How to Deal with Crisis? Place Attachment as a Factor of Resilience of Urban–Rural Communes in Poland during the COVID-19 Pandemic

Abstract

The phenomenon of place attachment as a community resilience determinant requires a detailed study and, as such, is not sufficiently explored in the literature. This study analyses both resilience determinants and resilience tools in order to provide local communities with optimum courses of action and decision makers with postulates concerning local development policies. Our goal is to determine the effect of place attachment on the activity of the local community in the process of the reconstruction of a local territorial unit following a crisis (COVID-19 pandemic) situation, as well as determine the symptoms of the crisis exemplified by urban–rural communes in Poland. Empirical research was carried out with regard to all 87 urban–rural communes in Poland with their seat in a small city with district rights. The respondents in the survey included individuals in governance positions: mayor/deputy mayor/secretary. Comparative analyses were performed on the entire group by juxtaposing communes located in peripheral regions (19 units) of the Eastern Poland Macroregion and the remaining communes (68). In light of the empirical research, communes located in Eastern Poland’s peripheral regions were more severely impacted by the COVID-19 crisis than ones situated elsewhere in Poland. In urban–rural communes located in peripheral regions, actions supporting the “ability to absorb” shocks are taken more frequently than those promoting “positive adaptability in anticipation of, or in response to, shocks”. Less frequent were proactive measures of innovative nature, involving “restoration and use” of the existing local resources, e.g., new methods of the use of natural resources by the households or new activities in the creative industry based on individual creativity, skills and talents. An analysis of all units reveals a generally low level of pro-resilience activities of the local communities in the communes investigated in the study except for the application of modern technologies/forms of remote communication. It was demonstrated that, in local communities with a high level of place attachment, activities aimed at building resilience are more frequent. For local governments, the results constitute proof of the importance of place attachment in building community resilience in local development policies. We should highlight the need for activities integrating urban and rural residents in urban–rural communes in order to create a shared space with which they could identify while strengthening bonds, thus raising the level of social capital. It is also necessary to look for ways to use IT, not only for communication processes, but also for managing crisis situations, in parallel with activities aimed at strengthening social capital.

1. Introduction

The development of models aimed at stimulating local growth has been more and more often accompanied by a debate on the urgent need to support resilience. This necessity is becoming relevant in the context of increasingly common crises of both economic and non-economic nature. The causes of economic crises can be economic and political, but also natural. It is difficult to predict whether a specific natural factor will occur; natural factors are generally unpredictable and irregular, rendering it impossible to make preparations in anticipation of such events, e.g., by taking certain precautions [1]. The exogenous shock of the COVID-19 pandemic caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus had its source outside the economy. Such unforeseen, unexpected events leading to severe consequences on multiple markets are referred to in the literature as “black swans” [2] (p. 10), [3] (p. 1). The COVID-19 pandemic generated and revealed such a breadth of socio-economic issues that it became the impetus for a new perspective on economic policy. This issue was discussed e.g., by Gorynia with a team of researchers in a study by Banaszyk et al., 2021, titled “Przesłanki modyfikacji wybranych koncepcji ekonomicznych na skutek pandemii COVID-19” [“Proposed modifications to selected economic concepts following the COVID-19 pandemic”] [4], and by Maczyńska in the study, “Kryzysy jako impulsy zmian systemów społeczno-gospodarczych” [“Crises as stimuli for changes in socio-economic systems”] [5].

Faced with a crisis situation in the global economy due to the outbreak of COVID-19 (on a global, national, regional and local level), governments had no choice but to take many steps to support citizens in their day-to-day physical existence.

In the process of managing a crisis situation by local authorities, especially in the case of epidemic crises, a wide range of possibilities supporting adaptation processes is provided by the BPMN-based automated approach for the analysis of healthcare processes [6,7,8]. The subject of process modeling can be a number of processes, including e.g., analysis of the infection (epidemic) in a specific area and anti-epidemic or threat actions.

At the same time, the period of the pandemic saw the emergence of multiple “grassroots” self-help initiatives, including also those aimed at providing assistance to persons made especially vulnerable by the crisis. The initiatives were spontaneous, initiated by leaders, or coordinated by local government bodies. Obviously, crisis situations demand ongoing creation and coordination of relevant management systems but also building future resilience mechanisms in local communities in the event of external shocks which may occur in the future.

Resilience, a term which appears in various contexts in reference to local territorial units, may be broadly defined as “the capacity of a local economy to withstand or recover from market, competitive and environmental shocks to its developmental growth path, if necessary by undergoing adaptive changes to its economic structures and its social and institutional arrangements, so as to maintain or restore its previous developmental path, or transit to a new sustainable path characterised by a more productive and equitable use of its physical, human and environmental resources” [9] (p. 15). As for the operationalisation of such a complex concept, the aforementioned authors supply three layers of interpretation: resilience as a “bounce back” from shocks, resilience as the “ability to absorb” shocks and resilience as a “positive adaptability” in anticipation of, or in response to, shocks [10] (p. 6).

