In: Social Capital: Theory, Measurement and Outcomes ISBN: 978-1-62417-822-1

Editor: C. Douglas Johnson © 2013 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

No part of this digital document may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted commercially
in any form or by any means. The publisher has taken reasonable care in the preparation of this digital
document, but makes no expressed or implied warranty of any kind and assumes no responsibility for any
errors or omissions. No liability is assumed for incidental or consequential damages in connection with or
arising out of information contained herein. This digital document is sold with the clear understanding that
the publisher is not engaged in rendering legal, medical or any other professional services.

Chapter 6

WHEN DISASTER STRIKES …

HOW COMMUNITIES COPE AND ADAPT:
A SOCIAL CAPITAL PERSPECTIVE

Lisa J. Wood, Bryan J. Boruff and Helen M. Smith

The University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA, Australia

ABSTRACT
Human beings have had to co-exist with natural disasters and environmental
calamity since the dawn of time, and our vulnerability to disasters is potentially increased
in the 21st century as we contend with exponential population growth and the volatilities
of climate change. When a disaster strikes, a community has no choice but to respond and
cope with the event.
But why is it that some communities cope and adapt better than others in the face of
adversity? Underlying a well-integrated, resilient community is social capital, which can
play an important role in enabling communities to work together to recover from a
disaster. Social capital also provides a useful framework for assessing a community’s
mechanisms for preventing or preparing for disasters before they occur. The concept of
social capital has begun to appear in some of the disaster and hazard management
literature, but has most often been applied to disaster recovery. Far less researched is the
role that social capital can play earlier in disaster prevention and preparation and in
building community resilience. This chapter explores the role of social capital across the
disaster management cycle, which encompasses disaster response, recovery,
preparedness, prevention and mitigation.
The chapter takes a multi-disciplinary perspective, as the capacity of communities to
cope and respond to disaster is relevant to many domains, including government, policy
makers, public health, community development, hazard management, human geography
and environmental sustainability. Viewing social capital through a disasters lens is also of
relevance to social capital scholarship more broadly, as it yields a wealth of examples of
different types and facets of social capital in action.
We have drawn on case studies and examples from around the world and from our
own research to illustrate what it means in practice for communities to harness social


E-mail: lisa.wood@uwa.edu.au
144 Lisa J. Wood, Bryan J. Boruff and Helen M. Smith

capital in the face of disaster. Finally, the chapter proposes an applied social capital
framework for building healthy resilient communities that are able to better cope and
respond if disaster does strike.

Keywords: Disaster management cycle, social capital, resilient communities, natural disasters

INTRODUCTION
Human civilisation has always had to contend with natural disasters, but the inherent
risks of community exposure to environmental calamity and hazards have increased with
population growth, and exacerbated by climate changes. Cyclones, bushfires, floods and
heatwaves are among recent and increasingly frequent global examples. The global death toll
from natural disasters is also increasing, with data from the International Emergency Disaster
Database [1] indicating that 3.5 million deaths were attributable to natural disasters between
1996 and 2006; as compared to 15 million during the whole second millennium [1].
Whilst the capacity of communities to collectively respond to the threat or occurrence of
disasters seems to intuitively align with notions of social capital, there has been relatively
sparse exploration of these synergies in the broad array of social capital literature to date.
Exceptions to this are found primarily in literature from the fields of disaster/hazard
management [2, 3], human geography [4], history [5] and social work [6]. The literature on
social capital and health is now vast, but is oddly silent concerning the role of social capital in
a disaster context. This is somewhat surprising given social capital has now been examined in
relation to outcomes as diverse as HIV [7], mortality [8]; mental health [9] and teenage
pregnancy [10]. There is also a natural but relatively unobserved congruence between the
consequences of disasters, and current public health priorities pertaining to vulnerable
populations and social determinants of health. By contrast, there is an emerging literature
around the community implications of other hazard related phenomena such as climate
change [11, 12].
This chapter seeks to fill a void in the current social capital literature by drawing together
relevant theory, conceptual models and research to explore the role of social capital in
disaster management, and considers how resilient communities use social capital to cope with
disasters and adapt to allay future calamity. Whilst there is some research and policy
discourse examining social capital in a hazards context, focus is typically situated in the post
disaster period, where high levels of social capital help bring communities together to respond
to, and recover from, extreme natural events. Social capital in this context, however, is most
often taken as an observed phenomenon occurring in response to a stressor (disaster), and is
far less considered in the planning or preventative stages before a disaster occurs.
More broadly, the chapter also seeks to demonstrate how the rubric of ‘disaster’ provides
a useful lens through which to progress our understanding of the way in which the ‘finer
grain’ elements and different types of social capital are enacted, and how this may vary for
different circumstances, outcomes, and social or geographical contexts. Despite the
abundance of literature associating social capital with a diversity of outcomes, the
mechanisms through which this occurs are often not clear. For example, social capital has
been associated with less violent crime [13], and better self-reported health [14] and improved
educational outcome [15], but much of the research is epidemiological or cross-sectional and
 When Disaster Strikes … How Communities Cope and Adapt 145

the pathways are not well delineated or understood. Taking the case of mental health, for
example, is it social capital in general or specific aspects of social capital (e.g., trust, social
norms) that are most pertinent? Or, is it the type of social capital that matters more (e.g.,
bonding, bridging or linking) [16]? And are the causal pathways direct or mediated through
other factors? Within the disaster-related literature, greater progress seems to have been made
in pursuing answers to some of these questions, and as such offers some insights relevant to
social capital scholarship more broadly.
Woven into the chapter are a number of examples and case studies to illustrate how social
capital may explain why some communities cope and adapt better than others in the face of
adversity or disaster, as well as the mechanisms that can be harnessed by communities to
prepare for and deal with such events. To date, the social capital and disasters literature has
predominately focused on the more prominent disasters including the 1995 Kobe earthquake
in Japan [17] and the impact of Hurricane Katrina on New Orleans in 2005 [6, 18, 19]. Indeed
Hurricane Katrina has spawned quite a number of papers specifically framed around social
capital [6, 18-20], as well as post-Hurricane Katrina analyses through the lens of other
sociological concepts such as urban resilience [21]; embeddedness [22] and sense of place
[23].
Whilst high profile disasters provide considerable insight into the pathways for, and use
of social capital, they may only be exemplar of highly disastrous events in large urban
settings. Therefore, merit exists in extending such enquiry to consider how social capital
manifests itself in the face of other types of disasters, other cultural or regional settings, and
in disasters of different magnitudes. We have sought to do this through our canvassing of the
literature across a range of disciplines, and draw also on recent examples pertaining to the
long-term recovery of two Western Australian communities: Exmouth 1 and Moora, 2 the
former devastated by one of the largest cyclones to ever hit the state, the later devastated by
flood. Our research in these two towns3 provides examples of how social capital was used
during the recovery process (in contexts very different from Kobe and New Orleans - i.e.,
small regional towns), and also of how each community has used, or not used social capital to
prepare for future events.
Applying a social capital lens to how individuals and communities deal with disasters
provides useful insight into the ways in which different types of social capital come into play,
and result in both positive and negative outcomes. In the case of recovery from Hurricane

1
Exmouth is small town of around 2060 residents [24] situated some 1270 kilometres north of Perth, Western
Australia. Exmouth is located on the tip of the Pilbara coast, one of the most cyclone-prone parts of the
Australian coast. It experiences cyclones of varying sizes on an annual basis; - Cyclone Vance in 1999 was the
most devastating of these, and was one of the biggest cyclones with the highest wind speeds (267km/h) ever
recorded in Australia.
2
Moora is a regional centre, with approximately 2552 residents [24] located in the Moore River Catchment, 200
kilometres Northeast of Perth, Western Australia. Established along the river as a source of water for steam
engines connecting Perth to the state’s agricultural lands, the town claims a rich history of flooding dating as
far back as 1836. Severe flooding occurred in March 1999, causing significant devastation to the town.
3
The aim of this research was to examine the long term recovery from disaster of two small rural communities in
Western Australia to understand the factors contributing to differential rates of recovery. The research entailed
face-to-face interviews with community leaders and a survey of residents. The research investigated the types,
scale and roles of organisations involved in the recovery process, which organisations were perceived to have
the greatest influence on the recovery process at the community and household level; and what organisational
actions and individual factors had the greatest influence on household recovery. Results provided valuable
insight into the social networks and social capital drawn upon during the recovery process of each community.
In various places in this chapter, quotes from some of the interviews are used to illustrate certain concepts.
146 Lisa J. Wood, Bryan J. Boruff and Helen M. Smith

Katrina for example, Hawkins [6] observes that different types of ties played different roles.
Bonding social capital in the form of close ties were observed to be particularly important in
terms of initial support during and following the hurricane, whilst bridging and linking social
capital played an important role in terms of “pathways to longer term survival and wider
neighbourhood and community revitalization” [6, p 1777]. Hurricane Katrina also presents a
number of examples of how poor stocks of social capital in some communities, coupled with
a lack of understanding by the authorities of existing social relationship ties, led to a very
slow or non-existent recovery process.
In this chapter, the role social capital takes in the various stages a community experiences
pre- and post-disaster will be explored, drawing on our own empirical research, as well as
published literature and various international examples. Each stage of the disaster
management cycle will be used to unpack how social capital comes into play, and how it can
help communities absorb and rebound from a catastrophic event and build future resilience.
We also examine how the absence of social capital can adversely affect outcomes at each
stage of the disaster management cycle. We conclude the chapter with some conceptual
models we have developed to capture fundamental social capital elements that contribute to a
disaster resilient community.

