Content uploaded by Daniel P. Aldrich
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Daniel P. Aldrich on Feb 13, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
http://abs.sagepub.com/
American Behavioral Scientist
http://abs.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/10/01/0002764214550299
The online version of this article can be found at:
DOI: 10.1177/0002764214550299
published online 1 October 2014American Behavioral Scientist
Daniel P. Aldrich and Michelle A. Meyer
Social Capital and Community Resilience
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
can be found at:American Behavioral ScientistAdditional services and information for
http://abs.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:
http://abs.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:
http://abs.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/10/01/0002764214550299.refs.htmlCitations:
What is This?
- Oct 1, 2014OnlineFirst Version of Record >>
by guest on October 2, 2014abs.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 2, 2014abs.sagepub.comDownloaded from
American Behavioral Scientist
1 –16
© 2014 SAGE Publications
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0002764214550299
abs.sagepub.com
Article
Social Capital and
Community Resilience
Daniel P. Aldrich1 and Michelle A. Meyer2
Abstract
Despite the ubiquity of disaster and the increasing toll in human lives and financial
costs, much research and policy remain focused on physical infrastructure–centered
approaches to such events. Governmental organizations such as the Department of
Homeland Security, United States Federal Emergency Management Agency, United
States Agency for International Development, and United Kingdom’s Department
for International Development continue to spend heavily on hardening levees, raising
existing homes, and repairing damaged facilities despite evidence that social, not
physical, infrastructure drives resilience. This article highlights the critical role of social
capital and networks in disaster survival and recovery and lays out recent literature
and evidence on the topic. We look at definitions of social capital, measurement and
proxies, types of social capital, and mechanisms and application. The article concludes
with concrete policy recommendations for disaster managers, government decision
makers, and nongovernmental organizations for increasing resilience to catastrophe
through strengthening social infrastructure at the community level.
Keywords
community resilience, social capital, disaster recovery, mortality, public policy,
disaster
Catastrophes and disasters regularly affect more people around the world than highly
publicized, but rarer, events such as terrorist attacks. In March 2011, the 9.0 magnitude
earthquake, tsunami, and nuclear meltdowns in Tohoku, Japan, killed more than
18,500 people and displaced nearly half a million. In November 2013, Typhoon
1Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA
2Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA, USA
Corresponding Author:
Daniel P. Aldrich, Purdue University, Beering Hall, 100 North University Street, West Lafayette, IN
47907, USA.
Email: daniel.aldrich@gmail.com
550299ABSXXX10.1177/0002764214550299American Behavioral ScientistAldrich and Meyer
research-article2014
by guest on October 2, 2014abs.sagepub.comDownloaded from
2 American Behavioral Scientist
Yolanda ripped through the Philippines killing 6,000 people and causing hundreds of
millions of dollars in damage. Disasters like these disrupt the fabric of community life
and stress social systems (Fritz, 1961). Large-scale crises and catastrophes sit in the
category of wicked policy problems as they have no technical solution, involve multi-
ple stakeholders, and create ripple effects. Unfortunately, more individuals and prop-
erty are at risk from disaster each year. Population growth, increasing inequality,
migration, and development in hazard-prone areas, such as coastal regions, place more
people and property in harm’s way (Crossett, Culliton, Wiley, & Goodspeed, 2004).
Anthropogenic climate change will bring rising sea levels and create the potential for
more intense storms, droughts, and floods (Field et al., 2007). A common policy
response to such risks has been strengthening physical infrastructure, building up sea-
walls, raising buildings on stilts, and ratcheting up building codes. However, no
amount of investment in physical infrastructure will be able to reduce all risk and
eliminate vulnerability. Furthermore, spending on disaster preparation moves with
political cycles, not necessity (Healy & Malhotra, 2009). An alternative approach to
predisaster mitigation, which also influences the recovery process, rests on strengthen-
ing social infrastructure, like social capital, that affects community resilience.
Community resilience describes the collective ability of a neighborhood or geo-
graphically defined area to deal with stressors and efficiently resume the rhythms of
daily life through cooperation following shocks (Aldrich, 2012c). Many academic
fields, including psychology (Bonanno, 2004; Masten, 2001), sociology (Mileti,
1999), socioecological systems (Adger, Hughes, Folke, Carpenter, & Rockstrom,
2005; Folke, 2006; Nelson, Adger, & Brown, 2007), and disaster research (Norris et
al., 2008; Bruneau et al., 2003; Manyena, 2006), draw on the concept of group or com-
munity resilience. With rising disaster losses, disaster management experts have
adopted various forms of resilience as a way to address losses and rebound from the
impacts. For example, the U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency’s National
Disaster Recovery Framework (FEMA, 2010), the Whole Community Approach to
Emergency Management (FEMA, 2011), the United Nations Making Cities Resilient
Campaign (UNISDR, 2012), the Hyogo Framework for Action (UNISDR, 2005), and
the National Health Security Strategy (NHSS, 2009) all incorporate resilience in their
frameworks. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA, 2011) suggested
that local and national responders build and maintain partnerships among emergency
management, community sectors, and organizations; empower local action through
increased social capital and civic activity; and leverage and strengthen existing social
infrastructure, networks, and assets. Similarly, the Australian Red Cross has developed
a new manual for first responders focused on social capital (Australian Red Cross,
2012), and a number of new nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) formed in
Tohoku, Japan post-3/11 have generating social capital as their core function (e.g.,
http://www.ibasho.org).
