Home>Resources>Recovery Capitals (ReCap) Guide>ReCap: Political Capital

This page is part of the Guide to Disaster Recovery Capitals. The seven recovery capitals are deeply interrelated – click through to explore them all.

background recap icons Natural Natural Capital Icon Green Icon Social Social Icon Dark Blue Hover Financial Financial Icon Blue hover Cultural Cultural Icon Purple Hover Built Built Icon Red Hover Political Political Icon Pink Hover Human Human Icon Orange hover
Political Capital Pink Line

Power and voice

WHAT WE KNOW

Power is not distributed equally within and between communities during recovery (1,4,5). Decisions are often made for and by those with the most voice and agency, which can have negative impacts on marginalised groups(6–10).

CONSIDER

  • Contact those who are not typically involved in local decision making to gather insights about as many different experiences as possible. Remember that chats in the street, over the phone or over a cup of tea can be just as helpful as group meetings or emails. Local health centres, schools, and social services can be helpful in connecting with different groups.
Political Capital Pink Line

Community-led recovery

WHAT WE KNOW

Community participation, agency and knowledge – including that of Indigenous peoples – are highly valuable in disaster resilience and recovery(1,11–13). Recovery outcomes are best when community capacity and local decision-making is complemented and supported (rather than overpowered) by external groups or agencies(14–16).

CONSIDER

  • To what extent are recovery strategies being guided by local decision-makers and adapted to local contexts?
  • To ensure external pressures do not override local interests, work closely with local government, businesses, services, Indigenous organisations and community groups.
  • Support community initiatives and build local capacity where possible, but be open to bringing in external resources such as administrative assistance in applying for funds.
  • What processes and structures are needed to support community participation in decision-making? Consider factors that may inhibit participation by some groups (e.g. need for childcare, transport, flexible meeting times, and accessibility for people with disability).
  • Resist pressure to make quick decisions on behalf of communities – give communities time to re-gather and build their capacity to lead recovery.
  • Ensure that people and groups who are not typically involved in local decision making are given opportunities to contribute to community recovery and to be decision-makers in their own recovery.
Political Capital Pink Line

Indigenous peoples

WHAT WE KNOW

The voices of Aboriginal peoples have largely been ignored following disasters in Australia, resulting in recovery strategies that do not consider the historical, political and cultural contexts that shape Aboriginal peoples’ experiences – including ongoing colonisation and discrimination.

Yet Aboriginal communities are also characterised by resilience, shared identities and close social bonds. There is developing knowledge of the ways in which recovery of Aboriginal peoples and the broader community may be enhanced by these strengths(7).

CONSIDER

  • How have Indigenous peoples been impacted by this disaster? Consider residents, distinct communities and legal rights and interest in the land as First Peoples. Consider also the deep connections between land, culture, history, colonisation and identity.
  • Develop and maintain strong working relationships with local Indigenous organisations. Be guided by these organisations and Elders to centre Indigenous peoples’ voices in developing recovery strategies that minimise the risks of exacerbating existing trauma and vulnerability. Strategies should recognise and build on the strength and resilience of Indigenous communities.
Political Capital Pink Line

External support

WHAT WE KNOW

Communities affected by disasters often receive support from broader society, including resources, guidance and emotional support(11,17,18). When this support is responsive to local needs it generally plays a positive role in recovery(14,16). Communities with greater ability to draw on external connections tend to fare better(1,4,5,19).

CONSIDER

  • Identify and support the communities that are least likely to be able to draw on connections to government and broader society and advocate for their needs.
  • Collaborate with community members to explore connections they may have that could be helpful in bringing additional resources into the community.
  • Establish a multi-year framework for recovery from major disasters to support short and long term recovery.
Political Capital Pink Line

Influencing knowledge

WHAT WE KNOW

Political agendas, public attention and power dynamics can influence what knowledge is produced and accepted after disasters. This in turn can influence policy reform and changes to practice(7,20,21). The way research and formal enquiries are set up shapes which voices are heard, and what is recommended(7,22–24).

