton the loss of the automotive industry, manufacturing industry that we had so relied on, it fed into so many other businesses, and there is a whole supply chain tied to that and a trickle-down effect even to the individual from businesses could be service-oriented businesses, that restaurant was in business and employed 20 people because workers from that plant came to this restaurant, that type of reality, the loss of a large portion of jobs where people had to go out and learn new skills or go back to school and be retrained.”

Interestingly, many resident participants from lower socio-economic neighborhoods or majority African American neighborhoods associated adaptive resilience with certain qualities such as hope, optimism, and grit. For example, one resident claimed that

“Hope is a part of resilience, too, you have to have hope to know that you can get out of the darkness. I would define resilience as an ability to reveal hope and optimism in any situation so we can put our skill sets together to paint the bigger picture… I think that being resilient is being forward-thinking in how we teach our kids, in the opportunities that we give our kids, in breaking down race divides and class divides, and bringing people together. Again, Dayton is a resilient community. Dayton is a hopeful community. Dayton is a roll up your sleeves, get busy and do it kind of community.”

Long-term disaster implication visioning seemed to be a part of proactive adaptive resilience efforts to understand the systemic long-term vulnerabilities and implications of changing environmental and demand conditions, as alluded to by a public official: “So that’s kind of from a water department thinking about resiliency as far as what’s our capacity, how are the needs gonna change and how we’re gonna be able to respond to those, and then do we even have the right information and data to respond to those?”

Public officials highlighted the financial challenges that need to be addressed to build adaptive resilience. Similar sentiments to the below quote were expressed by many public officials:

“No one has the money in this region. I would say you’d find the same thing in every urban area of this country to really meet the needs of maintaining a state of good repair. We made a commitment to fund what we knew would be capital improvements, about 250 million in capital improvements in about a five-year period, knowing if we didn’t get it done, there could be major failures within our systems. And like every old urban community, it’s old infrastructure, and it needs a huge investment.”

Public officials point to certain political dynamics as one of the reasons contributing to the funding challenges. A public official described the situation as

“It’s a really different story when you talk to the political leadership, for them to adopt resiliency plans or for them to adopt climate declarations, it’s hard for them to do that and not only here, it’s all over… And that makes sense that our political leaders are having more difficulty making these types of commitments or declarations because for whatever the reasoning is in our political climate today making these declarations to protect our environment or to reduce carbon emissions is a radical thing to do. So, it’s all like emergency planning, that’s what we have. Having the financial capacity and as well as people and political support and all that sort of stuff to do what sometimes is perceived as fluffy feel good extra let’s protect the environment, that’s gonna get pushed when things need to get cut.”

Addressing the challenges associated with the political leadership and concomitant financial resources could enable a more robust approach to long-term adaptive resilience building, especially within the context of climate change.

Based on the above findings, it can be presumed that public officials’ perceptions of basic and adaptive resilience seem to be influenced by their roles, assigned authorities, and the nature/functionality of the infrastructure systems they are officially responsible for. For example, public officials were largely focused on preparing and restoring systems they were responsible for, to normal functioning after a disaster in the context of basic resilience, and adapting respective systems to changing conditions in the context of adaptive resilience. Comparatively, residents’ perceptions of basic and adaptive resilience seem to be influenced by a drive to recover from or adapt to broader disturbance events that impact a communities’ human fabric (such as a mass shooting), in addition to events that impact physical infrastructure, and the drive to acclimatize their neighborhoods (including the physical infrastructure and human dynamics) to long-term changes (including economic changes and historical racial legacy impacts).