Disaster research has long recognized that communities regularly work together to
survive and recover from catastrophic impacts (Fischer, 2008; Quarantelli & Dynes,
1977). While disaster situations may typically call forth images of trained profession-
als and formal rescue operations, scholarship has shown that informal ties, particularly
by guest on October 2, 2014abs.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Aldrich and Meyer 3
neighbors, regularly serve as actual first responders. Neighbors check on the well-
being of others nearby and provide immediate lifesaving assistance. Following the
1995 Kobe earthquake, for example, the majority of individuals who were pulled from
the rubble of their collapsed homes were saved by neighbors, not firefighters or rescue
workers (Aldrich, 2012b; Horwich, 2000; Shaw & Goda, 2004). Following the March
2011 earthquake, tsunami, and nuclear meltdowns, survivors in Japan indicated that
many of the elderly and infirm were saved from the incoming tsunami not by their own
actions but by the assistance of neighbors, friends, and family (Aldrich site visits
2014).
Individual and community social capital networks provide access to various
resources in disaster situations, including information, aid, financial resources, and
child care along with emotional and psychological support (Elliott, Haney, & Sams-
Abiodun, 2010; Hurlbert, Haines, & Beggs, 2000; Kaniasty & Norris, 1993). Despite
the evidence about its efficacy, resilience research and disaster management practice
have yet to fully embrace social capital as a critical component. Perhaps because
scholars have agreed on fewer metrics for social capital than other economic or demo-
graphic factors (Meyer, 2013; Ritchie, n.d.), practitioners have underutilized social
cohesion and social networks in disaster planning and management (Aldrich, 2010;
Wisner, 2003).
In this article, we review the definition of social capital and its application to com-
munity resilience before, during, and after disasters, illuminating methods for captur-
ing it qualitatively and quantitatively. We then move to empirical evidence for the
significant role social capital plays in disaster response and recovery and conclude
with policy recommendations for enhancing disaster resilience through deepening
reserves of social capital.
Definition and Theories of Social Capital
Nearly a century ago, Louis Hanifan (1916) identified social capital as good will, fel-
lowship, mutual sympathy, and social intercourse among a group of individuals and
families who make up a social unit. Since then, multiple disciplines have adopted the
concept, which, broadly speaking, identifies how involvement and participation in
groups can have positive consequences for the individual and the community (Portes,
1998). Bourdieu defined social capital as one of four types of capital, along with eco-
nomic, cultural, and symbolic, that collectively determine social life trajectories. In his
definition, social capital is the aggregate of the actual or potential resources that are
linked to possession of a durable network of more or less institutionalized relation-
ships of mutual acquaintance or recognition (Bourdieu, 1985). Coleman (1988) and
Lin (1999a, 1999b) have drawn on Bourdieu’s definition to focus on the effect of
social capital for individual outcomes. Coleman (1988) focused on how social capital
and social structures of relationships could be actualized into concrete resources for
use by individuals. Lin further tied social capital to networks of relationships, defining
it as resources embedded in one’s social networks, resources that can be accessed or
mobilized through ties in the networks (Lin, 2001). Robert Putnam (1995, 2000)
by guest on October 2, 2014abs.sagepub.comDownloaded from
4 American Behavioral Scientist
popularized this concept through an article in the Journal of Democracy titled
“Bowling Alone,” which he then expanded into a book by the same name. He focused
on the role of social capital in generating benefits beyond individuals at the neighbor-
hood and community level. In his earlier work on the differences between northern
and southern Italy (which he traced to levels of civic engagement and civil society),
Putnam (1993) defined social capital broadly as the features of social organizations,
such as networks, norms, and trust that facilitate action and cooperation for mutual
benefit.
There are multiple ways to try to measure social capital, and social scientists remain
divided on ways of capturing it through objective measures. One set of proxies builds
on the attitudinal and cognitive aspects of social capital. For example, surveys com-
monly measure general trust as an aspect of social capital by assessing the levels of
agreement with statements such as “Most people can be trusted” or “Most people are
honest” (Putnam, 2000, p. 91). Also, levels of trust can be measured in relation to
certain groups, such as local government officials, national government representa-
tives, first responders, neighbors, and relatives, such as trust that others will not go
egotistically (“Do you trust others not to take advantage of you?”) and trust in neigh-
bors (“What level of trust do you have in those who live near you?”; Nakagawa &
Shaw, 2004).
Another measurement approach looks instead at the behavioral manifestations of
social capital in daily life, asking questions about—among other topics—leaving
doors unlocked, the number of hours volunteered, membership in horizontal associa-
tions (such as homeowners’ associations, sports clubs, and NGOs), and the number of
names of known neighbors. For example, analysts ask respondents about their use of
free time (“How many times have you donated blood in the last month?”) and about
the depth of their social connections (“With how many friends and contacts do you
discuss your problems?”). The National Social Capital Benchmark Community Survey
from Harvard University (2000, 2006) is the largest and most commonly used survey
of social capital. It assesses individuals’ sense of belonging in community and friend
groups; participation in public meetings, political events, community projects; mem-
bership in religious, social, recreation, and NGOs; frequency of visiting with neigh-
bors and friends; and volunteering.
Beyond the divide between cognitive and behavioral approaches, many researchers
have begun trying to capture levels of social capital through experimental methods.
Some have undertaken laboratory experiments (Cardenas & Carpenter, 2008) whereas
others have undertaken experiments out in the field (Levitt & List, 2009). Field experi-
ments may take advantage of natural conditions (called natural experiments) or they
may actively divide subjects into control and experimental groups through field ran-
domized control trials. Laboratory experiments facilitate studying the role of particu-
lar measures of social capital in isolation. Such experiments include providing currency
or other material benefits to participants and having them play out classic rational-
choice scenarios such as the Prisoner’s Dilemma, Dictator Game, and Trust Game.
Findings from these experiments show that in the place of formal institutions, social
norms, and preferences manage behavior and that these informal institutions may
by guest on October 2, 2014abs.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Aldrich and Meyer 5
outperform formal rules and institutions (e.g., Ostrom, 1990). Rather than adopting
purely rational, self-centered behaviors, for example, many field experiment partici-
pants chose to treat their partners with altruism.