In fields such as city management, crisis management and local development, there have been many studies on local community resilience in crisis situations. These are mainly studies presenting resilience measurement models as well as frameworks and methods for assessing community resilience in response to various kinds of natural disasters [11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18]. One should also mention studies relating to the unique nature of resilience in rural areas and communities [19,20,21]. These studies highlight the role of social capital in building local community resilience.

A growing number of reports pertain to constructing a system of resilience to the COVID-19 pandemic. Such research mainly concerns nation-wide or local crisis management systems, particularly in cities following the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic (for example: [22,23,24,25]). South et al. [22] write about the community response to the COVID-19 emergency in the UK and how public health has a role in strengthening community resilience through the recovery. Xu et al. [23] analysed local community’s resilience in the face of the pandemic in Wuhan, the city which was the ground zero for the coronavirus outbreak. At this point, we should also mention the book, “The city in need: urban resilience and city management in disruptive disease outbreak events”, by Cheshmezangi [24]. The author of the work identified key factors of community resilience and the role of city management in controlling the pandemic. Of special note is a work by Suleimany et al. [26]: Community resilience to pandemics: An assessment framework developed based on the review of COVID-19 literature. The studies also highlight the significance of factors shaping social capital, including collective identity, in building resilience.

In the literature, place attachment is named among factors which refer to social capital and contribute to community resilience [27,28,29]. As regards single territorial units, many studies published to date indicate that, while place attachment may boost community resilience (e.g., [28,29]), in certain circumstances it may also prove an obstacle to community resilience [30].

The sources referred to above take the form of local case studies. They were performed in individual territorial units and based on non-randomised samples, hence the gap and the need to conduct quantitative research on a representative sample, which would allow making generalisations on the subject.

Moreover, in the face of new, unique crises which affect socio-economic systems in a complex way, especially the crisis triggered by the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, there is a need to analyse the impact of the determinants of community resilience and look for pro-resilience measures in local communities. The outbreak of COVID-19 exposed the need to strengthen the resilience of socio-economic systems to pandemics [26,31]. Obłój [32] goes as far as to identify a new, “post-COVID” perspective on socio-economic phenomena, stressing that one of the crucial effects of the pandemic is understanding how important it is to “incorporate resilience, i.e., the capacity for dealing with crisis situations, into socio-economic systems”. The present study analyses both resilience determinants and resilience tools in order to provide local communities with optimum courses of action and policymakers with postulates concerning local development policies.

In the literature, the status, size, spatial structure and location of a territorial unit are identified as determinants of its resilience capabilities [19,20,21,33]. In particular, the capacity for building a resilience system is determined by the type of a given territorial unit/local community (urban vs. rural) or its location (peripheral vs. non-peripheral). Small cities find themselves in a special situation: Due to their actual and potential significance in the socio-economic development, small cities, which quantitatively constitute the dominant type of entity in the spatial arrangement of countries, are the focus of attention of territorial growth-oriented national as well as international development policies, especially the EU policy [34,35,36]. As indicated in the European Committee of the Regions Report [37] (p. 1), “small urban areas are an important part of Europe’s territorial, social and economic fabric”.

Because of their complexity and the context of their locations, small cities display widely varied growth potentials [38,39]. With regard to small European cities, one of the few comprehensive studies based on empirical research, presenting not only their own development potential but also their effect on the surrounding areas, can be found in a report titled: “The role of small and medium-sized towns in rural development” [34]. The report analyses the development potential of small cities, taking into account their impact on the surrounding rural areas in the EU member states. It differentiates between two city size categories: small cities (population 5000–10,000) and medium-sized city (15,000–20,000). Studies from that period indicated that stimulating the economy of a small city is not very likely to have a significant impact on its agricultural/rural surroundings, with only some small cities capable of initiating the diffusion of development processes into the surrounding rural areas. Mono-functional cities and cities of limited economic potential are often themselves affected by the prospect of stagnation/recession. However, in comparison to cities in suburban and tourist areas, cities in areas where employment in agriculture exceeds the national average are more likely to become a suitable venue for rural area development initiatives, since the links between the city and the rural area will generate the greatest local trickle-down effects. Moreover, larger cities (also in the small city category) in all areas display a tendency to generate relatively the greatest multiplier effects [34]. According to recommendations for national and regional policies made in the report, the economic development in small and medium-sized cities and their surrounding areas is best promoted by those national and regional policies which focus on larger commercial cities (15,000 to 20,000 residents), particularly if surrounded by areas of above-average (compared to the national average) levels of employment in agriculture [34].