‘WHEN WE SAY SOCIAL CAPITAL WE MEAN…’

No social capital chapter or article is complete without explicating the definitional stance
it takes on social capital. From the array of definitions that abound, there are three that
resonate particularly with the focus of this chapter:

 “Networks together with shared norms, values and understandings that facilitate
cooperation within or among groups” [25, p 41];
 “Connections among individuals, social networks and the norms of reciprocity and
trustworthiness that arise from them. “[16, p 19]; and
 “the stock of active connections among people: the trust, mutual understanding, and
shared values and behaviours that bind the members of human networks and
communities and make cooperative action possible” [26, p 4]

The fact that disasters can simultaneously and profoundly impact both the individual and
the community as a whole, is part of what renders social capital a highly pertinent construct
for the study of hazards. Indeed one of the unique conceptual attributes of social capital is
said to be its ability to bridge the theoretical gaps between individual and community and
micro and macro perspectives [6, 27]. This is encapsulated well by Elliott and Pais [28],

“people respond to disasters not as isolated individuals but as members of overlapping

forms of social affiliation, which interpret, affirm and support particular definitions and
responses to the situation” (p 300).

As articulated by Sheill and Hawe, when concerned with social systems such as
communities, the whole is not, and differs from, the sum of the individual parts [29]. Thus,
measurement of social capital at the ecological level is said to capture something over and
 When Disaster Strikes … How Communities Cope and Adapt 147

above the measurement of individual social connections [14]. Nonetheless, one of the
paradoxes of social capital is that the benefits that exist at a collective community or group
level can accrue also to individuals [30]. Moreover, individuals can draw or benefit from the
social capital that exists [31], even if they themselves have not individually contributed to it.
In the 1995 Chicago heat-wave for example, mortality was found to be much higher among
socially isolated elderly residents living in more disconnected communities [32]. Conversely,
both individuals and the community can suffer the adverse effects of living in a community
devoid of social capital, irrespective of stocks of individual resources [14]. Within the
conceptual rubric of social capital, there is increasing recognition of the differing forms it can
take. The distinctions between bonding, bridging and linking social capital (see Figure 1) are
particularly relevant when considering how individuals and communities deal with disasters
and adversity. For instance, Putnam suggests that bonding social capital is particularly good
for mobilizing solidarity and fostering reciprocity, whilst the networks afforded through
bridging social capital are better for diffusion of information [16]. Thus bonding social capital
is evident for example in neighbours helping one another when homes have been damaged by
a fire or storm, whilst the ties of bridging social capital can help in warning dissemination by
‘spreading the word’ via people’s affiliations with different networks within a community.
Linking social capital is of a more vertical or distal nature and facilitates access to external
people or organisations with resources, influence or authority – in the context of disasters,
‘having connections’ can impact both on individual and community level recovery – in the
2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami for example, villages with greater links to outside organisations
were observed to receive aid and assistance more quickly and to have had better post-disaster
recovery [33]. In the context of disasters, social relationships and bonding networks have
even been shown to positively impact survival rates.

Figure 1. Types of social capital.

148 Lisa J. Wood, Bryan J. Boruff and Helen M. Smith

For example, in a 1980 Italian earthquake, individuals living alone were less likely to be
rescued, and experienced a death rate 2.4 times higher than people living in a household with
one or more other people [38]. Similarly, socially connected individuals were less likely to
die in an analysis of mortality from the 1995 Chicago heat wave [32]. More recently, bonding
social capital was evident in the flurry of individuals coming to the aid of neighbours in the
aftermath of Hurricane Katrina [6]. However, it is also contended that although some of the
communities affected by Hurricane Katrina had strong bonding social capital, they lacked
bridging and linking relationship at the societal and institutional levels [6, 39]. In the
aftermath of the 1995 Kobe earthquake in Japan, the neighbourhood of Mano witnessed a
tremendous effort by the community and local companies to extinguish resulting fires.
Residents rallied together from all levels of society, to save local businesses and houses,
and managed to salvage a lot of their local area from damage. This was in visible contrast to
the adjoining Chitose neighbourhood, where almost all of it was destroyed by fire. The
contrasting experience of these two neighbourhoods testifies to the value of strong bridging
capital, whereby businesses, companies and residents engaged in collective action to try and
minimise the devastation [3, 17].

‘When We Say Disaster We Mean...’

To understand ‘disaster’, it is important to first understand how a disaster is manifested.

A disaster occurs when a hazard (Figure 2) comes in contact with, and impacts a human
population [40]. Natural hazards refer in essence to naturally occurring processes and events
that have the potential to threaten people and the things they value [41]. Hazards are
commonly measured in terms of frequency, duration and intensity [42]; however, a hazard’s
impact on humans is not straightforward, controlled by various social, economic and political
processes.

Figure 2. Variety and types of disasters (modified from EM-DAT 2010 [1]).
 When Disaster Strikes … How Communities Cope and Adapt 149

A range of naturally occurring hazards exist, generally classified by the Centre for
Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters as Geophysical (earthquakes, volcanoes and dry
mass movement), Meteorological (storms), Hydrological (i.e., flooding and wet mass
movement), Climatological (extreme temperatures drought and wildfire) and Biological
(epidemics, insect infestations and animal stampedes) [1]. While our focus in this chapter is
primarily on natural disasters, hazards can also be Human-Induced, such as a toxic chemical
release or train derailment. Disasters are also classified as Complex, which connotes a
coupled natural-human induced emergency such as the recent tsunami induced fallout from
the Fukushima nuclear reactor in Japan in 2011. Historically, it has been argued that greater
attention has been given to the physical precipitants and consequences of hazards, instead of
the human dimension of these events [43]. This has translated into a reliance on structural
protective measures (such as fire breaks or banks to prevent flooding) for prevention; warning
systems to mitigate impact; and relief efforts to ease recovery [43]. There is growing
recognition however, of the need to build underlying “community or social resilience and
adaptive capacity so that communities can withstand hazard impacts and recover through self-
organising, social learning and adaptive capacities” [43, p 1]. Of particular interest to this
chapter is the role social capital can play in fostering community capacity to respond to and
recover from a disastrous event once it has occurred, or ideally, to prevent or avoid its
occurrence altogether. To help frame this inquiry we draw upon the ‘disaster management
cycle’; a model first coined by the State Governors’ Association US in 1978 to promote a
comprehensive management approach [44] to disasters. It incorporates the phases of
Response, Recovery, Preparedness/Mitigation and Prevention (originally PPRR) and has
subsequently become a central theme in hazard management plans the world over.

COPING WITH DISASTERS:

THE DISASTER MANAGEMENT CYCLE
The ‘disaster management cycle’ (Figure 3) describes the process by which individuals,
communities and organizations prepare for, respond to and recover from extreme events. A
disaster event occurs when a hazard, defined as a risk to the community, activates and
adversely affects the community, overwhelms its local capacity and initiates the call for
external assistance [45].
Conceptualisations of the disaster management cycle vary in the ‘starting point’, and in
some respects this is arbitrary because of the cyclical nature of the concept. While prevention
is often used as the starting point in disaster management planning, for the purposes of this
section, we commence with the incidence of disaster response as our starting point, as this is
where more of the social capital application has occurred to date.
As depicted in Figure 3, there are four main stages: Response begins directly after a
disaster, identified by a focus on tasks such as search and rescue, provision of medical
attention and construction of temporary housing. Following the response phase, recovery
begins when individuals, communities and organisations start the rebuilding process. Ideally,
reconstruction involves measures that will thwart the impact of future events (i.e., prevention
and mitigation) including, for example, the implementation of hazard resistant building codes
and appropriate land-use planning [42].
150 Lisa J. Wood, Bryan J. Boruff and Helen M. Smith

Figure 3. Disaster Management Cycle.