Researchers have conducted research on social capital in real disasters using a wide
variety of approaches including quantitative surveys, in-depth interviews, field obser-
vations, and statistical indicators from publicly available data. Based on evidence from
different disasters, three separate projects recently generated indices to quantify disas-
ter resilience, each of which included social capital (Cutter, Burton, & Emrich, 2010;
Peacock et al., 2010; Sherrieb, Norris, & Galea, 2010). All three included data on
participation in nonprofit, religious, and civic/political organizations, the number of
registered voters, and voter participation. Other factors included in the indices are
business and professional associations, owner-occupied units, census response rates,
recreational organizations, migration rates and creative class employment, population
residing in state in which they were born, ratio of two-parent households, and crime
rates. With so many potential indicators more research is needed to understand how to
weight these indicators within quantitative measures. While some researchers have
begun to embrace social capital in their research, much work is needed to fully under-
stand how social capital interacts with other forms of capital, how different forms of
social capital contribute to disaster resilience, and how well different preevent mea-
sures of social capital predict postdisaster recovery.
Types and Applications of Social Capital
Some scholars now separate social capital into three main types: bonding, bridging,
and linking (Aldrich, 2012a; Kawachi, Kim, Coutts, & Subramanian, 2004; Szreter &
Woolcock, 2004). Each type identifies variation in strength of relationships and com-
position of networks and thus different outcomes for individuals and communities.
Bonding social capital describes the connections among individuals who are emotion-
ally close, such as friends or family, and result in tight bonds to a particular group
(Adler & Kwon, 2002). Bonding social capital is commonly characterized by homoph-
ily (i.e., high levels of similarity) in demographic characteristics, attitudes, and avail-
able information and resources (McPherson, Smith-Lovin, & Cook, 2001; Mouw,
2006). The strong connection makes this type of social capital good for providing
social support and personal assistance, especially in times of need such as disaster
(Hurlbert et al., 2000).
In contrast, bridging social capital describes acquaintances or individuals loosely
connected that span social groups, such as class or race. These ties are more likely to
display demographic diversity and provide novel information and resources that can
assist individuals in advancing in society. The classic example comes from
Granovetter’s (1983) work on the strength of weak ties, in which bridging ties pro-
vided more employment opportunities than bonding ties. Bridging social capital often
comes from involvement in organizations including civic and political institutions,
parent–teacher associations, and sports and interest clubs along with educational and
religious groups (Small, 2010).
by guest on October 2, 2014abs.sagepub.comDownloaded from
6 American Behavioral Scientist
The third type of network connection is linking social capital, which connects regu-
lar citizens with those in power. Scholars have defined this type of network as embody-
ing norms of respect and networks of trusting relationships between people who are
interacting across explicit, formal, or institutionalized power or authority gradients in
society (Szreter & Woolcock, 2004). Many local residents in the coastal villages of
Tamil Nadu, India, for example, had never met a representative of their governments
at any level. But some had met the collector—a sort of ombudsman—and that connec-
tion allowed them to get on the map for disaster aid following the 2004 Indian Ocean
tsunami (Aldrich, 2012c).
Empirical Evidence of Social Capital in Disaster Settings
Disaster researchers have built up a strong body of evidence about the role of social
cohesion and networks during and after catastrophe. Disaster scholars have used social
capital to understand the trajectory of individuals (based on what resources are
accessed through social networks) as well as communities (based on levels of trust,
collective action, and other public goods). Social networks provide financial (e.g.,
loans and gifts for property repair) and nonfinancial resources (e.g., search and rescue,
debris removal, child care during recovery, emotional support, sheltering, and infor-
mation). Isolated individuals with few social ties are less likely to be rescued, seek
medical help, take preventative action such as evacuate, and receive assistance from
others, such as shelter (Dynes, 2005, 2006). In Klinenberg’s (2003) study of the 1995
Chicago heat wave, isolated, elderly individuals were the most likely to die and not be
found for days. Additionally, these deaths were more likely in a poor, African American
community that had less public organizational space and less social capital than an
equally poor, neighboring Hispanic community.
The first and most common form of social network available to disaster-affected
individuals is bonding social capital (Norris et al., 2002). Deeper reservoirs of bond-
ing social capital allow individuals to receive warnings, undertake disaster prepara-
tion, locate shelter and supplies, and obtain immediate aid and initial recovery
assistance (Hawkins & Maurer, 2010; Heller et al., 2005). In disasters, family ties are
central to resilience because kin commonly serve as the first providers of assistance
(Drabek & Boggs, 1968; Garrison & Sasser, 2009; Haines, Hurlbert, & Beggs, 1996;
Hurlbert et al., 2000). Individuals assume family members, especially immediate fam-
ily of parents/stepparents, children, and siblings, will support each other in disasters,
with 85% identifying at least one family member and 36% identifying only family
members among their social capital networks for disaster assistance (Meyer, 2013).
Bonding social capital can reduce individuals’ likelihood of seeking formal aid from
organizations during disasters (Beggs, Haines, & Hurlbert, 1996) and increase the
likelihood of emergent social action to respond to disaster victims’ needs (Shepherd &
Williams, 2014). For example, Tse, Wei, and Wang (2013) found that Chinese house-
holds with larger Spring Festival networks—a social network that meets for yearly
celebrations—increased the likelihood that the household would rebuild their home
after the 2008 earthquake.
by guest on October 2, 2014abs.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Aldrich and Meyer 7
Higher levels of bonding social capital can translate into greater levels of trust and
more widely shared norms among residents. Nakagawa and Shaw’s (2004) study of
the Gujarat and Kobe earthquakes uncovered that communities with high trust, norms,
participation, and networks were able to more quickly recover from disaster. Even
though the communities differed in cultural and economic characteristics, communi-
ties with higher social capital and community leadership showed the highest satisfac-
tion with community rebuilding and quickest recovery. Feelings of mutual trust and
dependence increased awareness of disaster management and volunteer opportunities
and responsibilities, which in turn support disaster preparedness (Hausman, Hanlon, &
Seals, 2007), collective response and recovery (Brunie, 2010), and adaptation and col-
lective decision making for risk and recovery (Adger, 2003).