4.3. Perceptions of Transformative Resilience

Transformative resilience perceptions were largely expressed by the residents. Lack of transformative resilience perceptions expressed by the public officials might be attributed to the financial, resource, and political constraints restraining them from envisioning transformative pathways. For example, many resident participants expressed how the food system could be transformed to make it more resilient as described by a resident:

“It’s like there’s so much that could be done around food to create a resilient local food economy and system, but I don’t see it happening anywhere. Everyone’s talking about food, but no one’s talking about creating a policy or system where you’re thinking about where it’s grown, what’s grown, how it gets to people who need it, and bringing people together to create that robust food economy. And I think the city could do things like talk about food access and say…these are ideas we have, after we’ve talked to community about, this is their issue. We’ll support them by developing vacant blighted properties into green spaces for farming. Or we’ll put money towards supporting people to learn how to become farmers as a workforce development tool, which creates a more resilient community”.

The community members perceive the role of public officials related to transformative resilience to involve long-term goal setting (on food security, housing affordability, etc.), facilitating stakeholder initiatives, developing supporting policies, and facilitating neighborhood-to-neighborhood coordination. A resident highlighted the importance of two-way communication within such initiatives as:

“You have to talk to your community, you have to build trust with your community to see what they need. They’ll tell you when they trust you. They’ll tell you what you need or what they need, and you’ll be able to provide that.”

Some residents discussed how cross-sectoral (economic development, food security, urban farming, addressing poverty, etc.) and cross-stakeholder (community, public official, businesses, etc.) networks could address multiple issues in a holistic way. Some participants framed these efforts as “building networks of resiliency.” These collaborative networks, if empowered, can yield community action and successes as witnessed by the success of the Gem City Market:

“So the biggest example of that is the Gem City Market, which is a cooperatively owned grocery store. It’s owned by the community and the employees. It’s accountable to us because it’s owned by us, and there’s no third-party shareholders two states away making decisions about it. It meets a compelling community need because as you know, Dayton’s impacted by a food apartheid and it’s a grocery store in a neighborhood that hasn’t had grocery in like a decade.”

The above resident perceptions indicate that the residents have innovative ideas, and if empowered could mobilize to address challenges facing the community to enact transformative changes. However, such community-based initiatives might not happen without the direction and guidance of public officials.

4.4. Important Resources, Systems, and Assets Perceived as Important for Community Resilience

Residents attributed the “ability to bounce back” or “keep moving forward no matter the situation” to a variety of local systems, local conditions, and assets such as level of chronic stressors experienced by the residents, level of resources/assets in the community, and neighborhood social dynamics.

Residents frequently identified numerous neighborhood level resources and assets as important for resilience such as banks, grocery stores, community gardens, and good schools (among other things). The resources were recognized as “underlying strengths” that can help a community cope better. For example, a resident described the importance of community resources as “We have a number of resources in place to assist people, we have the Edgemont Solar Garden, which is growing fruits and vegetables. We do have the Business Solution Center, which sits actually in Edgemont on the cusp of Carillon to help business entrepreneurs”. Residents also recognized the importance of building local community assets, as evidenced by similar quotes to the following: “We wanna see more neighborhoods with micro-economies, so, I would like to see more grocery stores in proximity. We just talked to Madden Hills Neighborhood Association, they said the same thing, just somewhere they can walk to, a grocery store they can walk to”.

Many residents highlighted the importance of strong social capital comprising of strong neighborhood level social bonds, interconnections, sense of solidarity, and pride in the community as representing the human infrastructure necessary for resilience. To this end, one resident noted that “Yeah, I think to be resilient is about flexibility and the ability to hang on and bounce back whatever happens, but I think it’s based on strong underpinnings and really it’s based on interconnections, deep community roots in terms of people”. Many residents identified “standing together” and “embracing different viewpoints” as ingredients to building strong social interconnections as a resident described: “When a white supremacist group came here to Dayton, you know, on Memorial weekend a year ago, a large portion of the community stood up to them. In our community, we do not tolerate hate”. In addition, residents outlined several practical instances where knowing your neighbors could come in handy. To this end, a resident outlined that

“There’s an element to it as a neighborhood that involves knowing your neighbors. If you feel comfortable doing it, get your neighbor’s phone numbers in case you need to get in touch with them in an emergency. Because sometimes neighbors are the only ones that realize… Let’s say there’s a big storm and you’re out of town and a tree falls on your house. How are you gonna notify that neighbor if you don’t have a phone number for them? So, it’s real… It’s on a level that’s neighbor to neighbor.”