Later studies in various regions of the world provide examples of specific and highly diversified development trajectories of small cities, proving that, regardless of their size, there are factors which determine their successful development [40]. The absence of a linear relationship between city size and economic success was reported, for example, in studies by Camagni, Capello and Caragliu 2014 [41] and Frick and Rodríguez-Pose 2018 [42]. In addition, the authors identified other potential success factors such as production structure, institutional capability, innovation processes and entrepreneurial dynamics. Thus, we may assume that small and medium-sized cities, independently of their size, can develop a certain economic dynamics different from that of large cities [40]. If national and supranational urban policies are focused solely on large urban areas, there is a risk that the unique character of small cities will be ignored, as small cities may also yield positive development results by becoming local growth centres, the stimuli of which may positively impact the immediate surroundings [39,43].

Still, one should bear in mind that peripherally located small cities are in a particularly challenging developmental situation. Location is a permanent determinant of the development of territorial units, widely discussed in the literature on territorial development. Special importance is attached to location and distance—both to cities located centrally in countries/regions and relative to national borders [44]. As pointed out by Naldi et al., 2021 [33], in a large portion of the world, it is mostly small cities situated outside the influence zone of developing metropolitan areas that struggle with the challenges of deindustrialisation, unemployment and depopulation. This leads to lack of resilience in the face of change in vulnerable units. A key prerequisite for such areas to grow is the efforts of the local government aimed at promoting entrepreneurship [33]. Studies conducted in Poland [45] on the institutional efficiency of local governments as a factor of local development demonstrated a positive correlation between the two variables. It was found that local governments in Poland were characterised by relatively low institutional efficiency. An analysis of institutional efficiency by commune type showed that urban communes were the most effective, followed by urban–rural communes (in terms of the aggregate measure of efficiency), with rural communes at the bottom of the ranking. In addition, it should be mentioned that, in light of those studies, the communes in the peripheral provinces of the Eastern Poland Macroregion had the lowest local growth rate relative to the rest of the country. In light of the above results, urban–rural communes should be perceived as special entities: on the one hand, they may experience limited growth possibilities due to lower institutional efficiency when compared to cities; on the other hand, they demonstrate greater development potential than rural communes. For some of them, peripheral location in Eastern Poland provides a problematic background for growth determinants.

Thus, the aim of this study is to determine the effect of place attachment on the activity of the local community in the process of the reconstruction of the local territorial unit following the crisis, as well as signs of the reconstruction activities. The research undertaken in the present study is aimed at identifying social resilience activities in communities populating urban–rural communes with the status of a district city in Poland (the district [Polish: powiat] is a tier 2 territorial government and local administrative unit in Poland. The province [Polish: województwo] is a higher- and the commune [Polish: gmina] is a lower tier unit). The selection of units for analysis was intentional in an attempt to isolate urban communes with rural surroundings whose administrative status was that of a district city and whose size (measured as population) ranged from 15,000 to 20,000, i.e., cities that can be ranked as “larger” in the “small city” group. It should be noted that the Central Statistical Office (GUS) defines towns with a population of up to 20,000 as small cities. The analysis compared communes located in five peripheral regions of the Eastern Poland Macroregion with communes situated in other provinces.

The following hypotheses were formulated in the present article:

• Communes located in Eastern Poland’s peripheral regions were more severely impacted by the crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic than ones situated elsewhere in Poland.
• Due to a lower local development level and lower institutional efficiency in urban–rural communes located in peripheral regions, actions supporting the “ability to absorb” shocks are taken more frequently than those promoting the “positive adaptability in anticipation of, or in response to, shocks”.
• Activities aimed at building resilience are more frequent in local communities with a high level of place attachment than other communities.

2. Literature Review

As a term, resilience was first used by Holling in 1973 [46] in reference to ecological systems. Holling [46] noted that “Resilience determines the persistence of relationships within a system and is a measure of the ability of these systems to absorb changes of state variables, driving variables, and parameters, and still persist (…). Resilience is the property of the system and persistence or probability of extinction is the result [46] (p. 17)”.

Contemporary research on resilience in the field of social sciences increasingly focuses on communities forming socio-economic systems. In the area of studies on local and regional development, the term is used in reference to communities forming territorial socio-economic systems (see, for example, [29,47,48,49]). With regard to local communities, Adger [47] refers to the ecological resilience concept, defining social resilience as “the ability of groups or communities to cope with external stresses and disturbances as a result of social, political and environmental change” [47] (p. 347). The concept of social resilience is brought up also in more specific contexts, e.g., in reference to rural community. Zwiers et al. define rural community resilience as “the ability of a group to cope with external threats and adjust to changes while balancing its (i) social, (ii) economic and (iii) physical functions” [28] (p. 5). In the case of social resilience, not only must one analyse the role of natural and physical conditions (as is typically done for ecological systems) but also the effect of the human factor on shaping resilience, particularly with regard to politics, culture, social capital and the role of institutions and economics [50].

