‘Social capital’ refers to the connections, reciprocity and trust among people and groups. There are three types of social capital: bonding (strong ties between similar people e.g. family and friends), bridging (looser ties between a broader range of people, often cutting across race, gender and class) and linking (ties connecting people with those in power, such as decision-makers)(1).
This page is part of the Guide to Disaster Recovery Capitals.
WHAT WE KNOW
Recovery is strongly influenced by the degree of connection and participation within and between affected communities(2,3). Community cohesion can facilitate cooperation, enabling communities to respond to the needs of different community members(4,5). Disasters can trigger shifts in community dynamics(4,6), with initial increases in community cohesion giving way to disagreements and tensions(7). Post-disaster interventions can enhance social structures within communities to support resilience and recovery(5).
Following Black Saturday, people who belonged to community organisations and groups generally had better mental health and wellbeing years after, although being involved in many groups had negative effects for some(8,9). Where many people belonged to community groups and organisations, benefits to mental health and wellbeing were felt throughout those local communities(8). Community groups can play an important role in recovery decision-making and collective action(2). Having many close social bonds within a group, as is the case within many migrant and Indigenous communities(10–12), is generally a strength likely to foster resilience and recovery(4,13), unless there is a lack of bridging and linking capital(2,14).
WHAT WE KNOW
Social ties matter in people’s recovery – they are generally helpful, but it is complex. Family, friends and neighbours are important sources of support(15–21), and providing support to loved ones can also support resilience(15,22). People with more social relationships generally have better mental health in recovery(23). Wellbeing may be compromised if friends and family are depressed(23), have high property loss(23) or leave the area following a disaster(6,23). Where disasters cause loss of life, the mental health impacts extend beyond the family to friends and community members, with particularly deep impacts where there are multiple deaths within a community(24).
WHAT WE KNOW
Social connections build trust and enable the flow of information, which is critical during recovery as it enables decision-making and access to resources(2,9,15,25–27). This includes connections between family, friends, neighbours, service providers, media and government. Information delivered through strong relationships and effective methods can further strengthen social capital(5,15), whereas weak social ties can lead to a cycle in which poor communication leads to mistrust and blame, further damaging social connections(26).
WHAT WE KNOW
Social capital is a double-edged sword – it can be a powerful engine of recovery and social progress, but it can hinder recovery and exacerbate inequities(2,14). For marginalised groups, trusting relationships with peers, services and advocates can be crucial(27). However, social capital can benefit those within a well-connected group at the expense of those on the outside(2,14). In-groups often mobilise to protect their own interests, which can inhibit broader recovery, shift burdens onto the less connected and entrench stigma and disadvantage(2,27–32).
There is evidence from the USA that poverty increases more after disasters if there is a growth in organisations that bond people who are alike together and may constrict resources to the ‘in-group’ (e.g. religious organisations)(14,33). By contrast, increases in advocacy organisations – which foster bridging and linking social capital across a broader range of people and institutions – appear to reduce poverty rates(33). There is also evidence suggesting that the sense of community generated by involvement in community organisations is not only linked to relationships within the organisation, but also to the outward focus and influence of the organisation(34).
WHAT WE KNOW
Social networks and connection to a community can influence people’s decisions about relocating or living locally after a disaster. Neighbourhoods with high levels of social capital tend to repopulate more quickly after disasters(2,35). Following Black Saturday, strong sense of community was a reason people chose to stay locally, while for others damaged sense of community arising from disagreements and changes to the local area led to decisions to relocate(6,20). After Hurricane Katrina, survivors relied on information about the plans of their neighbours, friends and store owners when deciding whether to return to New Orleans or relocate(2,25).
Decisions about relocation may be further complicated for Aboriginal peoples with connections to Country in the disaster-affected area(10,36). In addition to the ramifications for social, cultural and political life, these decisions are influenced by the distinctive nature of the formally recognised rights and interests held by Aboriginal peoples – such as native title, which cannot be bought or sold – as compared to non-Indigenous land ownership(10).
People with disabilities may also have less choice regarding relocation due to lack of accessible housing options(37).
WHAT WE KNOW
Relocating or living locally after a disaster is likely to alter recovery experiences, but the implications for long-term wellbeing are complex and variable. Benefits of staying locally include opportunities for community connection and discussion of shared experiences, although this can be undermined if friends and neighbours choose to leave(6,23,38). Those who relocate may feel guilt over this and be less socially connected in their new homes, but may benefit from stepping away from the post-disaster disruption(6). Their mental health may be protected if they have new neighbours who have also relocated from the same area(9).
Negative effects of evacuations and relocation for Aboriginal peoples include an inability to maintain proper relations with Country, disconnection from Country and family, and loss of resources, all of which occurs in the historical context of dispossession and forced relocation under settler colonialism(36,39).
At a community level, repopulation of disaster-affected locations is often an indicator of recovery(35), yet relocation may become necessary if there is a high risk of future disasters(40).
WHAT WE KNOW
Communities affected by disasters often receive support from wider society, including resources, guidance and emotional support(5,15)(2). When this support is responsive to local needs it generally plays a positive role in recovery(41,42). Communities with greater ability to draw on these external connections tend to fare better(2,4,43,44).
WHAT WE KNOW
Given the importance of social connectedness in disaster recovery, physical distancing measures in response to pandemics pose challenges to recovery, especially for communities affected by multiple disasters(45). Further evidence is needed on interventions that can maintain and build social connections in these contexts (45).
WHAT WE KNOW
Animals play an important role in the social and emotional lives of many people, including as companion animals seen as valued family members(46). These bonds are especially important in times of adversity, yet animals are often overlooked in disaster planning and response(47,48). Loss of companion animals can cause acute distress and also leave people without an important source of support, increasing post-disaster mental health risks(49).
This resource has been developed through the Recovery Capitals (ReCap) project.
Artwork on this page by Oslo Davis and Frances Belle Parker.
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.