Finally, individuals, communities and organisations prepare for the next possible event
through actions such as the deployment of early warning systems, development of community
recovery plans and preparation of household emergency kits [46]. While in practice there is
overlap between the four stages [44], the conceptualised disaster management cycle
nonetheless provides a useful approach for categorizing emergency management strategies,
and is often referred to in disaster and hazards literature and policy documents. For the
purposes of this chapter, it also offers a helpful lens through which the link between disasters
and social capital can be examined.

SOCIAL CAPITAL AND THE MANAGEMENT OF DISASTERS

Although social capital is a term that has only been coupled more recently with disaster
management, it resonates with a number of other concepts that appear within the hazards and
disaster literature. Community resilience is prominent amongst these, a term that has gained
ascendancy in hazard and disaster literature [21, 47-50] and government risk reduction
strategies [51] in recent years.
Collective action is another related concept; disasters confront communities with the need
to accomplish tasks unachievable without collective action, highlighting a need for greater
appreciation of the importance of social linkages, relational trust, and internal and external
relationships in the overall disaster management process [52]. Social networks are also
important channels for information flow as Eisenman and colleagues [53] identified after
Hurricane Katrina, where factors affecting a person’s decision to evacuate was influenced by
an individual’s social networks. Limited access to information can be detrimental as
individuals with sparse networks were often left behind. Therefore, disaster management
authorities (especially those from outside a community) need to be sensitive to the social
 When Disaster Strikes … How Communities Cope and Adapt 151

fabric and internal capacity of a community when planning for future response and recovery
scenarios.
The need for those at the coalface to better understand the community in which they are
operating has also been identified in relation to other disasters [3, 17, 54]. In the 1995 Kobe
earthquake in Japan for example, government authorities applied a one-size-fits-all recovery
approach after the earthquake, failing to distinguish between the various subcultures that
existed within each community that comprised the Kobe ‘old districts’. This precipitated a
negative reaction from residents, which had a regressive effect on the recovery process [17,
27]. This manifested itself in various individuals questioning the direction the authorities took
and querying the designated recovery plans for the various affected neighbourhoods.
Residents were also frustrated by the inflexibility of the public feedback process available to
them, and consequently, instead of an efficient and rapid recovery, the authorities experienced
resistance and distrust [17].
When emergency authorities do recognise the role of the community in disaster
management, the focus tends to be on one of the four distinct phases of the disaster
management cycle (Figure 3), with far less consideration of the role ‘community’ can play in
all four stages. Moreover, little focus has been placed on the role of social capital as a
continuous factor throughout the entire disaster management cycle [3, 17, 27, 54-56]. With
respect to each stage of the cycle, greater attention has been given in the literature to date on
the role of social capital in the post disaster recovery period, with far less consideration
during the preparation or preventative stages. In relation to Hurricane Katrina for example,
Clarke [57] argues that much of the disaster literature and commentary has concentrated on
what happened during and immediately after the event, rather than before. The examination
of social capital in disaster research more broadly has succumbed to the same fate, with far
sparser discourse around its role in prevention and mitigation.
In the sections that follow we explore the role of social capital in the various stages of the
disaster management cycle and the resulting ramifications when social capital is not
adequately present. By drawing on a range of examples, we illustrate differences in the way
social capital can be used by communities to mitigate, prepare for, respond to and recover
from disasters and extreme natural events.

DISASTER RESPONSE
Emergency Management Australia (EMA) defines disaster response as the activation of
arrangements and plans developed to deal with emergency situations [46]. Response may
begin with the initial evacuation of a disaster affected community, but also encompasses
search and rescue, emergency sheltering, and provision of medical services. Nakagawa noted
that the level of social capital within an affected community contributes to efficiencies in the
rescue and relief stage of the disaster management cycle [3]. Individuals and collective actors
have been instrumental in the rescue of trapped victims [58] and care of injured, especially in
situations where local emergency personnel are overwhelmed or unable to respond. While
media coverage post disasters sometimes dwells on disturbing images of looting and other
anti-social behaviour, in reality, it is far more common to see people extending their
152 Lisa J. Wood, Bryan J. Boruff and Helen M. Smith

responsibility toward others in a disaster situation [58], as reflected in the following

observation by Wheatley [59]

“For many years, I have talked with people who helped rescue people from disasters –
bombings, floods, fires, explosions. They always describe their experiences with grief, yet
with energy and satisfaction. It seems strange that, in the face of horror, they have these good
feelings. But they’re describing an experience of working for the common good – doing
whatever is necessary to help another human being. And that experience is always deeply
satisfying.” [59, p128]

In the 1991 Oakland California firestorms, those fleeing on foot were picked up by
passing cars and individuals went house-to-house to ensure that everyone, including
neighbours, children, elderly, pets, and renters were out and safe [60]. Residents attempting to
enter their burning homes to save irreplaceable items were joined by other members of the
community, so that they would not have to face the flames alone. After devastating Cyclone
Tracey struck Darwin on Christmas Day in 1974, one local businessman cleared his shop and
took his truck to devastated homes distributing cigarettes and brandy [61]. Similar generosity
was evident after Hurricane Katrina where ad hoc donation distribution locations sprung up
and dotted the landscape (Figure 4). More recently during the 2010 - 2011 Queensland
Floods, volunteer ‘broom brigades’ gathered at centralized meeting points each morning to be
bussed to devastated communities to aid in the clean-up process.

Figure 4. The Ya’ll Mart (play on words – Wal-Mart), an ad hoc donation distribution location in
Mississippi post Hurricane Katrina (photo courtesy of the Hazards and Vulnerability Research Institute,
University of South Carolina).
 When Disaster Strikes … How Communities Cope and Adapt 153

In the case of Moora, strong horizontal relationships manifested as community search and
rescue units when response from State authorities fell short in the small hours of the 1999
floods. Furthermore, a lack of confidence with emergency responders from outside the
community meant that some elderly would only evacuate with trusted community members, a
sentiment enhanced by stories of outside authorities being rescued by local residents. In
addition, community trust of local leadership was strong, which translated to local
coordination of essential ‘emergency response activities’ [62].

[…] all local agencies that were based in the town. This was one of the advantages of
Moora – being in a small regional centre has its own departments. We know them and we
played football together for instance so it was a lot easier to say to someone “go get Joe Blogs
because he knows about the towns power, and so on”. So it was easy. Interviewee 12

This led to a response which transpired almost immediately into a strong local recovery
effort, with a seemingly effortless transition between the response and recovery stages [62].
The examples above highlight how bridging social capital can play a significant role in ad
hoc disaster response. Pre-existing social networks are also often used to “alleviate novel and
unexpected collective problems that demand immediate attention” [58, p 202]. For example,
during the 1991 eruption of Mt Pinatubo in the Philippines, government communications
systems were disrupted and failed to provide adequate warning [63]. A community warning
system in the barangay of Talba became solely responsible for providing timely evacuation
information and community resources provided the means for moving village members to
safety. A more recent example is found on the island of Barbados, where the local amateur
radio operators’ organisation works closely with the Department of Emergency Management
to augment island wide communications during disasters, and the volunteer organisation
MAPS-WA, provides GIS support for WA state emergency management activities when
additional expertise are needed.
During and in the wake of disasters, informal networks of communication and
information dissemination become particularly critical. As noted by Propcopio [20, p 73]
“Crises disrupt the regular communication processes that sustain communities in routine
circumstances”. Given the critical need to ‘get information out’ quickly and widely in a
disaster situation, institutional communication channels can become overwhelmed, hence
community social networks can be very useful. [64]. Collective social capital is believed to
facilitate faster and wider diffusion of information and knowledge [65]; in a community
where people trust and interact with each other, and where there are denser network ties
across the population, important information can spread more quickly and effectively.
Social capital may be present to some extent in all communities, but without the right
level and types of networks and relationships present, the resource may not be used to its full
potential. Exmouth, for example, had been almost completely devastated by Cyclone Vance
with most basic utilities and services left in disrepair. State officials quickly descended on the
town and the community was excluded from participating in the response. Local
organisations were side-lined with limited acknowledgement of local capacity and networks.