A broader definition of community/local residence was proposed by Martin R.L. and Sunley P. [9]. According to their definition, building a resilience system involves maintaining or restoring, or even transitioning local economies to their more sustainable capacity. Rodin [48] offers a similar approach to the definition of resilience. According to Rodin [48], resilience is “the capacity of any entity—an individual, a community, an organization or a natural system—to prepare for disruptions, to recover from shocks and stresses, and to adapt and grow from the experience” (p. 3). “As you build resilience, you become more able to prevent or mitigate stress and shocks you can identify and better able to respond to those you can’t predict or avoid. Ideally, as you become more adept at managing disruption and skilled at resilience building, you are able to create and take advantage of new opportunities in good times and bad. That is the resilience divided. It means more than effectively returning to normal functioning after a disruption, although that is critical. It is about achieving significant transformation that yields benefits even when disruptions are not occurring” [48] (pp. 3–4). As can be seen, later definitions of social resilience clearly emphasise that taking action in support of resilience is meant to boost the system’s potential even after the disturbance has ceased.

The above approaches at interpretation are synthetically presented by Martin and Sunley [10] (Table 1, p. 5). In approach to resilience as a “bounce back” from shocks they emphasized speed and extent of recovery. Resilience as the “ability to absorb” shocks emphasizes the stability of system structure, function and identity in the face of shocks. The size of the shock that can be tolerated before system moved to new state/form. In the most desirable approach to resilience as “positive adaptability”, these activities are intended to improve the system following a crisis and develop better resilience for the future.

The reference point in research or resilience is a system, e.g., an ecological system or the human body, but also—as already mentioned—a socio-economic system. In the context of studies on social resilience, the local community is a unique social system characterised by a specific geographic area, groups of population, identity, standards, values and culture [29]. The system should be considered particularly complex and determined by multiple factors, primarily those which arise from a multitude of internal social relations. The approach wherein cities are treated as systems (characterised e.g., by permanent changes caused by internal and external disturbances) has been developing since the 1970s [51,52]. The present study builds on this approach, based e.g., on the assumption [53] (pp. 27–28) that the city contains, on the one hand, multiple elements of the urban system and, on the other hand, a multitude of relations between those elements and the environment.

This article makes use of the increasingly popular evolutionary approach to urban resilience ([54] (p. 124), [55] (p. 106)). The approach emphasises a principle whereby transformations that constantly occur in systems necessitate the ability to learn and increase innovativeness [56] (p. 2). In turn, this challenge creates the need and ability to prepare the system for potential disturbances. This involves entire local communities in communes, particularly local governments implementing local development policies.

A discussion on the resilience of a special unit like the local socio-economic system requires a comprehensive look at the system’s complexity. In their model of Community Resilience System During Pandemic COVID-19, Ningrum and Subroto [57] stress the salience of factors such as social capital, technology, social innovation, local resources and decentralisation in building local capacity. Technology, which plays a special role in the aforementioned factors, can be used to streamline communication and day-to-day functioning of households, and also as a tool which ensures the continuity of work. Undoubtedly, digital tools help people survive the COVID-19 pandemic by enabling remote work, online education and online shopping. Still, although they are useful to many individuals, they may cause the exclusion of seniors and other vulnerable groups. What is more, when these digital tools fail to work as intended, are overly experimental or are difficult to navigate, they may make life difficult, increase uncertainty and disconnect people [58].

Social capital is cited as having a special role among the determinants of community resilience. The significance of social capital as a constructive and inseparable resource in building social resilience was detailed in a study by Aldrich, D. P., & Meyer 2015 [59]. They demonstrated that the degree of acquaintance (mutual ties) between the members of the local community and a sense of duty towards one another constitute a key factor in the survival and recovery of local socio-economic systems. In certain crisis situations, social ties sometimes are even more important than infrastructure or emergency supplies. Stronger community networks guarantee more effective resilience in contrast to networks made up of individuals with looser bonds in their households and neighbourhoods, since social ties enable community members to help one another and provide special support to disadvantaged individuals/persons at risk of exclusion, also including the elderly. In the event of a pandemic, social distancing is mandatory to control the spread of contagious diseases but is detrimental for social ties, hence the important task of supporting social ties, especially during prolonged lockdowns (as was the case with COVID-19).

Studies focusing on the so-called “soft” resilience-building factors increasingly stress the salience of place attachment in shaping the social system’s ability to cope with crisis situations [28,29,60,61]. According to the work by Maclean et al. (2014), “Six attributes of social resilience” [62], the people–place connection is one of six attributes of community resilience in addition to factors such as: knowledge, skills and learning; community networks; community infrastructure; diverse and innovative economy; and engaged governance.

Research on the importance of place attachment for territorial development has its history [63,64]. As emphasised by Anton and Lawrence (2014) [65], attachment to the place of residence is treated as a complex, multidimensional construct. Although place attachment is defined in different ways, at its core lies the emotional bond to a particular geographic space [66]. As stressed by Perkins et al. [66], “place attachments lead us to stay and protect what we cherish most in our communities and to invest time, energy, and money to improve that with which we are dissatisfied” [66] (p. 41). As regards research on the significance of the place attachment factor in building the resilience of urban–rural communes, we should cite the latest studies which indirectly reveal the context of the issue. With regard to types of residents, Anton and Lawrence indicate that urban dwellers reported lower place dependence than rural dwellers [65]. In light of the research by Zwiers et al. [28], “long-term residents and in-migrants have different types of place attachment”, but, in fact, “length of residence is not a factor in resilience building as such” [28] (p. 281). According to Guo et al. [29], place dependence has a positive influence on the perceived resilience of community residents in tourism destinations [29].