Many residents highlighted how opportunities for citizen engagement and participation; art and cultural events; walkability of neighborhoods; chili cookouts; porch fests; and other arts and cultural events could nurture the human infrastructure or the “resilience fabric” of the community and how the city government can create more opportunities targeting these areas.

Community resilience was also perceived to be dependent on the level of chronic stressors experienced by the residents such as access (or lack of) to quality education, quality health care, access to internet, level of poverty, food insecurity, historical legacy of disinvestment (or redlined), level of homelessness, etc. Many residents described how chronic stressors can exacerbate the impact of acute shocks such as a tornado, a mass shooting, flooding, or other climate-related disasters. A resident summarized the situation as

“If you have underlying problems in your community, then those kind of shocks will make them worse often. If you have underlying strengths, then those kind of shocks will not be as traumatic and they will be dealt with better… If people aren’t healthy because they don’t have good medical care and they don’t have access to healthy food, so anything that hits them, they’re weaker, and they’re more likely to suffer harsher impacts.”

Public officials also acknowledge the importance of addressing chronic stressors as one official pointed out

“Well, yeah. I think the parts of the city that have low-income families and residents, and may not have the resources available to them to respond to impacts are particularly vulnerable. And not just to climate change, I think they’re vulnerable to a lot of other issues, health issues and just food and access to healthcare and things like that. I think those areas of the city, the low-income areas maybe are particularly vulnerable to any type of stressors that might come either short term or long-term.”

Many residents contended that addressing underlying chronic stressors was critical for resilience and pointed out the role of historical discriminatory practices in creating chronic stressors:

“There’s such a close correlation between redlining maps from the 1930s, the opportunity maps where there’s low opportunity, to the racial segregation patterns in the City of Dayton. And it’s like, they’re so interlinked. And it’s not that we’ve done anything wrong ourselves, we’re just living with these… these policies and decisions that people made 70, 80, 90 years ago. So in my mind, resiliency in my mind is thinking about… Has to include this equity piece, because if you’re not thinking about it through an equity lens, then you’re gonna miss out and you’re just gonna continue to perpetuate the injustices and the inequity that’s been going on for a century.”

Perceptions of public officials indicate that they understand these underlying dynamics as witnessed by comments such as

“For example, racism, it certainly does on another level, and it certainly detracts from the resilience of those communities when they don’t have the investment in infrastructure, both environmental infrastructure and public open space that other communities have. I think that’s a key element in resilience in our community, that we really have to step up to these underserved communities”

However, long-term implication visioning by the public officials was lacking in areas such as housing, food access, and/or poverty alleviation. Public officials attribute the lack of staffing, financial resources, and boundaries of functional authority as challenges to addressing chronic stressors, especially in mid-size or smaller cities. The next section provides policy suggestions based on the findings discussed in this section and collates the findings presented to other studies that have examined community resilience.

5. Discussion

5.1. Similarities and differences in Community Resilience Perceptions and Policy Opportunities

It is important to note key similarities and differences in resilience perceptions between public officials and community members. Both public officials and residents perceived basic resilience as pertaining to disaster recovery and preparedness. Public officials responsible for essential community infrastructure systems (such as energy or water) mainly perceived resilience as pertaining to restoration of normal functionality following a disturbance. This finding is similar to other studies focusing on disaster recovery. For example, Ross [10] found that interpretations of resilience as “bouncing back” is the most common following a disaster. Compared to public officials’ views of a disturbance event (as an event that impacts physical infrastructure), the residents considered a disturbance event as any event that impacted the human fabric of the community (such as a mass shooting) and/or the physical infrastructure. Similarly, while public officials viewed basic resilience as largely focused on essential community infrastructure systems, the residents perceived basic resilience as relating to restoration of both the physical infrastructure and human dynamics (healing, connecting, bonding, etc.). In one of the few studies to also qualitatively explore community resilience perceptions held by different stakeholder groups, Adekola, Fischbacher-Smith and Fischbacher-Smith [15] found multiple interpretations of community resilience where community council members held different interpretations compared to public officials. Community council members described views pertaining to the ability of the community to come together, react, and get through adverse events compared to public officials who were focused on restoring functionality of the respective systems [15]. Brown [53] also argues that different stakeholders might hold multiple and often contested interpretations and meanings of community resilience.