”Although it looked like chaos in the first few days after Vance, we really had everything
under control but as the FESA and other SES guys came in, they assumed that we had no idea
and just started to take over, valuing no local knowledge and not giving our teams anything
154 Lisa J. Wood, Bryan J. Boruff and Helen M. Smith

really to do. There was more of a lack of coordination when they arrived than before we
received their help. Everything was conducted in a top down approach which our guys really
battled with.”
Interviewee 3

This led to a very clear division between the response effort and the recovery process
followed with a delayed recovery when outside response agencies handed control back to the
local authorities.
Both human nature and social capital contribute to the role individuals play in disaster
response. The examples above illustrate the way in which humans extend responsibility to
others in time of need, and how communities with strong social capital and collective trust
(even if unprepared) can accomplish great things simply by drawing on local knowledge and
resources. However, those communities that have taken stock of their local resources and
developed plans to respond to extreme events prove the most resilient in times of crisis.

DISASTER RECOVERY
Until recently, limited research has focused on the recovery phase of the disaster
management cycle. Smith and Wenger [66] define recovery as “the differential process of
restoring, rebuilding, and reshaping, the physical, social, economic, and natural environment
through pre-event planning and post event actions” (p 237).
The goal of community recovery is to return to a pre-disaster state or one stronger than
pre-disaster conditions [67, 68]. Whilst a dearth of literature has focused on recovery in
general, several authors have noted the strong role of social capital in many aspects of the
recovery process [3, 17, 52]. Strong bonding, bridging and linkage relationships have been
shown to contribute positively to the overall recovery of a community [69]. In the Philippines
for instance, the Citizens’ Disaster Response Network (CDRN) is active in all phases of the
disaster management cycle; however, during the recovery phase they engage in repairing and
rebuilding homes, and implement the distribution of seed, livestock and tools [63]. Post
Hurricane Katrina, the Catholic Vietnamese in New Orleans East set up an ad hoc lending
system to re-establish their fishing fleet, which enabled people to borrow from community
members until repairs were complete, and then lend to others when they were back in
business [49].
Schellong [27] notes that the ties forming the social fabric of a community can greatly
influence the speed at which a community recovers. The recovery from the 1995 Kobe
Earthquake provides an ongoing example, where members of larger communities who did not
derive their livelihoods from the community before the earthquake, did not have well
developed networks, in turn slowing the recovery process [70]. In the aftermath of Hurricane
Katrina, individuals who managed best were those with a strong network of family and
friends [49].
Disaster management is often not the core business of community organisations, however
many take on extra roles and functions after a disaster, providing support for group members
and individuals within the community. For example, after the Indian Ocean tsunami in 2004,
non-government organisations (NGOs) operating in the region became instrumental in
distributing relief supplies when government resources were overwhelmed [71]. Strong
 When Disaster Strikes … How Communities Cope and Adapt 155

linkages within the community and internationally meant that the local NGOs could act as a
conduit for supplies ensuring that resources reached those most in need.
Community organisations were instrumental in helping individuals navigate government
bureaucracy after Hurricane Katrina as “government structures that were rigid and narrowly
defined were a problem” [51, p 64]. It was the community-based organisation that challenged
this rigidity resulting in more flexible service delivery.
There is growing recognition in sectors and disciplines beyond emergency management
of the important role that other community organisations can play in both disaster response
and recovery. A good example of this is a recent project looking at the role schools can play
following emergency or disaster situations, undertaken by the Mayfield Project (a young
professional’s research program for architects and teachers, overseen by the Council of
Educational Facility Planners International (CEFPI)) 4 . The project used the disaster
management cycle as a structure for identifying approaches, innovations and successful
outcomes under the theme ‘Schools as Sanctuaries of Hope’. The case studies investigated,
both in Australia and internationally, recognise that schools often play a pivotal role in a
community’s recovery, both formally as an important setting to re-establish a community
focus, and informally via the extensive social ties that schools weave between students,
parents, staff and other groups in returning some sense of normality to often tragic and
traumatised communities [72].
Social networks are also important conduits of recovery information. Informal networks
of communication and information dissemination become particularly critical, as “crises
disrupt the regular communication processes that sustain communities in routine
circumstances” [20, p 73].

Figure 5. Community warning to the insured, Mississippi post Hurricane Katrina. (photo courtesy of the
Hazards and Vulnerability Research Institute, University of South Carolina).

4
CEFPI Australasian Region, www.cefpi.org.au
156 Lisa J. Wood, Bryan J. Boruff and Helen M. Smith

These networks may be local or extended as observed after the 1989 Loma Pieta earthquake,
where many Mexican immigrants relied on recovery information from relatives in Mexico
City who had gone through a similar experience [60]. However, within a community, local
relationships can provide valuable insight into the recovery process (e.g., the best contractors,
funding availability, etc.) and act as filters for misinformation (Figure 5).
Social networks also play a valuable role in developing a shared vision for community
recovery and advocating for local needs. After Hurricane Karina, participatory planning in
Harrison County, Mississippi resulted in the formation of local organisations which were
instrumental in the implementation of community developed reconstruction plans [73]. In
India, after the Boxing Day tsunami in 2004, the South Indian Federation of Fishermen
Societies (SIFFS), and Society for Nutrition, Education and Health Action (SNEHA) set up
local networks to advocate for community needs [74]. These organisations provided a unified
local voice, helping to shape government policies concerned with the provision of quality
temporary housing and the reconstruction of permanent residences.
The recovery phase in Moora also highlights how strong social capital facilitates a shared
community vision and collective action. The Moora community took ownership of their
recovery from the outset, forcing State authorities to act only in the shared interest of the
town. Moora exhibited a high level of bonding, bridging and linking capital, which enabled
the community to activate certain external relationships and collectively trust in its chosen
recovery process. This united stance, which fed the strong linking capital the local authority
possessed, opened channels between the local and State government which then activated
state funding sources. These funding streams were unrestrictedly allocated to the community,
who then determined how the monetary assistance would be distributed internally. The
community saw recovery as an opportunity to reinvent itself and develop the town to a level
stronger than pre-disaster conditions [62]. The restoration of a community however, requires
a shared vision, a strong sense of place and a willingness to move forward:

“Moora is our home and will always be no matter what… we will always have floods,
dust storms, droughts, etc., and that doesn’t destroy us as a community, it only makes us
stronger – it makes us who we are.”
Interviewee 6

By contrast, the Exmouth community exhibited a divided front with reasonable levels of
bonding capital but low levels of bridging and linking capital. Residents looked directly to
family and neighbours for support or to give assistance, but many didn’t think the local
government could handle the situation on its own and that the town had the resources or
capacity to respond or recover. Social capital existed but not to the degree that the town
presented as a unified community when the authorities arrived. This gave the impression that
the town was waiting for external support, rather than taking initiative to shape their own
recovery. Consequently, the community and its local government leadership were sidelined
by state officials during the response phase, and the town found it difficult to move forward in
the recovery process once outside authorities had left. Basic services and utilities took an
extended period of time to repair, with some areas without power for up to 6 weeks. Some
residents, who had lost everything, opted to leave Exmouth rather than stay to rebuild.
However, a small group or residents who had established linkages between town business and
 When Disaster Strikes … How Communities Cope and Adapt 157

the local Naval Base encouraged each other to stay and rebuild. The bonds in this small group
subsequently strengthened, resulting in a higher degree of resilience.

DISASTER PREVENTION AND MITIGATION

Disaster prevention and mitigation are ongoing processes where measures are taken to
decrease or eliminate loss of life and property [43]. Prevention is concerned with avoiding the
impacts of a hazard altogether whilst mitigation is concerned with minimizing the impact of
an event [42]. Due to the variety of economic, social, political and environmental processes
shaping communities the world over, there are no universal strategies to thwart the impact of
extreme events. However, communities that attempt to prevent and or mitigate ‘disaster’ are
more likely to be effective in limiting future impacts on the community [75, 76]. Prevention
and mitigation measures can be adopted in response to the threat or risk of a hazard that has
not yet occurred (for example, initiatives in coastal communities to protect against rising sea
levels and land erosion), or can follow after an event, with the aim of preventing or at least
reducing the impact of another such disaster (for example, the construction of dams after a
town or village has been flooded).
Although prevention and mitigation strategies have been identified as an important aspect
of disaster planning, very little attention has been paid to this topic in the social capital –
disaster literature [5]. Indeed, we maintain that the use of social capital in preventing and
preparing for a disaster is often overlooked and under-utilised. As Wisner et al. [40] highlight,
communities most successful in preventing disaster are those that are able to achieve political
mobilisation at the state level; however, the networks underlying social capital may be used to
facilitate this process and the implementation of local prevention and mitigation strategies. In
its simplest form, developing social support networks before an event increases an
individual’s ability to draw on social capital after a disaster has occurred. As Perez Jr. [77]
highlights, in the aftermath of the 1844 and 1846 hurricanes in Cuba:

Care of the homeless and hungry, the displaced and injured was taken by friends and
family in city and countryside alike. Response to the disruptions of daily life was addressed
collectively, through kinship systems interacting within larger community networks. The
practice no doubt was already in place before hurricanes, but it assumes a new prominence
and, indeed, a new purpose in light of the ensuing devastation... [77, p 143].

