Civic Networks and Community Resilience in Brazil, Canada, Chile, and Cuba

Abstract

This article explores the relationship between civil society and community resilience in coastal communities in Brazil, Canada, Chile and Cuba. In understanding the role of social capital in community development, we do not feel sufficient attention has been paid to the subtle microdynamics of civil network structure. Using social network analysis, we explore the link between community cohesion and resilience. Attention is given to conflicting interests that characterize these communities and how they manifest themselves in civic participation and factional affiliations. We find that organizational diversity is a necessary condition for community vitality, but organizations can become captive to factional interests. The critical factors for resilience are associated with a benign side of factions (a plurality of inclusive ties) and the presence of keystone bridging agents. Each offers hidden mechanisms for neutralizing the effects of fragmentation by providing a cohesive capability which remains latent until crises call for collective action.

Building community resilience in a context of climate change: The role of social capital

“…These differentiated along ideas of ‘homophily’ or ‘sameness’ and ‘heterogeneity’ or ‘difference’ between people and groups. These distinguish ‘bonding social capital’ and ‘strong ties’ for interpersonal relationships (Barrett et al 2011 ), ‘bridging social capital’ or ‘weak tie’ across different social groups (Islam and Walkerden 2014 ); and/or ‘linking social capital’, emphasising connection across formal hierarchies, (e.g. between community and government actors) (Parés et al 2018 ) which implicitly acknowledges underlying power differentials.…”

“…The second included social networks and associated outcomes, e.g. improved health, information or civil engagement (Barrett et al 2011 ; Cairns-Nagi and Bambra 2013 ). The third conceptualisation viewed social capital as social networks combined with trust and norms of reciprocity (Peters 2019 ).…”

Configurations of community in flood risk management

“…Some authors emphasise that community is configured through interactions between individual actors, such as the people living in a specific location (Coates 2015;McEwen et al 2017), or between actor networks, which extend beyond geographical areas (Pauwelussen 2016;Misra et al 2017). Some point out that communities include organisations (Patterson et al 2010;Barrett et al 2011;Giordano et al 2017), while others include public authorities as part of community (Norris et al 2008;Magis 2010;Cutter 2016;Kruse et al 2017). Importantly, authorities that have impact on a local community may be both internal and external to that community (Singh-Peterson et al 2015).…”

“…Further, we use actor types and scales as our analytical tools to examine how the actors interact with each other in the study areas within the context of FRM. We illustrate actor type and scale as xand y-axes respectively in sociograms, which have been widely used in social network analyses of community networks (Barrett et al 2011;Tubaro et al 2016;Giordano et al 2017;Misra et al 2017).…”

“…In that view, community is a place-based concept, often referring to a specific local community. Another well-established approach to community is a networked understanding, within which community is understood as formed through social relations and networks between people (Barrett et al 2011;Pauwelussen 2016;Misra et al 2017).…”