3. Materials and Methods

This study used both a systematic review and our own qualitative research methods. The first stage was a systematic review of the literature. Its aim was to determine the current state of knowledge on the impact of place attachment on the processes of local resilience. The presented studies showed the inconclusive nature of the above relationship. Therefore, empirical, qualitative research was started in order to deepen the knowledge in the field of the researched issues. The conducted research is qualitative in nature. It is a complete study. The research was carried out on the entire population of territorial units meeting the selection criteria specified by the authors of the study.

The literature review in this study made use of both analytical and synthetic methods. The empirical part employed a structured questionnaire (survey). Basic descriptive statistical tools were applied. Because the empirical part was a study/description of the entire population, the analyses did not employ statistical inference methods, instead relying on descriptive statistics. Calculations were performed in Statistica 13.3 software.

Empirical research was carried out with regard to all (87 units) urban–rural communes in Poland which have (or had, during the research) their seat in a small city (up to 20,000 inhabitants, according to the Polish Central Statistical Office, as of 31 December 2020) with district rights. Comparative analyses were performed on the entire group by juxtaposing communes located in peripheral regions (19 units) of the Eastern Poland Macroregion (Lubelskie, Podlaskie, Podkarpadkie, Warmińsko–Mazurskie and Zachodnio–Pomorskie Province) and the remaining communes (68). Upon Poland’s accession to the European Union (EU), borders with Ukraine, Belarus and Russia became the part of the EU’s external border. The provinces of the Eastern Poland Macroregion lie adjacent to this border. These five regions belong to the group of the least developed regions of the EU (the so-called “lagging regions”), with clearly visible unfavourable features of peripherality in its spatial but also socio-economic aspect [67].

Empirical research was performed from September to October 2021 by the company ASM Centrum Badań i Analiz Rynku Sp. z o.o as part of research project PB4/2020: “Rezyliencja gmin miejsko-wiejskich w Polsce. Operacjonalizacja, pomiar, diagnoza mechanizmów adaptacyjnych” [“Resilience of urban-rural communes in Poland. Operationalization, measurement, diagnosis of adaptive mechanisms”], financed from the University Staff Development Fund (at John Paul II University of Applied Sciences in Biała Podlaska). The questionnaire contained 10 open-ended questions. The respondents were surveyed in a computer-assisted telephone interview (CATI), a computer-assisted web interview (CAWI) or a mixed-mode (CATI + CAWI) interview. The respondents in the survey included individuals in governance positions: mayor/deputy mayor/secretary (in some cases). Of a total of 87 interviews, one was incomplete; however, as its filled-in portion was substantially correct, it was decided that it would be included in the study.

4. Results

The first issue investigated in this study was the impact of the crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. For the sake of simplicity, the analysis assumed three possible outcomes: positive, stagnation, and negative. Generally, representatives of the local community, i.e., mayors, residents of urban–rural communes with seats in a small city, did not feel particularly affected by the so-called “coronacrisis”. Interestingly, 53.49% of those surveyed viewed the outcome as positive, 33.72% described it as stagnation, and 12.79% considered it as negative. Such opinions could have been affected by the economy of the analysed communes, i.e., the fact that part of their population had connections to agriculture, an industry which did not see considerable employment redundancies in that period. Moreover, a relatively low (in comparison to medium-sized and large urban centres) share of big manufacturing businesses in the local economy structure was presumably a factor that mitigated the impact of the crisis. Production performance and employment levels in local businesses in such smaller territorial units were less affected by social distancing restrictions. In addition, the analysed territorial units did not include typically mono-functional communes with a developed tourism sector, which were particularly vulnerable during the pandemic.

Nevertheless, it should be noted that, in communes located in the peripheral provinces of Eastern Poland, local government representatives reported a more severe outcome of the crisis than in the remaining communes. In the case of peripheral provinces, over half of the surveyed representatives (57.89% opinions) cited either stagnation (36.84%) or a negative outcome (21.05%) of the crisis. In other communes, stagnation was reported in 32.84% and a negative outcome in 10.45% of cases (

Table 1. Outcome of the crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic in the analysed communes by location (N = 86) (in %).

Location	Outcome
	Positive	Stagnation	Negative
Peripheral communes	42.11	36.84	21.05
Other communes	56.72	32.84	10.45
Total	53.49	33.72	12.79

Source: Authors’ own research.

).

A factor which further exacerbated socio-economic circumstances was the fact that the local community in the communes situated in Eastern Poland’s peripheral provinces relatively less frequently than in other communes took resilience-promoting measures aimed both at adapting to the new conditions and building resilience in case of future crises.