Social capital is also important in pre-disaster civic engagement and the development of
effective collective trust. As observed by Dynes [38], social networks provide motivation and
encouragement to take part in preventative action. Similarly, the US Committee on Disaster
Research in Social Sciences [78] identified that communities with high levels of social capital
or horizontal integration are more likely to engage in mitigation strategies as core business.
For example, in Antique, Philippines, a country with high involvement in local associations,
community members come together to construct dams for flood control [5]. These types of
communities show strong understanding of existing capacities, which results in realistic and
achievable mitigation strategies that harness the community’s specific strengths.
An ethos of community mitigation and prevention within a community can foster civic
engagement in local organisations or community groups, and develops strong support
158 Lisa J. Wood, Bryan J. Boruff and Helen M. Smith

networks and relationships which can be activated in times of need. As a result, communities
with high levels of social capital are more willing, and may have a greater capacity to help
others. In Santa Cruz, California, Neighbourhood Survival Networks (NSN) implemented
after a series of disasters in the 1980s were instrumental in aiding minority and vulnerable
populations in the aftermath of the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake [78]. Furthermore, these
networks comprised members of the local community, hence were acutely aware of the
location and characteristics of the most vulnerable groups allowing for targeted assistance.
Individual access to hazard awareness information is often a function of involvement in the
community [79] whereby traditional hazard related knowledge is transmitted between
community members and organisations. Individuals can gather information concerning
options for preventative actions through their social networks – at the aggregate level, such
networks provide channels of knowledge transmission, whereby community members
develop a perception of community risk and an understanding of local mitigation strategies.
Ironically, it may take a disaster to raise the awareness of individuals to a point in which
they engage with the community. Reflecting on Hurricane Katrina and decisions made during
the response phase, Olsen [49] highlighted that groups got together and “mulled it over with
their neighbours.” They talked about what went wrong and how the response to a disaster
could be improved in the future [49]. These shared experiences foster solidarity which can
manifest as collective action during the recovery process [60] and can lead to further
prevention and mitigation after the community has recovered [2].
Whilst the literature identifies the roles social capital may play in preventing and
mitigating disasters, a dearth of research identifies how this process actually takes place. Our
own research into the experience of floods in the town of Moora provides helpful insights in
this regard. In the case of Moora, social capital prior to the 1999 floods was strong, with
many community members involved in local service and sporting organizations. However,
due to the significant time lag between floods in the town (30 years), institutional knowledge
concerning the impact of historic flooding was low, and consequently the town was caught
off guard, with nearly 50% of residences and 90% of businesses flooded. As a result, Moora
has now taken measures to prevent future flood impacts on the community including
resettlement of key infrastructure to higher ground, strengthened building codes and
establishment of an early warning system on the Moore River and its tributaries. Social
capital has influenced the collective action of the community, where emphasis has been
placed on mitigation and prevention of future floods as well as a shared acknowledgement of
the towns flood risk. With this shared experience, the existing social networks and
organisations now place more importance on making the community aware of local hazards
and the local government has established a Local Emergency Management Action Committee
(LEMAC) to provide an interface between local stakeholders and government officials.
It is important to recognise that strategies to build social capital with a view to its use as a
resource in the event of a disaster need not be framed specifically around disaster prevention
to achieve this end. A recent initiative by the Kāpiti Coast District5 Council in New Zealand
illustrates this well; The Kāpiti council launched in 2010 an annual Greenest Street
competition with the overt aim of encouraging environmentally sustainable behaviours among
residents, but with the important secondary aim of using the competition as a medium for

5
Kāpiti district settlements are located at the foot of steep hills and on a narrow coastal plain of drained swamps on
the North Island of New Zealand – the area is vulnerable to coastal erosion, rising sea-levels and flooding.
 When Disaster Strikes … How Communities Cope and Adapt 159

households to build ties with neighbours. Evaluation of the initiative found that 40% of
participating residents knew three or fewer neighbours prior to the street competition, whilst
afterwards, all reported knowing more than three neighbours, and over 80% knew nine or
more. Neighbours ‘looking out for one another’ was a commonly mentioned benefit by
participants, while from the Council perspective, “the community itself also gains greatly
from the links forged between groups and the growth of respect between individuals within
them in terms of its resilience and ability to look after itself when the going gets tough” [47,
p8] The Kapiti Council experience suggests that “support for community projects, regardless
of their focus, which strengthen neighbourhood relationships is arguably one of the most
effective ways local councils can improve community resilience” [47, p 1] . Council support
for other community initiatives (including environmental activities and a local Youth
Council) have similarly helped to strengthen community ties and build community resilience.

DISASTER PREPARATION
Preparedness involves activities taken to prepare for an effective response [42]. This may
include emergency response training, stock piling of supplies and strategic deployment of
resources, development of early warning systems, and activation of evacuation plans. In
essence, the act of preparation allows local communities to take-stock of their resources, and
if insufficient, makes State authorities aware of their possible needs [75, 76]. In best case
scenarios, traditional command and control style preparedness is being replaced by a more
proactive approach where emergency management authorities harness local knowledge and
experiences to build more resilient communities [2].
Hazard preparedness is not a new concept and has often been used by rural agrarian
communities: for example, the regulation of herd size by nomadic peoples in times of drought
[80]. In the early 1900’s it was identified that communities along typhoon ravaged portions of
the Philippines coast relied upon local associations to build special houses which could be
occupied by community members who lost their residence in a storm [5]. A current
manifestation of this is the use of schools, community centres and churches as emergency
shelters. For example, under the Nexus program in New Orleans, new schools are being co-
located with other community services to act as community recovery centres in future
disasters [49]. Such harnessing of existing community infrastructure (both social and physical
as in the case of schools) is very much congruent with social capital, empowering and
drawing on resources and networks that are already embedded and trusted within the
community.
A resilient community is one with a high degree of social capital [51, 4] and is able to
survive, respond to and recover from an extreme event [81]. Therefore, by enhancing a
community’s social capital, resilience is also augmented by encouraging individuals to rely
on their own experiences and resource capacities. In locations where government
organisations fall short or are distrusted, community organisations are often relied upon to fill
the gaps. In the Philippines for example, community based organisations have designed early
warning systems, evacuation plans, and provided community awareness campaigns [63].
Before Hurricane Katrina, the Mary Queen of Vietnam Catholic Church in New Orleans East
had developed its own evacuation plans knowing that a large portion of the congregation was
160 Lisa J. Wood, Bryan J. Boruff and Helen M. Smith

elderly or had special needs [49]. Indeed, it has been argued in hindsight that recovery from
Hurricane Katrina could have been strengthened had there been more of this type of pre-
disaster assessment of people’s existing network ties [22]. Such assessment could have
identified the emotional and instrumental support available for residents, as well identifying
those who may be more vulnerable by virtue of limited networks [22, p 29]. This exemplifies
the importance of social network ties as part of an individual and community’s access to
social capital.
As in other stages of the disaster management cycle, social networks become a path for
information dissemination in the preparedness phase [60]. Through social networks, officially
disseminated warning messages are confirmed, and evacuation locations are discussed and
determined [53]. For example, during the Indian Ocean tsunami of 2004, the traditional
messages of the Onge tribe of Little Andaman Island linked earthquakes with tsunamis [82].
Those living there knew to seek high ground when the earth shakes, and these traditional
teachings saved thousands of lives within the region. Furthermore, the neighbourhood
Committees for the Defence of the Revolution in Cuba provide information on the location
and characteristics of vulnerable populations to higher level authorities during emergencies
[82], highlighting that social networks are pathways for information flow from the bottom up
as well as top down.
In Australia, the Exmouth community were accustomed to cyclone preparation and acted
accordingly when early warnings were disseminated. As a cyclone-prone community, each
new member of the community is introduced to the risks of their environment through their
neighbours and the various community groups. Households, which are part of the local social
networks of Exmouth, are encouraged to follow the official preparation arrangements by
clearing their properties, placing outdoor items inside and securing their houses. Before
Cyclone Vance, Exmouth responded well when the warning was issued.