Similarly, Chamlee-Wright and Storr (2009) followed the recovery of a low income,
Vietnamese immigrant community in New Orleans that was severely flooded during
Hurricane Katrina. The tight-knit Village de L’Est was able to return and rebuild more
efficiently than less damaged and richer neighborhoods based on both bonding social
capital and the role of the Catholic Church in the community. Particularly, the local
church was able to share goods that supported coordination in the community for
recovery and political action to protect the area from outside redevelopment and zon-
ing changes.
Although bonding social capital is the most commonly available social resource
available, research has shown that bridging ties also alter the recovery trajectory.
Bridging social capital has been shown to provide similar benefits in disaster contexts as
it does in daily life—opportunities and information to access novel resources that assist
in long-term recovery (Hawkins & Maurer, 2010). Ties to social organizations provide
both connection to an organization that can provide support through institutional chan-
nels (e.g., a church collecting money for a family in need) and potential informal ties to
individuals who may not be accessible through bonding social capital (e.g., friendships
developing between church members from different socioeconomic backgrounds). For
example, Haines, Hurlbert, and Beggs (1996) found that members of social groups
received more support following Hurricane Andrew. Bridging ties contributed to resil-
ience of the Mary Queen of Vietnam community through charitable action by local and
national organizations, which brought in external resources and commercial cooperation
between businesses and community members that provided resources and labor (Airriess,
Chia-Chen, Leong, Li, & Keith, 2008; Chamlee-Wright, 2006).
Other studies have confirmed the role of bridging connections. Pre–World War II
ties through voluntary associations and nonprofit groups provided strong resilience in
Japan following the massive destruction of the war. While many of that nation’s 47
prefectures struggled to rebuild schools, homes, and other institutions, communities
with higher levels of bridging connections did so more efficiently (Kage, 2011).
Aldrich (2012a) found that voter turnout and number of political gatherings at the
community level were better indicators of population growth after the 1923 Tokyo
earthquake than economic indicators, population density, or amount of damage.
Number of nongovernmental organizations, clubs, and social groups have also been
shown to positively correlate with postdisaster population recovery (Aldrich, 2012b).
by guest on October 2, 2014abs.sagepub.comDownloaded from
8 American Behavioral Scientist
Bonding and bridging social capital work in complementary but distinct ways during
and after crises, and communities regularly have more of one type than the other. Elliott
et al. (2010) compared disaster outcomes for residents of two communities in New
Orleans, the Lower Ninth Ward, a poor, majority African American community, and
Lakeview, an affluent, majority White community. They found that while Ninth Ward
residents relied on bonding social capital for informal support during Hurricane Katrina,
they received less support overall, including less sheltering assistance from social ties
and less contact with neighborhood ties (bridging social capital) in the year following the
event. The authors concluded that a lack of bridging social capital to people outside the
affected area and ties with individuals with more resources resulted in reduced resilience
for Ninth Ward residents compared with those in Lakeview. Hawkins and Maurer (2010)
used qualitative interviews with Hurricane Katrina survivors and found that while bond-
ing social capital from family and friends was important for immediate disaster needs,
bridging social capital allowed networks to gather information and supplies from other
races and economic strata. In contrast, Reininger et al. (2013) found that higher feeling
of trust and perceptions of fairness in the community (measures for bonding social capi-
tal) were related to increased household preparedness, whereas organizational member-
ship (a proxy for bridging social capital) had no effect.
While much research has investigated how predisaster levels of social capital affect
postdisaster recovery, disasters can affect social cohesion especially when people are
displaced or a majority of the community experiences losses. For example, Brouwer
and Nhassengo (2006) found a complicated relationship with trust and reciprocal rela-
tionships to disaster resilience. Residents of Mozambique villages with higher social
capital did provide more support following the 2000 floods to fellow villagers, but that
support was limited to small items, such as food and supplies. The large scale of the
disaster also reduced the number of residents involved in reciprocal sharing of farm
labor and supply relationships, diminishing the village’s overall level of social capital.
Tobin-Gurley, Peek, and Loomis (2010) found that single mothers, who are more
likely to rely on reciprocal favors in nondisaster settings, had difficulty recovering
when displaced away from their social networks after Hurricane Katrina. Ritchie
(2012) describes how the Exxon Valdez oil spill impacts and litigation required so
much time and effort from Cordova, Alaska, residents that social capital activities,
such as participation in public meetings and socializing with neighbors, declined.
While Takeda, Tamura, and Tatsuki (2003) found that survivors in Japan expressed
greater interest in civic activities and involvement following the earthquake, this find-
ing existed among those with fewer losses or who recovered more quickly. From their
research on technological disasters such as oil spills, Ritchie and Gill (2007) argued
that social capital provides the theoretical umbrella to organize the social effects of
these disasters such as declines in community cohesion, loss of trust in institutions,
and less participation in social activities.
Finally, social capital is commonly viewed as positively affecting disaster resil-
ience. Yet social cohesion—primarily bonding social capital—can also bring negative
consequences in disasters. As a public good, social capital can be used to resist various
disaster recovery needs. Following Hurricane Katrina, neighborhoods with higher
by guest on October 2, 2014abs.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Aldrich and Meyer 9
voter turnout before the storm were more likely to successfully resist the placement of
temporary trailer housing in their neighborhood (Aldrich & Crook, 2008). In Tamil
Nadu following the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, uur panchayat [caste councils] con-
trolling the aid distribution process left off dalits, Muslims, and widows from the lists
because they saw them as peripheral to the community (Aldrich, 2011). Decision mak-
ers need to recognize the potential “dark side” from strong in-group cohesion during
and after disasters.