Similarly to the model presented by Ningrum and Subroto (2022) in Community Resilience System During Pandemic COVID-19 [57], for the purpose of the present research, it was assumed that social resilience factors include capital, technology, social innovation, local resources and decentralisation. The following pro-resilience activities were considered (see

Table 2. Examples of pro-resilient activities in socio-economic life performed by the residents of the communes in the face of the crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic—A comparative analysis by location (N = 86).

Activities	Location
	Peripheral	Non-Peripheral
Households started using natural resources (e.g., minerals, water, landscape, renewable energy sources) in a new way	-	7.46
New types of business based on local resources emerged, growth of residents’ entrepreneurship	-	11.94
New social activities, e.g., partnership, social organisations, initiatives	-	14.93
New artistic and cultural activities, e.g., artistic activities	-	13.43
New creative industry activities based on individual creativity, skills and talents such as programming, education, advertising	-	5.97
Use of new technologies/remote communication with authorities in social and/or cultural activities, etc.	57.89	65.67
Growth of charity among residents in the form of providing services, particularly to senior residents	15.79	23.88

Source: Authors’ own research.

).

Overall, the majority of activities performed in order to build a resilience system were adaptive measures of a reactive nature involving a more common use of modern technology for online communication—imposed, as it were, due to the pandemic or assisting the most vulnerable members of the community who found themselves in a particularly difficult situation during the pandemic because mandatory social isolation. Meanwhile, less frequent were the proactive measures of an innovative nature, involving “restoration and use” of the existing local resources, e.g., new methods of the use of natural resources by the households or new activities in the creative industry based on individual creativity, skills and talents. Thus, in urban–rural communes, actions supporting the “ability to absorb” shocks were taken more frequently than those promoting the “positive adaptability in anticipation of, or in response to, shocks”.

The residents of peripheral communes displayed a lower level of entrepreneurship and social activity in support of both the “ability to absorb” shocks and “positive adaptability” in anticipation of, or in response to, shocks. Of particular concern is the absence of activity in the area of the use of local resources. With regard to the resilience factors indicated by Ningrum and Subroto (2022) [57], it may be concluded that almost no activity in areas such as social innovation, local resources and social capital was reported in the group of peripherally located communes.

Another question considered was the relationship between place attachment and pro-resilience activities of local communities (with 61.63% of all respondents in the survey declaring a high level of place attachment) (see

Table 3. Activities in socio-economic life performed by the residents of the communes analysed in the study in the face of the crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic—A comparative perspective taking into account place attachment levels (N = 85).

Activities	Activity Indicators
	Number of Communes in Which the Action Was Reported (1)	Percentage of Communes in Which the Action Was Reported (2)	Number of Communes with Residents with High Place Attachment Levels in Which Activity Was Reported (3)	Number of Communes with Residents with High Place Attachment Levels in Which Activity Was Reported/Number of Communes in Which Activity Was Reported (4)	Number of Communes with Residents with High Place Attachment Levels in Which Activity Was Reported/Number of Communes with Residents with High Place of Residence Attachment Levels (5)	Number of Remaining Communes in Which Activity Was Reported/Number of Remaining Communes (6)
Households started using natural resources (e.g., minerals, water, landscape, renewable energy sources) in a new way	5	5.88	4	80.00	7.69	3.03
New types of business based on local resources emerged, growth of residents’ entrepreneurship	8 *	9.52	5	62.50	9.80	9.09
New social activities, e.g., partnership, social organisations, initiatives	10	11.76	9	90.00	17.31	3.03
New artistic and cultural activities, e.g., artistic activities	9	10.59	8	88.89	15.38	3.03
New creative industry activities based on individual creativity, skills and talents such as programming, education, advertising	4	4.71	4	100.00	7.69	-
New technologies/remote communication with authorities in social and/or cultural activities, etc.	54	63.53	31	57.41	59.62	69.70
Growth of charity among residents in the form of providing services, particularly to senior residents	18	21.18	14	77.78	26.92	12.12

* Responses were obtained from 84 territorial units. Source: Authors’ own research.

).

An analysis of all units in terms of absolute values (indicator 1) reveals a generally low level of pro-resilience activities of the local communities in the communes investigated in the study, except for the application of modern technologies/forms of remote communication. Low levels of such activity were also reported for all territorial units in terms of relative values (indicator 2). Communes with higher levels of place attachment definitely performed better in this respect. Although, in absolute terms, the number of affirmative responses was also low (indicator 3), the relative value analysis for all units of this type (index 4) showed relatively higher pro-resilience activity levels in this group of communes. All the analysed pro-resilience activities (indicator 4 value) were present in more than half of all the communes with the local community’s high place-dependence levels. Note that the percentage of affirmative responses among the communes with high place attachment levels (indicator 5) was always higher than in other communes (indicator 6) except for the following activity: the local community was willing to switch to new technologies/remote communication with authorities in social and/or cultural activities, for which the percentage was slightly lower (59.62 to 69.70).