Public officials also expressed some confusion on who would bear the responsibility for certain long-term disaster recovery efforts (such as reopening a damaged grocery store). This highlights the need for policies to facilitate clear communication initiatives or strategies, especially within long-term disaster recovery efforts. These communication initiatives could also facilitate two-way communications on residents’ desires to restore human dynamics after a disaster, and policy initiatives that could facilitate such recovery.

Both public officials and residents attributed adaptive resilience to making incremental changes, respectively, to infrastructure systems or community qualities (or characteristics) to adapt an infrastructure system or a neighborhood to changing conditions, in addition to disasters. Craft [14] also reported the need to improve the level of community engagement, dissemination of information, and to incrementally harden infrastructure as important to building community resilience. Compared to public officials, residents viewed economic changes and legacy racial impacts (such as racial divides and class divides) as phenomenon that need adapting. This finding highlights the need for policy initiatives to incorporate resilience building/thinking as a continuous on-going effort into areas that have not traditionally incorporated resilience thinking such as economic development and community planning. Interestingly, residents, especially those from lower socioeconomic neighborhoods, associated characteristics such as hope, optimism, and grit with adaptive resilience, representing a mindset to get things done. Hope and grit have been associated with studies examining resilience at the individual scale but not frequently at the community resilience scale. Public officials in this study outlined the limited financial resources and issues with political leadership as challenges that need to be addressed to build adaptive resilience. Chondol et al. [12] also found scarcity of resources as a reason for lack of community level capacity building efforts.

The perceptions described in this study shed light on what factors might undergird the differences in perceptions, and further studies should continue to explore these differences. Public officials’ perceptions of basic and adaptive resilience seem to be influenced by their roles, the nature/functionality of the infrastructure systems they are responsible for, and the boundaries of functional authority. Comparatively, the residents’ perceptions of basic and adaptive resilience seem to be influenced by the drive to recover from or adapt to broader disturbance events that impact the communities’ human fabric (such as a mass shooting), in addition to events that impact physical infrastructure, and the drive to acclimatize their neighborhoods (including the physical infrastructure and human dynamics) to long-term changes (including economic changes and historical racial legacy impacts).

Transformative resilience perceptions were largely expressed by the residents. Lack of transformative resilience perceptions expressed by the public officials might be attributed to the financial, resource, and political constraints restraining them from envisioning transformative pathways. Similarly, in Adekola, Fischbacher-Smith and Fischbacher-Smith’s [15] study, local officials pointed to challenges presented by limited government resources in the face of many competing priorities. Residents of this study described how cross-sectoral and cross-stakeholder “networks of resiliency” could build transformative resilience and highlighted the importance of two-way communication and what roles could public officials play to facilitate such initiatives.

Residents discussed how the Dayton food system could be transformed to make it more local, robust, and resilient, replicating the success of the Gem City Market. Several Dayton neighborhoods are already classified and food deserts, and food insecurity could become a profound exacerbated issue within the context of climate change. The success of the Gem City Market demonstrates that empowered community-inspired solutions could build community resilience. Similar arguments can be made for other systems such as water and energy systems. Public officials acknowledged the vulnerability of the energy system “as is” being old and being a centralized production and distribution system. Numerous disaster events such as storms and wildfires could damage the energy system. The experiences of the California Blue Lake Rancheria Tribe’s microgrid demonstrate how innovative, decentralized, and localized energy systems (such as neighborhood level microgrids, energy storage, and rooftop solar) could enhance community resilience. Similarly, Greater World Community of Earthships in New Mexico demonstrate how rainwater catchment could help communities to be water resilient in arid conditions. Adaptive or transformative resilience processes could often be endogenous processes linked to local customs [1]. However, residents pointed out how community-level actors need some level of guidance and influence from public officials and the political leadership to envision transformative resilience pathways [1].