“On the day before Cyclone Vance we were told to clean up our yards, put things away,
put everything that we could inside and get fully stocked for a Cat 5 cyclone. The warning
system was excellent.”
Interviewee 1

Moora on the other hand, exhibited a low level of preparedness and the 1999 flood caught
the town completely off guard. The town, however, came together as a unified community
during the recovery process so-much-so that they were presented with 2000 Australian
Resilient Community Award. Central to Moora’s recovery was the community, and the
networks it had established regionally and at the state level [62].
Using Moora’s recovery as an example, the Western Australian government subsequently
produced the WA Local Recovery Plan Development Guide in 2009 to promote engagement
with the local community, anticipate recovery problems, and identify solutions before an
event occurs. Central to the plan’s ethos is an understanding of the community context,
recognition of community complexity, adoption of a community centred approach, a plan for
coordination of all activities, an effective communication strategy, and acknowledgement of
local capacity. As others have highlighted [2, 49, 60] it sometimes takes a disaster to build
solidarity and a common voice within a community to prevent and/or prepare for future
disasters. Moora now has a recovery plan in place.
 When Disaster Strikes … How Communities Cope and Adapt 161

THE ROLE OF SOCIAL CAPITAL IN THE DISASTER MANAGEMENT

CYCLE: A FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION
From our review of the literature and the examples and case studies referred to in this
chapter, we have put forth a conceptual framework to illustrate the role social capital plays in
each stage of the disaster management cycle (Figure 6).
In each stage, social capital is important in the diffusion of information, the fostering of
civil engagement and collective trust, and the proliferation of social networks and
organisational involvement.
However, social capital also manifests in different ways in each of the stages. For
example, during the preparation stage, information passing through social networks contains
early warnings and evacuation protocols.
During the recovery stage, information concerned with the allocation of resources,
recovery management, and type and availability of support infrastructure diffuses through
social networks.

Figure 6. The interplay of social capital within the disaster management cycle.

Conversely, the role of social capital in fostering civil engagement and collective trust in
the response stage is focused on individual and collective mobilization of community
resources, while in the prevention and mitigation stage, the emphasis is on promoting
prevention and mitigation strategies as a component of community organisations.
162 Lisa J. Wood, Bryan J. Boruff and Helen M. Smith

What has become acutely evident through our own research and that of others is how a
collective experience, such as disaster recovery, can build solidarity and a shared community
vision. This cohesion, once developed, transcends the various stages of the disaster
management cycle, helping to build resilience to future disasters. This exemplifies the way in
which social capital can be strengthened by adversity and disaster, forming in effect a
‘virtuous circle’ [83].

Fundamentals of Social Capital for Building Disaster Resilient Communities

Living in a community with rich stocks of social capital confers a range of benefits for
the collective community and individuals within it, but hazardous events and disasters
sharpen the importance of some of these, as depicted in Figure 7 below.

Figure 7. Benefits of social capital in a disaster context.

A number of common elements emerge as characterising the fundamentals of social

capital that can enable communities to cope with disasters and adapt to allay future calamity.
From our review of the literature and a range of disaster management examples, we have
distilled these as presented below (see Table 1):
 When Disaster Strikes … How Communities Cope and Adapt 163

Table 1. The fundamentals characterising social capital in a disaster context

Informal and formal
communication processes
and networks
Strong bonding, bridging
and linking social capital
Mechanisms for identifying
and ‘carrying’ those who are
most vulnerable
Formal and informal local
leadership
Links with external
authorities
Local organisational
Involvement and collective
community participation
Trust in one another
Solidarity borne through
common shared experiences
an informal ‘grapevine’ whereby the diffusion of information can
complement, legitimise or replace formal mechanisms when necessary.
social capital is at its strongest when present in all its forms, and
different types of social capital can play different roles in disaster
management (bonding ties for example act well as a conduit for
information dissemination and emotional support, but may not provide
the connections external resources or ‘people of influence’ that can
facilitate faster recovery).
systems to ensure those who are socially or geographically isolated are
not overlooked.
local trusted champions with good networks and relationships across all
sectors of the community.
networks and relationships that allow local communities to leverage
external support without the communities best interests being
compromised.
a level of involvement in community organisations where social
networks are developed and social capital is built that can be drawn
upon in times of need. Community involvement that fosters a sense of
place, a shared vision and ownership in the community.
a level of confidence in the action and knowledge of local leaders and
community members.
a shared vision resulting from collective action in response to a system
shock.

Recognition of the role of acknowledgement of community resources by external and internal

social capital and social authorities during all phases of the disaster management cycle.
processes

CONCLUSION
Even when the causes of disasters are natural, the way in which we anticipate, respond to
and recover from disasters, or try to prevent their occurrence, relies on human processes that
draw upon the social capital resources present within a community. This is evident in all
stages of the disaster management cycle; in the response stage it may manifest through the
informal networks that facilitate the diffusion of emergency information and ensure that
socially or geographically isolated neighbours are not forgotten, whilst in recovery, it may
emerge in the way communities find the internal capacity to take ownership of their own
recovery needs without relying on external authorities.
However, much of what we have presented is also applicable to non-natural/human
induced disasters, such as biological epidemics, acts of terrorism, nuclear or chemical
accidents or famine. There are also some interesting conceptual parallels between the nature
of social capital and the disaster management cycle. Like the disaster management cycle,
social capital is also cyclical, and can appreciate rather than depreciate with use [69]. Indeed
paradoxically, the shared experience of experiencing or responding to a disaster can, in and of
164 Lisa J. Wood, Bryan J. Boruff and Helen M. Smith

itself, build social capital as the community works together and bonds by virtue of what they
have been through together. This is a prominent hallmark of social capital in circumstances
other than disasters, as reflected in the many stories of grass-roots community empowerment,
solidarity and action highlighted in Putnam’s book on social capital Better Together [84]. The
fact that social capital can grow stronger with use is a powerful notion in the case of disasters,
which ravage and deplete communities in so many other ways. Moreover, the strengthening
of social capital that may arise out of the ashes of a disaster can play a role in influencing
community level prevention and planning for ‘next time,’ which in turn affects the success of
individual, community and organisational recovery [3, 17, 54].
Although the focus of this chapter has been on social capital in the context of disaster
management, we contend that the insights provided throughout, help to progress our
understanding of the operational mechanisms of social capital more broadly. Despite the
enthusiasm with which social capital has been embraced by many disciplines, the
mechanisms and processes through which it functions or is enacted in real world settings are
still poorly understood, and relatively undeveloped in the body of social capital research to
date. We have evidence demonstrating links between social capital and health for example,
but explanations of how or why this might be so are often fuzzy or absent. Other studies have
delved deeper into particular aspects of social capital (for example, the relative roles of
bonding, linking and bridging social capital in enabling people in disadvantaged communities
to improve their educational or employment circumstances, or, the role that trust plays in
relation to fear of crime); however, using disasters as a conduit, we have illuminated the ways
all the core dimension of social capital manifest along a causal pathway.

AREAS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

It is axiomatic to conclude with some suggestions for future research. Whilst social
capital is already a concept that has grabbed the attention of a wide range of disciplines and
sectors, there remains a tendency for much of the research and literature to evolve in relative
silos. The lack of cross-referencing between the social capital and disaster, and social capital
and public health literature (we observed in writing this chapter) is a pertinent case in point.
Capacity to cope with and respond to disasters has significant implications for health and
well-being at both the community and individual level, but to date, this has rarely been
considered in the vast body of research linking social capital to health. Within the broader
public health literature, disasters receive attention but primarily in relation to post-disaster
impact, disease risk and spread, [49, 78] and psychological distress in terms of impact on
mental health [85]. The disaster management literature, whilst not focusing overtly on health,
suggests that social capital can in fact be harnessed to ameliorate both physical and mental
health impacts of disasters, and in a more upstream preventative sense, forge community
solidarity and collective action that can prevent future disasters from occurring. This is but
one example of where greater marrying of social capital research across different disciplines
and/or applied contexts could yield very fruitful findings. However, without targeted
empirical research concerned with the measure, role and development of social capital in a
variety of contexts, harnessing social capital to build resilient communities will remain an
elusive endeavour.
 When Disaster Strikes … How Communities Cope and Adapt 165

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The research assistance of Estee Lambin in the preparation of this chapter and its
diagrams is gratefully appreciated – it would have been a disaster without her. The first
author, Lisa Wood is supported by a Healthway Senior Research Fellowship. The research in
Moora and Exmouth conducted by Bryan Boruff and Helen Smith was supported by The
University of Western Australia’s Small Research Grants Scheme.