5. Discussion and Conclusions

The results allowed the authors to confirm the validity of hypothesis 1, namely, that communes located in Eastern Poland’s peripheral regions were more severely impacted by the crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic than ones situated elsewhere in Poland. At the same time, one should also consider conclusions from other studies [68], which show that the outcome of the COVID-19 pandemic was more severe in the communities of peripherally located communes. Higher mortality rate and number of health complications were reported in areas of relatively older population, the inhabitants of which had lower income and education levels—which are considered typical socio-economic characteristics of peripherality.

A generally lower level of pro-resilience activity of the communities in peripherally located communes may be determined by two potential consequences of the situation. Firstly, the crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic took a more severe form, which, in the case of communes situated in Eastern Poland’s peripheral regions, is due to inferior growth potential limited by their peripheral location in contrast to communes located in other regions of Poland. Secondly, social capital in the analysed communes was generally lower than in non-peripheral regions (the problems with building social capital in Poland’s peripheral regions is discussed in a study by Psyk-Piotrowska (2013) [69]), hence lower levels of activity aimed at building a resilience system, additionally worsening the outcome of the crisis. As pointed out by Morgan (1997) [70], shortage or lack of social capital linked to the institutional capacity of the region, the quality of governance and “the disposition to seek joint solutions to common problems” are obstacles to the developmental potential of peripheral regions [70] (p. 496). The development of peripheral, less-favoured areas is also hindered by exogenous factors. Accelerating growth requires profound and challenging structural reforms, the success of which is determined by institutional [71] and cultural factors [72]. Although such reforms need to be supported by funds, money does not play the most important role. The significance of external funding from the EU in the countries situated in what historically was the “first periphery” of Europe (at least since 16th century [73]), including Poland and the majority of the EU’s new intake, seems to corroborate this principle [74] (p. 133).

In light of the findings with regard to local communities’ pro-resilience activities, we may conclude that the use of IT and communication tools was the most frequent, albeit not universal, means of building resilience. The local community readily switched to modern technologies/remote forms of communication to keep in contact with authorities, in social/cultural life, etc. However, activities intended to boost the potential of social capital, entrepreneurship and innovativeness with a view to “restoring the communes’ existing local resources”, were imperceptible, particularly in peripheral communes. Thus, Hypothesis 2 (due to a lower local development level and lower institutional efficiency, in urban–rural communes located in peripheral regions actions supporting the “ability to absorb” shocks are taken more frequently than those promoting the “positive adaptability in anticipation of, or in response to, shocks”) should be regarded as proven. In addition, research by Naldi (2021) [33] carried out in the Swedish “vulnerable” rural areas shows that the vulnerable rural municipalities displayed lower entrepreneurial orientation than other types of municipalities. Social capital was one of the few variables positively related to innovation and proactivity. The findings underscore the challenges faced by vulnerable communes. Still, they reveal a variable which is positively correlated with the aspects of their entrepreneurial orientation, namely, the local social capital. The conclusions drawn from the present research imply that there is a need for a greater involvement of the local territorial government in building an environment stimulating the creation and development of social innovation—the foundation and catalyst for the local social capital.

When referring to the use of digital tools in the process of building a resilience system, one should concur with [58] in that “digital tools are already helping people through this pandemic, including enabling remote working, online education and ordering of essential household supplies. We are better prepared than ever to withstand a pandemic thanks to these technologies. Digital tools are already helping people, but are not a panacea. While effective for many, they can exclude the elderly, and other vulnerable groups” [58].

The results presented in this study demonstrated a positive relationship between place attachment and activities involved in building a resilience system as part of social/community resilience. Resilience activities were reported more often in the communes the residents of which declared a high level of place attachment. Hypothesis 3, namely, activities aimed at building resilience are more frequent in local communities with a high level of place attachment than other communities, may therefore be verified as valid.

This is in line with the results obtained by Zwiers et al. (2014) [28] and Guo et al. (2018) [29], both of whom found that place attachment may strengthen community resilience. By reference to Guo et al. (2018) [29], the effect may be caused by the fact that the residents who become attached to their community are simply more resilient.

In terms of socio-psychological considerations, in light of the previous research, two main areas of positive impact of place attachement on the process of resilience can be identified. The first concerns the readiness for pro-enviromental behaviour for the natural environment of the place of residence. Findings from 1156 Canadian citizens or permanent residents (Smith et al. (2021) [75]) indicate a relationship between community attachment and resilience and willingness to engage in social advocacy and tax support to adapt to climate change in their community.

The second area concerns the positive impact of place attachment on human well-being. As stressed Basu et al. [76] (p. 849): “Place attachment is one of the place-based socio-psychological concepts that is believed to explain this association. Analysis of survey data collected from Japanese nationals (N  =  2203) revealed place attachment to have a positive and significant mediating effect on the association. Place attachment contributes to 30% of the total effect of nature connectedness on the well-being of the studied population. Furthermore, the study also observed the relationship between nature connectedness and place attachment, and place attachment and human well-being to be direct and significant. Thus, the current research supports the fact that higher levels of well-being associated with nature connectedness are due to the sense of attachment to a place that nature provides”.