CONSIDER

  • Political and social backlash are common in the post-disaster context. Tread carefully with your words and actions and keep focused on your main goal.
  • Be aware that depictions in mainstream media do not always represent an accurate picture, particularly in regards to cultural knowledge and understanding. Draw on your own communication channels to confirm situational information.
Political Capital Pink Line

Policies and regulations

WHAT WE KNOW

Policies and regulations, and their implementation, can shape disaster risk and recovery(10,25–27). In turn, disasters can influence the regulatory environment, and while these changes may increase resilience(25,28–30), they may also create problems in recovery. For example, stricter building codes introduced after Black Saturday raised the cost of rebuilding, resulting in shortfalls in insurance payouts and higher ongoing premiums(31,32) which led to community backlash(33).

CONSIDER

  • Stay up to date with changes in policies and regulations affecting recovery processes.
Political Capital Pink Line

Leadership

WHAT WE KNOW

Strong and adaptable leaders can help to access external resources, encourage innovation, support community mental health and foster cooperation within and between communities(1,34,35). Training and supporting leaders before and after disasters may build these attributes, with benefits to the community as well as the wellbeing of those in leadership roles(14,34,36–38).

CONSIDER

  • Provide leadership training and support, both pre-event and post-event.
  • Link local leaders to people with previous experience leading community disaster recovery, for mentoring and support.

