Communities that are socially and economically weaker are less able to respond to and recover from pandemics and disasters (Gaynor and Wilson, 2020). Inequitable social systems create dramatically different realities for more vulnerable communities, resulting in disparities in resilience outcomes (Kim and Bostwick, 2020; Marston et al., 2020). Adopting an inclusive development approach, as contrasted to the inclusive growth, fundamentally urges a system and place scale transformation. This lens enables consideration of a range of ideas about imagining the economy and society through considerations of inclusion, gender, ecology, new local economies, participation and development, which contribute to inclusion and sustainability. Any future initiatives must aim towards transformative resilience (OECD, 2014) with a focus on: •
Distributive strategies aimed at addressing inequity and inequality.
•
Human development strategies aimed at increasing the skills and capacity of people to act on their own behalf.
•
Structural strategies, which focus on institutional reforms, to enable the involvement of people in development and social change (Payne, 2014; Babacan 2021a).
The broadest possible inputs are needed from across society during rapid and far-reaching change (Marston et al., 2020).
Conclusion and Recommendations Hynes et al (2020) identifies responses to COVID-19 as needing to be twofold: to address immediate concerns in the short-term and to propose an approach to dealing with the longer-term issues the pandemic highlights. New approaches to regional and community development focus on the paradigm of place-based approaches. The “identification and mobilisation of endogenous potential, that is, the ability of places to grow drawing on their own resources, notably their human capital and innovative capacities” (Tomaney 2010:6) is critical. This approach aims to develop locally-owned strategies that can tap into unused potential of the region and develop initiative that address economic and social sustainable development and human wellbeing. It is with these considerations in mind that the following short-term and medium framework of action is proposed. Absorptive and Adaptive Resilience Strategies: Short term Actions (6 months-1 year) Clarifying what constitutes essential services: During critical periods in the pandemic such as lockdown, there is an order to shut down ‘non-essential’ services. While some businesses such as food and drink, beauty, entertainment, retail and sports are commonly shut down, there has been no guidance provided as to whether community and social services are considered ‘essential services’ at the early stage of the pandemic or in the current stage. Peak industry bodies have not been provided with any guidance on this matter. In this void service organisations have assumed that they are essential services. Many have COVID-19 plans to adhere to and have continued service provision, often pivoting to provide online services where possible. There are risks of continuing service versus considerations of closing service and preventing all access. Factors to consider in essential service delivery include over-extending service capacity, burnout of staff, lack of access by some clients and safety issues 57