For local governments, the results constitute proof of the importance of place attachment in building community resilience in local development policies. Development programmes should promote actions which foster place attachment and support place identity among both natives and potential new inhabitants. Place attachment may be increased by improving living conditions and protecting natural surroundings and the social environment. Such actions should be taken not only with the commune’s current residents/stakeholders but also with potential new inhabitants in mind. Although “long-term residents and in-migrants have different types of place attachment”, in fact, “length of residence is not a factor in resilience building as such” [28] (p. 281).

In the context of the results obtained by Anton and Lawrence (2014) [65], who demonstrated that urban dwellers reported lower place dependence than rural dwellers, we should highlight the need of activities integrating urban and rural residents in urban–rural communes in order to create a shared space with which they could identify while strengthening bonds, thus raising the level of social capital. This study found that the activities promoting social capital, especially among the inhabitants of the analysed peripheral communes, were not satisfactory.

Activities [57] should include well-thought-out spatial planning while looking for the so-called third places [77] (i.e., locations outside work and place of residence), where the residents could spend time together and socialise, and the communal care for such place would provide a foundation for building attachment to the place of residence. Communities in which residents feel attached to their space and neighbourhood have a greater bridging social capital [57,78].

One should also concur with Zhang et al. (2022) [19] that “it is urgent to establish a community-based, resilience-centred framework of community resilience in the post-pandemic era. This framework will strengthen a community’s capacity to cope with disasters and risks” [19] (p. 1), the need for which is all the more “urgent” in communes located in peripheral regions.

In light of the above results, it should be noted that building a community more resilient community crisis requires a comprehensive attitude. Policymakers should take activities towards the different dimensions of crisis and various capital of communities [79,80]. Please also note that “the “cultural capacity” of rural communities (encompassing activities, events and local heritage as well as prevailing attitudes and values in the community), can be either the cornerstone of economic success or the elusive factor that inhibits that success” [81] (p. 317). In this context, activities fostering attachment to the place of residence should be planned and performed so as to strengthen territorial identity and local social capital without closing the local socio-economic system to the external environment or preventing the diffusion of innovation from the outside. Therefore, creating a resilience system requires a case-by-case approach and support of the value of individual potential. As stressed Suleimany et al. (2022) [26], the effort to create resilient communities needs to be a continuous process.

Although the authors tried to review a breadth of literature to capture various aspects and facets of the problem and find examples of building local resilience systems/pro-resilience activities during the COVID-19 pandemic by local communities, the present study was bested by some limitations. Firstly, access to the literature of the subject in languages other than English was problematic. Numerous reports and studies were almost certainly published in all countries, sometimes by local or regional publishing houses, in local languages; they may supplement the body of knowledge pertaining to the research problem discussed here. These studies must indicate some additional local/regional contexts of building local regional/resilience systems, which, in certain circumstances, could help understand the issue and point to practical solutions. Another limitation of the study was a shortage of sources on community resilience in post-pandemic conditions. Future research must provide a broader wealth of knowledge on this subject.

In the face of the shortage of comprehensive research on the issue of resilience, as well as the inconsistency of the results obtained so far, the nationwide full study conducted on a sample of small towns is an important voice in the discussion on the determinants of local resilience, with particular emphasis on place attachment. This approach makes it possible to generalise the results, which is valuable from the point of view of formulating guidelines for local development policy practice.

The novelty, therefore, is to conduct a full, qualitative study from the perspective of the evolutionary approach to urban resilience, enabling the comparison of the response to the existing crisis of two types of territorial units: peripheral and other. This approach made it possible to confirm and highlight the specific development problems of peripherally located units. It confirmed that these units, due to the deficiencies of local social capital, show a lower learning and innovative capacity and, consequently, a lower capacity for resilience in the face of emerging crises. Crises pose an additional, difficult challenge for these units.

The results, therefore, confirm the importance of strengthening social capital in the context of programming the development of peripheral territorial units by appropriately targeting the activities of local government authorities. An important aspect here is the strengthened place attachment from the perspective of its importance as part of community resilience.

The completed study creates opportunities for further research and exploration of the problem of designing premises and selecting appropriate goals, directions and tools of local policy that strengthen the resilience of communes from peripheral regions. It seems appropriate to carry out comprehensive research in selected territorial units, taking into account the perspectives of various social groups—residents, local leaders, entrepreneurs, farmers and external investors. The aim is to search for the best practices identifying factors and barriers, as well as effective local policy tools that strengthen resilience, and taking into account place attachment. Future research should include identifying and promoting the use of technological tools that are particularly useful in crisis management, including BPMN. Detailed answers to questions on how to use specific tools in specific situations, for example in the context of a health crisis, should be sought.