Policy Recommendations
Given the importance of social capital in determining resilience to shocks, NGOs and
government agencies have adopted a number of policies and programs shown to
increase reservoirs of trust and deepen networks. The various methods use existing
networks and community activities as spaces for incorporating disaster issues and
resilience actions or create whole new networks and activities focused specifically on
disaster issues (Meyer, 2013). Some of these interventions include time banking, focus
groups, social events, and redesign of physical and architectural structures to maxi-
mize social interactions.
One proven way to increase levels of social capital in communities has come from
the practices of time banking and community currency (Lietaer, 2004). Both of these
systems provide incentives or rewards for those who volunteer; in exchange for an
hour of labor in a communal garden or at a school, for example, participants can
receive an hour of moving aid or currency (such as Ithaca Dollars) redeemable at local
merchants. By drawing out local residents who may otherwise not have volunteered
and then connecting them with local small-scale merchants this approach creates a
“virtuous cycle.” One study of 160 participants found both physical and mental health
improvement from involvement in a time banking program (Lasker et al., 2011).
Another study of community currency in a town in Japan found that “community cur-
rency involvement increases general trust, which demonstrates that it is possible to
institute government programs that create social capital” (Richey, 2007, p. 69). Several
disaster-affected communities including Onagawa, Japan, and Lyttleton, New Zealand,
have adopted community currency programs or time banking systems and have
claimed strong material and mental health benefits as a result (Aldrich site visit to
communities, 2013).
A second way to increase trust and social cohesion comes from focus group meet-
ings and social events; this approach includes general social activities such as parades,
fairs, and block parties along with moderator-led discussions of topics such as the
environment and school choice (Aldrich, 2010). Field experiments in Nicaragua and
South Africa have demonstrated that regular meetings of neighborhood-level groups
can create higher levels of trust not only in group participants but in society as a whole
(Brune & Bossert, 2009; Pronyk et al., 2008). One small town affected by a tornado
adopted various community volunteering projects such as a community garden and a
mentoring program along with children’s activities including local sports leagues and
after school programs (Meyer site visit, 2014). Similarly, the Neighborhood
by guest on October 2, 2014abs.sagepub.comDownloaded from
10 American Behavioral Scientist
Empowerment Network in San Francisco brings neighbors and stakeholders together
to develop plans and actions for disaster preparedness and response (http://www.
empowersf.org). Other programs, such as the Texas Target Cities initiative from Texas
A&M University, utilize academics’ expertise to engage community and organiza-
tional leaders in collaborative emergency planning activities. In Seattle, Emergency
Managers and the Department of Neighborhoods joined to create Community
Emergency Hubs in the existing community gardens as organizing spaces to provide
disaster information, food and water, and preparedness training to the local commu-
nity. In Wellington, New Zealand, the local government provides funding for social
events to increase social trust and cohesion.
A final way to increase social capital is through the deliberate and careful planning of
community layout and architectural structures. The physical layout of communities,
neighborhoods, and even housing complexes affect creation and maintenance of social
capital. For example, interaction can occur in areas where residents can meet and spend
time—however short—together. One scholar labeled these meeting areas as “Third
Places” because they are not residential locations, which are private, or work spaces,
where specific activities are required (Oldenburg, 1999). Coffee shops, bookstores, bars,
hair salons, public squares, and libraries serve as third places for social capital to be gener-
ated and regenerated. Following the Tohoku disaster in Japan, many NGOs have worked
to create spaces where displaced residents can socialize (e.g., http://www.ibasho.org).
Other environmental effects on social capital include incorporating spaces or activities
that encourage community members to participate in their maintenance. The classic
example is Ostrom’s (1990) common pool resources thesis, in which years of working
together to maintain a harbor created informal social mechanisms that prevented overhar-
vesting by any one member. Another example comes from Newman’s (1996) Defensible
Space approach to city planning in which urban communities are reorganized so that resi-
dents have control over the areas around their homes, including lobbies, streets, and
grounds. Such communities where residents feel connected to their space and to their
neighbors have lower rates of crime and higher levels of bridging social capital.
Conclusions
This article has sought to draw attention to an underutilized resource that strongly
influences resilience at the communal level, namely, social capital. Decision makers
continue to spend money on physical infrastructure and urge residents to prepare in
purely materialistic ways, for example, having 3 days of food and water. While these
preparations are important, creating strong ties with neighbors, knowing the name of
the block captain or local fire chief, and having experience working together with local
NGOs could prove equally—if not more—important in crisis, and with rising eco-
nomic inequality are vital to supporting vulnerable populations in disaster. Given that
social capital, like other forms of capital, can be generated or degraded, our focus as
individuals and as a nation should turn toward enhancing our social cohesion and
deepening trust in our communities. With the potential for bonding social capital to
reinforce patterns of discrimination, though, decision makers should invest in
by guest on October 2, 2014abs.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Aldrich and Meyer 11
programs that build bridges across groups in communities and up to those in authority
(Aldrich & Sawada 2014). By seeking to build up connections within and among resi-
dents, such preparation will provide neighborhoods and communities with critical
resilience in future crises.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of
this article.
References
Adger, W. N. (2003). Social capital, collective action, and adaptation to climate change.
Economic Geography, 79, 387-404. doi:10.1111/j.1944-8287.2003.tb00220.x
Adger, W. N., Hughes, T. P., Folke, C., Carpenter, S. R., & Rockstrom, J. (2005). Social-
ecological resilience to coastal disasters. Science, 309, 1036-1039. doi:10.1126/sci-
ence.1112122
Adler, P. S., & Kwon, S.-W. (2002). Social capital: Prospects for a new concept. Academy of
management review, 27(1), 17-40.
Airriess, C. A., Chia-Chen, C. A., Leong, K. J., Li, W., & Keith, V. M. (2008). Church-based
social capital, networks, and geographical scale, Katrina evacuation, relocation, and
recovery in a New Orleans Vietnamese American community. Geoforum, 39, 1333-1346.
doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2007.11.003
Aldrich, D. P. (2010). Fixing recovery, social capital in post-crisis resilience. Journal of
Homeland Security, 6, 1-10.