Building networks of resiliency as described by the residents would require broad collaborative networks (based on collective impact models) that are empowered to transform food–energy–water systems. As Norris et al. [6] contends, citizen participation (involvement and engagement) in formal and informal community organizations is widely believed to be a fundamental element of community resilience [6]. Therefore, transformative local, community-based, and community-supported food–energy–water systems could make communities more resilient. Public officials and political leadership should facilitate the establishment of broader collaborative community networks with well-defined meaningful roles for participation to craft and activate transformative solutions. Examples such as Cincinnati’s Green Umbrella (regional sustainability alliance) and Dayton’s own Dayton Regional Green exemplify how residents and community organizations could be empowered and mobilized for action, if the public officials and political leadership provide necessary facilitation and support. Further research should explore how communities collectively can envision, communicate, and craft transformative pathways and ways how public officials and political leadership can provide direction to such efforts.

5.2. Policies to Nurture Social Capital, Address Chronic Stressors, and Communication Infrastructure

Residents highlighted the importance of community assets (such as a grocery stores, banks, and community gardens), strong social capital, and the need to address chronic stressors to community resilience. Consistent with other research, participants of this study outlined the importance of social capital to community resilience. Similarly, Rapaport et al. [41] found that community members’ perceived collective social resources, such as intra-community leadership, collective efficacy, social capital, and trust, ultimately derive from the community’s social context. Therefore, Aldrich [44] recommends that it is important for communities to consciously invest in building social capital as a proactive disaster resilience measure with support from planners and other decision makers. Residents participating in this study pointed out how physical infrastructure (such as walkable or bikeable neighborhoods) and social events nurture social capital. Public officials could craft policies to develop the necessary physical infrastructure and provide visibility to neighborhood-level social events to support building social capital. Public officials could focus on more opportunities for citizen engagement and participation; art and cultural events; chili cookouts; porch fests; and other arts and cultural events to support building social capital. In addition, public officials can try to provide a common platform, structure, and communication channels for neighborhood associations to organize and mobilize.

While the public officials understood the need to address chronic stressors, long-term implication visioning to address such dynamics was lacking (in areas such as housing, food access, and/or poverty alleviation) largely due to lack of staffing, financial resources, and boundaries of functional authority. Public officials also did not perceive efforts to address chronic stressors as falling within the purview of resilience building efforts. As the resident perceptions demonstrate, policy initiatives are needed to address chronic stressors and highlight a critical policy gap in building community resilience. Considering the limitations faced by public officials, addressing chronic stressors might require multi-stakeholder networks similar to what is discussed above (similar to networks required for transformative resilience).

In addition to what is discussed above, the importance of facilitating policy for effective communication infrastructure within basic, adaptive, and transformative resilience could be outlined in three ways. First, within basic resilience, communication from public officials in charge of emergency management is critical for people to clearly know where to go, what to do, and resources available during and the aftermath of a disaster. Effective disaster communication could improve perceptions of community resilience [9]. Based on perceptions, expressed in this study, it seems that public officials responsible for emergency management are focused on providing effective communication to residents. Second, public officials view a perceived disconnect between political leadership and the biophysical impacts of climate change as one of the major challenges to adaptive resilience. To this end, Handmer and Dover [16] argue that institutions and policy processes appear to be locked into “change at the margins” type of approach. Therefore, additional research is needed on how to bridge the communication gap and improve framing to make the political leaders understand the long-term implications and realities of climate change, resilience building opportunities available, and why it is important to capitalize on such opportunities. Such research could inform public officials on how to frame and present resilience-building initiatives to the political leadership to gain their support. Third, pertinent to transformative resilience and addressing chronic stressors, building broader collaborative community networks require policies to facilitate strong two-way communication where residents are able to communicate about envisioned potential community-based solutions to public officials, and where public officials (and political leadership) are able to provide direction to such initiatives. Community members’ disconnect with local government officials can significantly hamper community-inspired adaptive efforts [45]. Two-way communication initiatives could also provide civic participation opportunities for poorer and more vulnerable groups grappling with chronic stressors to voice their needs and aspirations [38]. Further research could examine how communication platforms, processes, and systems could help to bring these different stakeholder groups together.

