Implications of coping strategies and community cohesion for mental health in Colombia

In the face of mass human rights violations and constant threats to security, there is growing recognition of the resilience of people and communities. This paper builds on such work by investigating the effects of individual coping strategies, perceived community cohesion, and their interaction on mental health symptoms in Colombia. The study was conducted five years after the mass demobilisation of the former paramilitaries and takes an exploratory quantitative approach to identify two distinct forms of coping approaches among participants living in the Caribbean coast of Colombia. A constructive coping approach included active engagement, planning behaviours, emotional support, acceptance and positive reframing of daily stressors. A destructive coping approach in this study entailed denial of problems, substance use and behavioural disengagement from day-to-day stress. In addition, the strength of perceived community cohesion, or how close-knit and effective the individuals feel about the community in which they live, was examined. Structural equation modelling revealed that a constructive coping approach was significantly related to lower depression, while a destructive coping approach predicted more symptoms of depression. Although there was not a significant direct effect of perceived community cohesion on mental health outcomes, it did enhance the effect of constructive coping strategies at the trend level. That is, individuals who used constructive coping strategies and perceived their communities to be more cohesive, reported fewer depression symptoms than those who lived in less cohesive settings. Implications for promoting constructive coping strategies, as well as fostering cohesion in the community, are discussed.

Applying the security-development nexus on the ground: Land restitution in Colombia

The general consensus on the security-development nexus is that both are key to achieving sustainable peace in war-torn societies. However, this debate has largely taken place among international actors, with little empirical evidence about how security and development relate to each other or are even considered by local actors. The current paper applies the security-development nexus to the case of land restitution in Colombia. Following decades of internal armed conflict, in 2012 the national government passed sweeping land restitution legislation amid on-going violence. Through in-depth interviews and focus groups with multiple actors involved in this process, ranging from international organizations to national government units, from regional institutions to local communities, the paper analyses the objectives, impact, challenges and opportunities for land restitution related to security and development. Undermining peacebuilding, a lack of coherence in the integration of security and development priorities limits the extent to which either supports, or is promoted by, land restitution efforts in Colombia. The paper concludes with reflections on how the security-development nexus may promote peacebuilding amid on-going conflict.

Perceptions of the common good in planning

There has been plenty of debate in the academic literature about the nature of the common good or public interest in planning. There is a recognition that the idea is one that is extremely difficult to isolate in practical terms; nevertheless, scholars insist that the idea ‘…remains the pivot around which debates about the nature of planning and its purposes turn’ (Campbell & Marshall, 2002, 163–64). At the point of first principles, these debates have broached political theories of the state and even philosophies of science that inform critiques of rationality, social justice and power. In the planning arena specifically, much of the scholarship has tended to focus on theorising the move from a rational comprehensive planning system in the 1960s and 1970s, to one that is now dominated by deliberative democracy in the form of collaborative planning. In theoretical terms, this debate has been framed by a movement from what are perceived as objective and elitist notions of planning practice and decision-making to ones that are considered (by some) to be ‘inter-subjective’ and non-elitist. Yet despite significant conceptual debate, only a small number of empirical studies have tackled the issue by investigating notions of the common good from the perspective of planning practitioners. What do practitioners understand by the idea of the common good in planning? Do they actively consider it when making planning decisions? Do governance/institutional barriers exist to pursuing the common good in planning? In this paper, these sorts of questions are addressed using the case of Ireland. The methodology consists of a series of semi-structured qualitative interviews with 20 urban planners working across four planning authorities within the Greater Dublin Area, Ireland. The findings show that the most frequently cited definition of the common good is balancing different competing interests and avoiding/minimising the negative effects of development. The results show that practitioner views of the common good are far removed from the lofty ideals of planning theory and reflect the ideological shift of planners within an institution that has been heavily neoliberalised since the 1970s.