Aldrich, D. P. (2011). The externalities of strong social capital, post-tsunami recovery in
Southeast India. Journal of Civil Society, 7, 81-99. doi:10.1080/17448689.2011.553441
Aldrich, D. P. (2012a). Social, not physical, infrastructure: The critical role of civil society in
disaster recovery. Disasters, 36, 398-419.
Aldrich, D. P. (2012b). The power of people: Social capital’s role in recovery from the 1995
Kobe earthquake. Natural Hazards, 56, 595-561.
Aldrich, D. P. (2012c). Building resilience: Social capital in post-disaster recovery. Chicago,
IL: University of Chicago Press.
Aldrich, D. P., & Crook, K. (2008). Strong civil society as a double-edged sword, sit-
ing trailers in post-Katrina New Orleans. Political Research Quarterly, 61, 379-389.
doi:10.1177/1065912907312983
Aldrich, D. P., & Sawada, Y. (2014, April). The physical and social determinants of mortality
in the 3.11 tsunami. Retrieved from http://www.purdue.edu/discoverypark/climate/assets/
pdfs/Aldrich%20Sawada%20WP%20April%202014.pdf
Australian Red Cross. (2012, September 20). Relationships matter, the application of social
capital to disaster resilience: National disaster resilience roundtable report. Melbourne,
Australia: Author. Retrieved from http://www.redcross.org.au/files/12-011_RED_
Roundtable_Report_v3-F-web.pdf
by guest on October 2, 2014abs.sagepub.comDownloaded from
12 American Behavioral Scientist
Beggs, J. J., Haines, V., & Hurlbert, J. S. (1996). The effects of personal network and local com-
munity contexts on the receipt of formal aid during disaster recovery. International Journal
of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 14, 57-78.
Bonanno, G. A. (2004). Loss, trauma, and human resilience: Have we underestimated the human
capacity to thrive after extremely aversive events? American Psychologist, 59(1), 20-28.
Bourdieu, P. (1985). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and
research for the sociology of education (pp. 241-258). New York, NY: Greenwood.
Brouwer, R., & Nhassengo, J. (2006). About bridges and bonds: Community responses to the
2000 floods in Mabalane District, Mozambique. Disasters, 30, 234-255. doi:10.1111/
j.0361-3666.2006.00317.x
Brune, N. E., & Bossert, T. (2009). Building social capital in post-conflict communities: Evidence
from Nicaragua. Social Science & Medicine, 68, 885-893. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.
2008.12.024
Bruneau, M., Chang, S. E., Eguchi, R. T., Lee, G. C., O’Rourke, T. D., Reinhorn, A. M., . . .von
Winterfeldt, D. (2003). A framework to quantitatively assess and enhance the seismic resil-
ience of communities. Earthquake Spectra, 19, 733-752. doi:10.1193/1.1623497
Brunie, A. (2010). Household awareness of what to do in a disaster: A social capital approach.
International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 28, 59-86.
Cardenas, J. C., & Carpenter, J. (2008). Behavioural development economics: Lessons
from field labs in the developing world. Journal of Development Studies, 44, 337-364.
doi:10.1080/00220380701848327
Chamlee-Wright, E. (2006, August). After the storm: Finding success in the wake of Hurricane
Katrina. Arlington, VA: Mercatus Center at George Mason University. Retrieved from
mercatus.org/publication/after-storm-finding-success-wake-hurricane-katrina
Chamlee-Wright, E., & Storr, V. H. (2009). Club goods and post-disaster community return.
Rationality and Society, 21, 429-458. doi:10.1177/1043463109337097
Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of
Sociology, 94, S95-S120.
Crossett, K. M., Culliton, T. J., Wiley, P. C., & Goodspeed, T. R. (2004). Population trends
along the coastal United States, 1980-2008. Washington, DC: National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration.
Cutter, S. L., Burton, C., & Emrich, C. (2010). Disaster resilience indicators for benchmarking
baseline conditions. Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, 7, 1-22.
doi:10.2202/1547-7355.1732
Drabek, T. E., & Boggs, K. S. (1968). Families in Disaster: Reactions and Relatives. Journal of
Marriage and Family, 30(3), 443-451. doi:10.2307/349914
Dynes, R. (2005). Community social capital as the primary basis for resilience. Newark:
University of Delaware, Disaster Resource Center.
Dynes, R. (2006). Social capital: Dealing with community emergencies. Homeland Security
Affairs, 2(2), 1-26.
Elliott, J., Haney, T., & Sams-Abiodun, P. (2010). Limits to social capital: Comparing network
assistance in two New Orleans neighbors devastated by Hurricane Katrina. Sociological
Quarterly, 51, 624-648.
FEMA. (2010). National disaster recovery framework. Washington, DC: Federal Emergency
Management Agency.
FEMA. (2011). A whole community approach to emergency management: Principles, themes,
and pathways for action. Washington, DC: Federal Emergency Management Agency.
by guest on October 2, 2014abs.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Aldrich and Meyer 13
Field, C. B., Mortsch, L. D., Brklacich, M., Forbes, D. L., Kovacs, P., Patz, J. A., . . .Scott, M. J.
(2007). North America. In M. L. Parry, O. F. Canziani, J. P. Palutikof, P. J. van der Linden,
& C. E. Hanson (Eds.), Climate change 2007: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability (pp.
617-652). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Fischer, H. W. (2008). Response to disaster: Fact versus fiction and its perpetuation (3rd ed.).
Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America.
Folke, C. (2006). Resilience: The emergence of a perspective for social–ecological systems anal-
yses. Global Environmental Change, 16, 253-267. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.04.002
Fritz, C. E. (1961). Disaster. In R. K. Merton & R. A. Nisbet (Eds.), Contemporary social prob-
lems (pp. 651-394). New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace & World.