REFERENCES
[1] EM-DAT The International Disaster Database (2010). Explanatory notes,
classifications, criteria and definitions [online]. Retrieved from: http://www.
emdat.be/explanatory-notes.
[2] Murphy, B. (2007). Locating social capital in resilient community-level emergency
management. Natural Hazards, 41(2), 297-315.
[3] Nakagawa, Y., and Shaw, R. (2004). Social capital: a missing link to disaster recovery.
International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 22(1), 5-34.
[4] Cutter, S. L., Boruff, B. J., and Shirley, W. L. (2003). Social vulnerability to
environmental hazards. Social Science Quarterly, 84(2), 242-261.
[5] Bankoff, G. (2007). Dangers to going it alone: social capital and the origins of
community resilience in the Philippines. Continuity and Change, 22(2), 327-355.
[6] Hawkins, R. L., and Maurer K. (2010). Bonding, bridging and linking: how social
capital operated in New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina. British Journal of Social
Work, 40(6), 1777-1793.
[7] David, A. C., and Li, C. A. (2010). Exploring the links between HIV/AIDS, social
capital and development. Journal of International Development, 22(7), 941-961.
[8] Lochner, K. A., Kawachi, I., Brennan, I. T., and Buka, S. L. (2003). Social capital and
neighborhood mortality rates in Chicago. Social Science and Medicine, 56(8), 1797-
1805.
[9] De Silva, M. J., McKenzie, K., Harpham, T., and Huttly, S. R. A. (2005). Social capital
and mental illness: a systematic review. Journal of Epidemiology and Community
Health, 59(8), 619-627.
[10] Moffitt, T. E. (2002). Teen-aged mothers in contemporary Britain. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 43(6), 727-742.
[11] Adger, W. N. (2003). Social capital, collective action, and adaptation to climate change.
Economic Geography, 79(4), 387-404.
[12] Wolf, J., Adger, W. N., Lorenzoni, I., Abrahamson, V., and Raine, R. (2010). Social
capital, individual responses to heat waves and climate change adaptation: an empirical
study of two UK cities. Global Environmental Change, 20(1), 44-52.
[13] Kennedy, B., Kawachi, I., and Prothrow-Stith, D. (1998). Social capital, income
inequality, and firearm violent crime. Social Science and Medicine, 47(1), 7-17.
[14] Kawachi, I., Kennedy, B. P., Lochner, K., and Prothrow-Stith. (1997). Social capital,
income inequality, and mortality. American Journal of Public Health, 87(9), 1491-
1498.
166 Lisa J. Wood, Bryan J. Boruff and Helen M. Smith

[15] Goddard, R. D. (2003). Relational networks, social trust, and norms: a social capital
perspective on students’ chances of academic success. Educational Evaluation and
Policy Analysis, 25(1), 59-74.
[16] Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling Alone: The collapse and revival of American
community. New York: Simon and Schuster.
[17] Edgington, W. D. (2010). Reconstructing Kobe: The geography of crisis and
opportunity. Vancouver: UBC Press.
[18] Beaudoin, C. E. (2007). News, social capital and health in the context of Katrina.
Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved, 18(2), 418-430.
[19] Chamlee-Wright, E., and Storr, V. H. (2011). Social capital as collective narratives and
post-disaster community recovery. The Sociological Review, 59(2), 266-282.
[20] Procopio, C. H., and Procopio, S. T. (2007). Do you know what it means to miss New
Orleans? Internet communication, geographic community, and social capital in crisis.
Journal of Applied Communication Research, 35(1), 67-87.
[21] Campanella, T. J. (2006). Urban resilience and the recovery of New Orleans. Journal of
the American Planning Association, 72(2), 141-146.
[22] Iversen, R. R., and Armstrong, A. L. (2008). Hurricane Katrina and New Orleans: What
might a sociological embeddedness perspective offer disaster research and planning?
Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 8(1), 183-209.
[23] Chamlee-Wright, E., and Storr, V. H. (2009). “There's no place like new orleans”: sense
of place and community recovery in the ninth ward after Hurricane Katrina. Journal of
Urban Affairs, 31(5), 615-634.
[24] ABS. (2006). 2006 Census publication (print ABS collection) [online] [Accessed: 5
June 2012], Retrieved from: http://www.abs.gov.au/census.
[25] OECD. (2001). The Well-Being of Nations: The role of human and social capital. Paris:
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
[26] Cohen, D., and Prusak, L. (2001). In Good Company: How social capital makes
organizations work. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
[27] Schellong, A. R. M. (2007). Increasing Social Capital for Disaster Response through
Social Networking Services (SNS). In Japanese Local Governments, National Center
for Digital Government (NCDG) Working Paper No. 07-005. Tokyo: University of
Tokyo.
[28] Elliott, J. R., and Pais, J. (2006). Race, class, and Hurricane Katrina: social differences
in human responses to disaster. Social Science Research, 35(2), 295-321.
[29] Shiell, A., and Hawe, P. (1996). Health promotion community development and the
tyranny of individualism. Health Economics, 5(3), 241-247.
[30] Walkup, J. (2003). Concepts of social capital. The British Journal of Psychiatry,
182(5), 458-458.
[31] Edwards, B., and Foley, M. (1997). Social capital and the political economy of our
discontent. American Behavioural Scientist, 40(5), 669-678.
[32] Semenza, J. C., Rubin, C. H., Falter, K. H., Selanikio, J. D., Flanders, W. D., Howe, H.
L., and Wilhelm, J. L. (1996). Heat-related deaths during the July 1995 heat wave in
Chicago. New England Journal of Medicine, 335(2), 84-90.
[33] Aldrich, D. (2011). The externalities of social capital: post-tsunami recovery in
Southeast India. Journal of Civil Society, 8(1), 81-89.
 When Disaster Strikes … How Communities Cope and Adapt 167

[34] Gittell, R., and Vidal, A. (1998). Community Organising: Building social capital as a
developmental strategy. California: Sage.
[35] Narayan, D. (1999). Bonds and Bridges: Social capital and poverty. In T.W. Bank
(Ed.), Policy Research Working Paper, Washington D.C: The World Bank.
[36] Woolcock, M. (2001). The place of social capital in understanding social and economic
outcomes. Canadian Journal of Policy Research, 2(1), 11-17.
[37] Szreter, S., and Woolcock, M. (2004). Health by association? Social capital, social
theory, and the political economy of public health. International Journal of
Epidemiology, 33(4), 650-667.
[38] Dynes, R. R. (2006). Social capital: dealing with community emergencies. Homeland
Security Affairs, 2(2), 1-26.
[39] Rodriguez, H., Trainor, J., and Quarantelli, E. L. (2006). Rising to the challenges of a
catastrophe: the emergent and prosocial behavior following Hurricane Katrina. The
Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 604(1), 82-101.
[40] Wisner, B., Blaike, P., Cannon, T., and Davis, I. (2004). At Risk: Natural hazards,
people’s vulnerability and disasters (second edition). London: Routledge.
[41] Tobin, G. A., and Montz, B. E. (1997). Natural Hazards: Explanation and integration.
New York: Guilford Press.
[42] Smith, K., and Petley, D. N. (2009). Environmental Hazards: Assessing risk and
reducing disaster (fifth edition). London: Routledge.
[43] Mitchell, A., Glavovic, B., Hutchinson, B., MacDonald, G., Roberts, M., and Goodland,
J. (2010). Community-based civil defence emergency management planning in
Northland, New Zealand. Australasian Journal of Disaster and Trauma Studies, (1),
Retrieved from: http://www.massey.ac.nz/~trauma/issues/2010-1/mitchell.htm.
[44] Cronstedt, M. (2002). Prevention, preparedness, response, recovery-an outdated
concept? The Australian Journal of Emergency Management, 17(2), 10-13.
[45] Guha-Sapir, D., Vos, F., Below, R., and Ponserre, S. (2011). Annual Disaster Statistical
Review 2010: The numbers and trends. [Accessed: 5 June 2012], Retrieved from:
http://www.cred.be/sites/default/files/ ADSR_2010.pdf.
[46] Emergency Management Australia. (2004). Emergency Management in Australia –
concepts and principles [online] [Accessed: 23 May 2012], Retrieved from:
http://www.em.gov.au/Documents/Manual01
EmergencyManagementinAustraliaConceptsandPrinciples.pdf
[47] Lash, A., and Roos, J. (2012). Resilience and respect in a flooded country. Adelaide:
Planning Institute of Australia 2012 National Congress.
[48] Norris, F., Stevens, S., Pfefferbaum, B., Wyche, K., and Pfefferbaum, R. (2008).
Community resilience as a metaphor, theory, set of capacities, and strategy for disaster
readiness. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41(1), 127-150.
[49] Olsen, S. (2011). Increasing National Resilience to Hazards and Disasters: The
perspective from the Gulf of Louisiana and Mississippi: summary of a workshop.
Washington, D.C: National Academies Press.
[50] Pelling, M. (2003). The Vulnerability of Cities: Natural disasters and social resilience.
Sterling: Earthscan.
[51] COAG. (2009). National Strategy for Disaster Resilience: Building our nation’s
resilience to disasters. Australia: Council of Australian Governments.
168 Lisa J. Wood, Bryan J. Boruff and Helen M. Smith