This study qualitatively explored community resilience perceptions held by public officials and residents, using Dayton, OH as a case study. Not many studies have explored this topic, especially qualitatively. The findings of this study reveal multiple perceptions and frames held by residents compared to public officials, which can aid in crafting constructive policies. Therefore, further research should continue to explore community resilience perceptions held by different stakeholder groups in other economic, cultural, and technological contexts as it provides valuable insights for crafting strategies and policies to make communities more resilient.

6. Conclusions

Community resilience has increasingly become a popular topic of research. The aim of this article is to present a juxtaposition of public officials’ and residents’ perceptions of community resilience along the three-class typology of resilience (basic, adaptive, and transformative) using Dayton, OH as a case study. The findings highlight similarities and differences in resilience perceptions between public officials and community members that can inform creative policy initiatives and community-inspired solutions. Both public officials and residents alluded basic resilience to disaster recovery and preparedness. However, there were notable differences in perceptions on what was considered as a disturbance event (and thus needing recovery efforts) and the community components (infrastructure, basic services, and human dynamics) that needed to be restored through recovery efforts.

To recap, the roles, functionality of the infrastructure systems they are responsible for, and the boundaries of functional authority seem to influence public officials’ perceptions of basic and adaptive resilience. Comparatively, the residents’ perceptions of basic and adaptive resilience seem to be influenced by factors such as a drive to recover from or adapt to broader disturbance events that impact a communities’ human fabric (such as a mass shooting) in addition to events that impact physical infrastructure, and a drive to acclimatize their neighborhoods (including the physical infrastructure and human dynamics) to long-term changes (including economic changes and historical racial legacy impacts). While transformative resilience perceptions were largely expressed by residents, the lack of transformative resilience perceptions expressed by public officials might be attributed to the financial, resource, and political constraints restraining them from envisioning transformative pathways. However, residents exemplified the need for public officials and political leadership to play an active role in guiding and providing direction to transformative resilience initiatives.

Strong social capital, availability of community resources, and effective communication strategies were highlighted by residents as important for building basic, adaptive, and transformative resilience. Residents also described how chronic stressors make the residents more susceptible to harm from disturbance events. Addressing the chronic stressors and activating transformational initiatives need building cross-stakeholder “networks of resiliency”, which require effective two-way communication and direction from public officials and political leadership.

The comparability and transferability of the findings of this study depend on the (dis)similarities in setting and context. Dayton, OH is a mid-size city that is not threatened by some of the major disturbances associated with climate change such as sea level rise, frequent hurricanes, or wildfires. However, it still grapples with numerous impacts of climate change. Dayton, OH also has an industrial/manufacturing legacy as described in the background section and many of the neighborhoods reflect consequences of that history. Residents of Dayton take pride in the rich pioneering innovative industrial legacy and qualities it represents. Therefore, the applicability of the findings discussed in this article are limited by similar size, climate impact contexts, and socio-economic trajectories. Despite such limitations in applying the findings of this study more broadly, it is possible that divergent views on community resilience exist among stakeholders in various social–economic–environmental contexts that could inform creative policies to build community resilience. That makes this topic well worth exploring in a range of settings such as climate change adaptation and disaster recovery.