Garrison, M. E. B., & Sasser, D. D. (2009). Families and disasters: Making meaning out of
adversity. In K. E. Cherry (Ed.), Lifespan perspectives on natural disasters: Coping with
Katrina, Rita, and other storms (pp. 113-130). New York, NY: Springer.
Granovetter, M. S. (1983). The strength of weak ties: A network theory revisited. Sociological
Theory, 1(1), 201-233.
Haines, V. A., Hurlbert, J. S., & Beggs, J. J. (1996). Exploring the determinants of support
provision: Provider characteristics, personal networks, community contexts, and support
following life events. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 37(3), 252-264.
Hanifan, L. J. (1916). The rural school community center. Annals of the American Academy of
Political and Social Science, 67, 130-138.
Hausman, A. J., Hanlon, A., & Seals, B. (2007). Social capital as a mediating factor in emer-
gency preparedness and concerns about terrorism. Journal of Community Psychology, 35,
1073-1083. doi:10.1002/jcop.20203
Hawkins, R. L., & Maurer, K. (2010). Bonding, bridging and linking: How social capital oper-
ated in New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina. British Journal of Social Work, 40,
1777-1793. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcp087
Healy, A., & Malhotra, N. (2009). Myopic voters and natural disaster policy. American Political
Science Review, 103, 387-406. doi:10.1017/S0003055409990104
Heller, K., Alexander, D. B., Gatz, M., Knight, B. G., & Rose, T. (2005). Social and personal
factors as predictors of earthquake preparation: The role of support provision, network dis-
cussion, negative affect, age, and education. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35(2),
399-422. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2005.tb02127
Horwich, G. (2000). Economic lessons of the Kobe earthquake. Economic Development and
Cultural Change, 48, 521-542.
Hurlbert, J., Haines, V. A., & Beggs, J. (2000). Core networks and tie activation: What kinds
of routine networks allocated resources in nonroutine situations? American Sociological
Review, 65, 598-618.
Kage, R. (2011). Civic engagement in postwar japan: The revival of a defeated society.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kaniasty, K., & Norris, F. H. (1993). A test of the social support deterioration model in the
context of natural disaster. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(3), 395-408.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.64.3.395
Kawachi, I., Kim, D., Coutts, A., & Subramanian, S. V. (2004). Commentary: Reconciling
the three accounts of social capital. International Journal of Epidemiology, 33, 682-690.
doi:10.1093/ije/dyh177
Klinenberg, E. (2003). Heat wave: A social autopsy of disaster in Chicago. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
by guest on October 2, 2014abs.sagepub.comDownloaded from
14 American Behavioral Scientist
Lasker, J., Collom, E., Bealer, T., Niclaus, E., Keefe, J. Y., Kratzer, Z., . . .Perlow, K. (2011).
Time banking and health: The role of a community currency organization in enhancing
well-being. Health Promotion Practice, 12, 102-115.
Levitt, S., & List, J. (2009). Field experiments in economics: The past, the present, the future.
European Economic Review, 53, 1-18. doi:10.1016/j.euroecorev.2008.12.001
Lietaer, B. (2004). Complementary currencies in Japan today: History, originality and rele-
vance. International Journal of Community Currency Research, 8, 1-23.
Lin, N. (1999a). Social networks and status attainment. Annual Review of Sociology, 25, 467-
487. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.25.1.467
Lin, N. (1999b). Building a network theory of social capital. Connections, 22(1), 28-51.
Lin, N. (2001). Social capital: A theory of social structure and action. Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press.
Manyena, S. B. (2006). The concept of resilience revisited. Disasters, 30, 434-450. doi:10.1111/
j.0361-3666.2006.00331.x
Masten, A. S. (2001). Ordinary magic: Resilience processes in development. American
Psychologist, 56(3), 227-238.
McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a Feather: Homophily in Social
Networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27(1), 415-444. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.415
Meyer, M. A. (2013). Social capital and collective efficacy for disaster resilience: Connecting
individuals with communities and vulnerability with resilience in hurricane-prone communi-
ties in Florida (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Colorado State University, Fort Collins.
Mileti, D. (1999). Disasters by design: A reassessment of natural hazards in the U.S. Washington,
DC: Joseph Henry Press.
Mouw, T. (2006). Estimating the causal effect of social capital: A review of recent research.
Annual Review of Sociology, 32, 79-102. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.32.061604.123150
National Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey (2000). Retrieved from http://www.
ropercenter.uconn.edu/data_access/data/datasets/social_capital_community_survey.html
National Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey (2006). Retrieved from http://www.
ropercenter.uconn.edu/data_access/data/datasets/social_capital_community_survey_2006.html
Nakagawa, Y., & Shaw, R. (2004). Social capital: A missing link to disaster recovery.
International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 22, 5-34.
Nelson, D. R., Adger, W. N., & Brown, K. (2007). Adaptation to environmental change:
Contributions of a resilience framework. Annual Review of Environment and Resources,
32, 395-419. doi:10.1146/annurev.energy.32.051807.090348
Newman, O. (1996). Creating defensible space. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development.
NHSS. (2009). Health security strategy of the United States of America. Washington, DC: US
Department of Health and Human Services.
Norris, F. H., Friedman, M. J., Watson, P. J., Byrne, C. M., Diaz, E., & Kaniasty, K. (2002).
60,000 disaster victims speak: Part I. An empirical review of the empirical literature, 1981-
2001. Psychiatry, 65, 207-239. doi:10.1521/psyc.65.3.207.20173
Norris, F. H., Stevens, S., Pfefferbaum, B., Wyche, K., & Pfefferbaum, R. (2008). Community
resilience as a metaphor, theory, set of capacities, and strategy for disaster readiness.
American Journal of Community Psychology, 41, 127-150. doi:10.1007/s10464-007-9156-6
Oldenburg, R. (1999). The great good place: Cafes, coffee shops, bookstores, bars, hair salons,
and other hangouts at the heart of a community (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: Marlowe.
Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action.
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
by guest on October 2, 2014abs.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Aldrich and Meyer 15
Peacock, W. G., Brody, S. D., Seitz, W. A., Merrell, W. J., Vedlitz, A., Zahran, S., . . .Sticknew,
R. R. (2010). Advancing the resilience of coastal localities: Developing, implementing,
and sustaining the use of coastal resilience indicators. Washington, DC: Coastal Services
Center and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Portes, A. (1998). Social capital: Its origins and applications in modern sociology. Annual
Review of Sociology, 24, 1-24. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.24.1.1
Pronyk, P. M., Harpham, T., Busza, J., Phetla, G., Morison, L. A., Hargreaves, J. R., . . .Porter, J.
D. (2008). Can social capital be intentionally generated? A randomized trial from rural South
Africa. Social Science & Medicine, 67, 1559-1570. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.07.022
Putnam, R. (1993). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Putnam, R. (1995). Bowling alone. Journal of Democracy, 6(1), 65-78.
Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New
York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
Quarantelli, E. L., & Dynes, R. R. (1977). Response to social crisis and disaster. Annual Review
of Sociology, 3, 23-49. doi:10.2307/2945929
Reininger, B., Rahbar, M., Lee, M., Chen, Z., Alam, S., Pope, J., & Adams, B. (2013). Social
capital and disaster preparedness among low income Mexican Americans in a disaster
prone area. Social Science & Medicine, 83, 50-60. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.01.037
Richey, S. (2007). Manufacturing trust: Community currencies and the creation of social capi-
tal. Political Behavior, 29, 69-88. doi:10.1007/s11109-007-9028-7
Ritchie, L. A., & Gill, D. A. (2007). Social capital theory as an integrating theoretical
framework in technological disaster research. Sociological Spectrum, 27, 103-129.
doi:10.1080/02732170601001037
Ritchie, L. A. (2012). Individual stress, collective trauma, and social capital in the wake of
Exxon Valdez Oil Spill. Sociological Inquiry, 82(2), 187-211.
Ritchie, L. A. (n. d.). Social capital and disasters: A review of literature. Working paper.
Shaw, R., & Goda, K. (2004). From disaster to sustainable civil society, the Kobe experience.
Disasters, 28, 16-40.
Shepherd, D. A., & Williams, T. A. (2014). Local venturing as compassion organizing in the
aftermath of a natural disaster: The role of localness and community in reducing suffering.
Journal of Management Studies, 51, 952-994. doi:10.1111/joms.12084
Sherrieb, K., Norris, F. H., & Galea, S. (2010). Measuring capacities for community resilience.
Social Indicators Research, 99, 227-247. doi:10.1007/s11205-010-9576-9
Small, M. L. (2010). Unanticipated gains: Origins of network inequality in everyday life. New
York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Szreter, S., & Woolcock, M. (2004). Health by association? Social capital, social theory, and
the political economy of public health. International Journal of Epidemiology, 33, 650-667.
doi:10.1093/ije/dyh013
Takeda, J., Tamura, K., & Tatsuki, S. (2003). Life recovery of 1995 Kobe earthquake survi-
vors in Nishinomiya City: A total-quality-management-based assessment of disadvantaged
populations. Natural Hazards, 29(3), 567-585.
Tobin-Gurley, J., Peek, L., & Loomis, J. (2010). Displaced single mothers in the aftermath of
Hurricane Katrina: Resource needs and resource acquisition. International Journal of Mass
Emergencies and Disasters, 28, 170-206.
Tse, C. W., Wei, J., & Wang, Y. (2013). Social capital and disaster recovery: Evidence from
Sichuan earthquake in 2008. Washington, DC: Center for Global Development.
by guest on October 2, 2014abs.sagepub.comDownloaded from
16 American Behavioral Scientist
UNISDR. (2005). Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-2015: Building the resilience of nations
and communities to disasters. Washington, DC: United Nations International Strategy for
Disaster Reduction.
UNISDR. (2012). Making cities resilient. Washington, DC: United Nations International
Strategy for Disaster Reduction.
Wisner, B. (2003). Disaster risk reduction in megacities: Making the most of human and social
capital. In A. Kreimer, M. Arnold, & A. Carlin (Eds.), Building safer cities: The future of
disaster risk (pp. 181-196). Washington, DC: World Bank.
Author Biographies
Daniel P. Aldrich received his PhD and MA in political science from Harvard University, an
MA from the University of California at Berkeley, and his BA from the University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill. He has authored and/or edited three books (Site Flights, Cornell
University Press; Building Resilience, University of Chicago Press; and Resilience and
Recovery, Springer) along with more than 25 peer-reviewed articles in journals such as the
British Journal of Political Science, Public Administration Review, and Perspectives on Politics
along with multiple OpEds in the New York Times, CNN, and the Asahi Shinbun. His main areas
of interest involve social cohesion, controversial facilities, and disaster recovery.
Michelle A. Meyer, PhD, is an assistant professor of Sociology at Louisiana State University.
She completed a post-doc at the Hazard Reduction and Recovery Center at Texas A&M
University and her PhD in sociology at Colorado State University where her dissertation
research focused on the role of social capital and collective efficacy in individual and commu-
nity resilience and social vulnerability in hurricane-prone communities. She has worked on a
variety of projects related to disasters and environmental sociology including a NSF grant com-
paring rural disaster recovery after a technological and a natural disaster; assessing hazard miti-
gation in Atlantic and Gulf Coast jurisdictions; analyzing the inclusion of disability in U.S.
disaster plans; among many others. Her research interests include disaster resilience and mitiga-
tion, climate change displacement, environmental sociology and community sustainability, and
the interplay between environmental conditions and social vulnerability.
by guest on October 2, 2014abs.sagepub.comDownloaded from