References

  1. Himes-Cornell A, Ormond C, Hoelting K, Ban NC, Zachary Koehn J, Allison EH, et al. Factors Affecting Disaster Preparedness, Response, and Recovery Using the Community Capitals Framework. Coastal Management. 2018 Sep 3;46(5):335–58.
  2. Emery M, Fey S, Flora C. Using community capitals to develop assets for positive community change. CD Practice. 2006;13:1–19.
  3. Jacobs C. Measuring success in communities: The community capitals framework. 2011;
  4. Aldrich DP. It’s who you know: Factors driving recovery from Japan’s 11 March 2011 disaster. Public Administration. 2016 Jun;94(2):399–413.
  5. Aldrich DP. Black wave: how networks and governance shaped Japan’s 3/11 disasters. University of Chicago Press; 2019.
  6. Blake D, Marlowe J, Johnston D. Get prepared: Discourse for the privileged? International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction. 2017 Oct 1;25:283–8.
  7. Williamson B, Markham F, Weir J. Aboriginal peoples and the response to the 2019–2020 bushfires, Working Paper No. 134/2020. Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research, Australian National University, Canberra; 2020.
  8. Blake D. Social determinants of health for opioid substitution treatment and emergency management in Aotearoa New Zealand. The Australian Community Psychologist. 2018;29(1).
  9. Parkinson D. Investigating the Increase in Domestic Violence Post Disaster: An Australian Case Study. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 2019 Jun 1;34(11):2333–62.
  10. Fraser C, Blake D. Valuing Voices: Sex workers’ experiences following the Canterbury earthquakes. Disaster Research Science Report; 2020/01. Wellington (NZ); 2020.
  11. Van Kessel, G., Gibbs, L., & MacDougall C. Strategies to enhance resilience post-natural disaster: a qualitative study of experiences with Australian floods and fires. Journal of Public Health. 2014;37(2):328–36.
  12. Collins S, Glavovic B, Johal S, Johnston D. Community engagement post-disaster: case studies of the 2006 Matata debris flow and 2010 Darfield earthquake, New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Psychology. 2011;40:17–525.
  13. Kenney CM, Phibbs SR, Paton D, Reid J, Johnston DM. Community-led disaster risk management: A Māori response to ōtautahi (christchurch) earthquakes. Australasian Journal of Disaster and Trauma Studies. 2015;19(Special Issue):9–20.
  14. Dibley G, Mitchell L, Ireton G, Gordon R. Government’s role in supporting community-led approaches to recovery. 2019.
  15. O’Neill K. Communities at the Heart of Recovery: Reflections on the Government-Community Partnership for Recovery After the 2009 Black Saturday Bushfires in Victoria, Australia. In: Natural Disaster Management in the Asia-Pacific. Springer; 2015. p. 119–38.
  16. Aldrich DP. Challenges to Coordination: Understanding Intergovernmental Friction During Disasters. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science. 2019 Sep;10(3):306–16.
  17. van Kessel G, MacDougall C, Gibbs L. The Process of Rebuilding Human Resilience in the Face of the Experience of a Natural Disaster: A Multisystem Model. IJEMHHR. 2015;17(4):678–87.
  18. Harms L, Gibbs L, Ireton G, MacDougall C, Brady K, Kosta L, et al. Stressors and Supports in Postdisaster Recovery: Experiences After the Black Saturday Bushfires. Australian Social Work. 2021;1–16.
  19. Aldrich DP. Building resilience: Social capital in post-disaster recovery. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 2012. 232 p.
  20. Eburn M, Dovers S. Learning lessons from disasters: Alternatives to Royal Commissions and other quasi‐judicial inquiries. Australian Journal of Public Administration. 2015;74(4):495–508.
  21. Boin A, McConnell A, Hart P. Governing after crisis: The politics of investigation, accountability and learning. 2008.
  22. Gibbs L, MacDougall C, Block K. Political reflexivity in post-bushfire research. Qualitative Research Journal. 2014;14(3).
  23. Gibbs L, Block K, MacDougall C, Harms L, Baker E, Richardson J, et al. Ethical use and impact of participatory approaches to research in post-disaster environments: An Australian bushfire case study. Biomed Research International. 2018;
  24. Beaven S, Wilson T, Johnston L, Johnston D, Smith R. Research engagement after disasters: research coordination before, during, and after the 2011–2012 Canterbury earthquake sequence, New Zealand. Earthquake Spectra. 2016;32(2):713–35.
  25. Frazier TG, Walker MH, Kumari A, Thompson CM. Opportunities and constraints to hazard mitigation planning. Applied Geography. 2013;40:52–60.
  26. McClure J, Wills C, Johnston D, Recker C. New Zealanders’ judgments of earthquake risk before and after the Canterbury earthquakes: Do they relate to preparedness? New Zealand Journal of Psychology. 2011;40:7–11.
  27. Ulubaşoğlu M. Natural disasters increase inequality. Recovery funding may make things worse. The Conversation. 2020 Feb 27;
  28. March A, Henry S. A better future from imagining the worst: Land use planning and training responses to natural disaster. Australian Journal of Emergency Management, The. 2007;22(3):17.
  29. Mason MS, Haynes K. Adaptation lessons from cyclone Tracy. National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility; 2010.
  30. van den Honert RC, McAneney J. The 2011 Brisbane Floods: Causes, Impacts and Implications. Water. 2011 Dec 9;3(4):1149–73.
  31. Banks M, Bowman D. Juggling risks: insurance in households struggling with financial insecurity. Brotherhood of St Laurence; 2017.
  32. Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission. The 2009 Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission Final Report Summary. Vol. PP No. 332. Government Printer for the State of Victoria; 2009.
  33. Kornakova M, March A, Gleeson B. Institutional adjustments and strategic planning action: The case of Victorian Wildfire Planning. Planning Practice & Research. 2018;33(2):120–36.
  34. Gallagher C, Block K, Gibbs L, Forbes D, Lusher D, Molyneaux R, et al. The effect of group involvement on post-disaster mental health: A longitudinal multilevel analysis. Social Science & Medicine. 2019;220:167–75.
  35. Ombler J, Washington S. Seismic Shifts: The Canterbury earthquakes and public sector innovation. Future-Proofing the State. 2014;277.
  36. Comfort LK, Boin A, Demchak CC. Designing resilience: Preparing for extreme events. University of Pittsburgh Pre; 2010.
  37. Waugh Jr WL, Streib G. Collaboration and leadership for effective emergency management. Public administration review. 2006;66:131–40.
  38. Usdin L. Building resiliency and supporting distributive leadership post-disaster. International Journal of Leadership in Public Services. 2014;

Re Cap Org Logos

This resource has been developed through the Recovery Capitals (ReCap) project.
Artwork on this page by Oslo Davis and Frances Belle Parker.

Re Cap Home Button

Contact ReCap

Please contact Phoebe Quinn with any comments or enquiries: (03) 8344 3097, phoebeq@unimelb.edu.au or info-beyondbushfires@unimelb.edu.au.

To stay updated about the project, you can subscribe below and follow Beyond Bushfires on Facebook and Twitter.

Subscribe to ReCap updates

Disaster Mental Health Hub

The Disaster Mental Health Hub has been developed by experts in the area of disaster mental health.

We hope the information here is helpful. If there is any feedback you’d like to give, we always appreciate it.

Provide Feedback

Quick Links

Navigation

Contact The Disaster Mental Health Hub

  • Level 3, 161 Barry Street
  • Carlton, VIC 3053, Australia
  • Phone: +61 3 9035 5599
  • Fax: +61 3 9035 5455
Email us