[52] Patterson, O., Weil, F., and Patel, K. (2010). The role of community in disaster
response: conceptual models. Population Research and Policy Review, 29(2), 127-141.
[53] Eisenman, D. P., Cordasco, K. M., Asch, S., Golden, J. F., and Glik, D. (2007). Disaster
planning and risk communication with vulnerable communities: lessons from Hurricane
Katrina. American Journal of Public Health, 97(S1), 109-115.
[54] Ritchie, L. A., and Gill, D. A. (2011). The Role of Community Capitals in Disaster
Recovery Paper. Fairfax: Public Entity Risk Institute Symposium- Community
Recovery from Disaster.
[55] Cutter, S. L., Barnes, L., Berry, M., Burton, C., Evans, E., Tate, E., and Webb, J.
(2008). A place-based model for understanding community resilience to natural
disasters. Global Environmental Change, 18(4), 598-606.
[56] Marsh, G. (2009). Disaster Management and the Role of Community in a Post-Modern
Age. Melbourne: The School of Social Science and Planning, RMIT University.
[57] Clarke, L. (2007). Postscript: Considering Katrina. In D. Brunsma, D. Overfelt, and J.
Picou (Eds.), The Sociology of Katrina: Perspectives on a modern catastrophe (235-
241). Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
[58] Poteyeva, M., Denver, M., Barsky, L. E., and Aguirre , B. E. (2007). Search and Rescue
Activities in Disasters. In H. Rodríguez, E.L. Quarantelli, and R.R. Dynes (Eds.),
Handbook of Disaster Research (p. 200-216). New York, NY: Springer.
[59] Wheatley, M. J. (2009). Turning to One Another: Simple conversations to restore hope
to the future. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
[60] Oliver-Smith, A. (1999). "What is a Disaster?": Anthropological perspectives on a
persistent question. In S. Oliver-Smith, and S. Hoffman (Eds.), The Angry Earth:
Disaster in anthropological perspective. New York, NY: Routledge.
[61] Hoffman, S. M. (1999). The Worst of Times, the Best of Times: Toward a model of
cultural response to disaster. In A. Oliver-Smith and S. Hoffman (Eds.), The Angry
Earth: Disaster in anthropological perspective (p. 134-155). New York, NY:
Routledge.
[62] Smith, H., and Boruff, B. J. (2011). Recovery from the Storm: Resilience and the role of
community capital in long-term disaster recovery in regional Western Australia.
Melbourne: State of Australian Cities National Conference November 2011.
[63] Delica-Willson, Z., and Wilson, R. (2004). Vulnerability Reduction: A task for the
vulnerable themselves. In G. Bankoff, G. Frerks, and D. Hilhorst (Eds.), Mapping
Vulnerability: Disaster, development and people (pp.145-158). London, UK: Earthscan.
[64] Seeger, M. W., Vennette, S., Ulmer, R. R., and Sellnow, T. L. (2002). Media use,
information seeking, and reported needs in post crisis contexts. In B.S. Greenberg (Ed.),
Communication and Terrorism: Public and media responses to 9/11 (p. 53-63).
Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
[65] Kim, D., Subramanian, S. V., and Kawachi, I. (2008). Social Capital and Physical
Health: A systematic review of the literature. In I. Kawachi, S.V. Subramanian, and D.
Kim (Eds.), Social Capital and Health (p. 139-190). New York, NY: Springer.
[66] Smith, G.P., and Wenger, D. (2007). Sustainable Disaster Recovery: Operationalizing
an existing agenda. In H. Rodríguez, E. L. Quarantelli, and R. R. Dynes (Eds.),
Handbook of Disaster Research (p. 234-237). New York, NY: Springer.
[67] Cardona, O. D. (2004). The Need for Rethinking the Concepts of Vulnerability and
Risk from a Holistic Perspective: A necessary review and criticism for effective risk
 When Disaster Strikes … How Communities Cope and Adapt 169

management. In G. Bankoff, G. Frerks, and D. Hilhorst (Eds.), Mapping Vulnerability:

Disasters, development and people (p. 37-51). Sterling, VA: Earthscan.
[68] Kates, R. W., and Pijawka, D. (1977). From Rubble to Monument: The pace of
reconstruction. In J. E. Haas, R. W. Kates, and M. J. Bowden (Eds.), Reconstruction
Following Disaster (p. 1-23). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
[69] Sobel, J. (2002). Can we trust social capital? Journal of Economic Literature, 40(1),
139-154.
[70] Shaw, R., and Goda, K. (2004). From disaster to sustainable civil society: the Kobe
experience. Disasters, 28(1), 16-40.
[71] Kumaran, M., and Torris, T. (2011). The Role of NGOs in the Tsunami Relief and
Reconstruction in Cuddalore South India. In P. P. Karan and S. P. Subbiah (Eds.), The
Indian Ocean Tsunami: The global response to a natural disaster (pp. 183-212).
Lexington, KY: The University Press of Kentucky.
[72] Idle, P., Coordinator, Mayfield Project, Council of Educational Facility Planners
International (CEFPI) and Director, EIW Architects (2012). Personal Communication.
[73] Evans-Cowley, J. S. and Gough, M. Z. (2008). Design and Disaster: Higher education
responds to Hurricane Katrina. Cityscape, 10(3), 21-37.
[74] IFRCRCS. (2005). World Disaster Report 2005: Focus on information. In Disasters.
Geneva: International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies.
[75] Phillips, B. (2009). Disaster Recovery. Boca Raton: Taylor and Francis and Auerbach
Publications.
[76] McMillan, C. (1998). Natural Disasters: Prepare, mitigate, manage [online][Accessed:
10 June,2012],Retrieved from: http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/archives/ndht.php.
[77] Perez Jr., L. A. (2001). Winds of Change: Hurricanes and the transformation of
nineteenth-century Cuba. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press.
[78] Committee on Disaster Research in the Social Sciences and National Research Council.
(2006). Facing Hazards and Disasters: Understanding human dimensions. Washington
D.C.: National Academic Press.
[79] Tierney, K., Lindell, M., and Perry, R. (Eds.)(2001). Facing the Unexpected: Disaster
preparedness and response in the United States. Washington D.C: Joseph Henry Press.
[80] Hilhorst, D. (2004). Complexity and Diversity: Unlocking social domains of disaster
response. In G. Bankoff, G. Frerks, and D. Hilhorst (Eds.), Mapping Vulnerability:
Disasters, development, and people (pp. 52-66). London, UK: Earthscan.
[81] Cutter, S. L., Boruff, B and Lynn Shirley, W. (2003). Social vulnerability to
environmental hazards. Social Science Quarterly, 84(2), 242-261.
[82] Wisner, B. (2009). SHINK and Swim: Exploring the link between capital (social,
human, institutional, natural), disaster, and disaster risk reduction. In Background
Paper for the UN Project on the Economics of Disaster Risk Reduction (EDRR) and the
World Bank.
[83] Hutchinson, J., and Vidal, A. C. (2004). Using social capital to help integrate planning
theory, research and practice. Journal of the American Planning Association, 70(2),
142-192.
[84] Putnam, R. D., Feldstein, L. M., and Cohen, D. (2003). Better Together: Restoring the
American community. New York: Simon and Schuster.
[85] Morrissey, S., and Reser, J. (2007). Natural disasters, climate change and mental health
considerations for rural Australia. Australian Journal of Rural Health, 5(2), 120-125.