Postdisaster reciprocity and the development of inequality in personal networks

Abstract

Within the context of major changes in economics, population distribution, and lifestyles around the world, people continue to rely on personal relationships for support. People also often create or find themselves in relationships that are alternatively asymmetrical or balanced. In this study, we are interested in how people face acute or chronic hazards and how asymmetrical or balanced exchange relationships are associated with different types of social support in these contexts. This study examines the degree to which populations in three disaster settings-flooding in Mexico and volcanic eruptions in Mexico and Ecuador-show variation in the degree and form of reciprocity. We found people on average to engage in giving and/or receiving with three to five people in their personal networks. Most of these relationships were reciprocal, but those that were not reciprocal suggested potential inequality in these rural communities.Keywords Labor; Exchange; Social support; Hazards; Social networksIn the immediate aftermath of any large-scale disaster, the world is often fascinated and uplifted by stories of mutual support and assistance. These narratives become the human interest sagas of the local, national, and international press, particularly in those situations where government authorities seem unable to deal with the immediate aftermath of the event. Policy makers focusing on this aspect of immediate postdisaster behavior have begun using such terms as resilience to account for recovery and to imply that communities showing resilience are more likely to recover from extreme events with even stronger and more democratic economies. The inverse, though hinted at, is seldom clearly articulated-that communities with little resilience lack the community spirit of sharing and, by implication, are the cause of their own failure.Here we present some of the results of our studies of social support among disaster-affected and resettled peoples in Mexico and Ecuador. Very little work has been done to look at the long-term nature of exchange and mutual assistance in disaster settings. There is a general lack of attention to what happens a year after or further out from the event and how postevent recovery strategies by governments and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) actually serve to perpetuate existing inequalities and class structures. In this article, we examine reported exchange relationships in chronic and acute disaster

Earthquake Risk Perception in Belgrade: Implications for Disaster Risk Management

“…Examining the risk population's demographic characteristics (gender, age) is vital for any research. Numerous studies have been conducted on the influence of demographic factors on risk perception (Armaş & Avram, 2008;Jones et al, 2013;Rahman, 2019;. The most common results obtained in research on demographic determinants of risk perception are that women perceive risks more than men, while patterns are not observed in other aspects of demographic factors (Sund et al, 2017).…”

“…However, it is necessary to work on improving knowledge and preparedness in all age categories. Research conducted in Mexico and Ecuador aimed to determine how residents of cities where natural disasters have occurred perceive risk and their estimates for future events (Jones et al, 2013). The results showed that younger people think that it is very likely to experience a disaster again.…”

Pollution, Health, and Disaster

“…Th ese lines of inquiry have also been important to ethnographic work around ethics of care, and strategies such as "intravention" (Bailey 2009; Cheng and Garriga-López 2021) that communities can provide for one another when services and resources are scare or outright denied (Duclos and Sánchez Criado 2019;Nelson 2016). Th e increased attention to networks of mutual aid in the context of disasters (Jones et al 2015;Rodríguez Soto 2020) speaks to these concerns through a diff erent lens.…”

Disaster response and recovery: Aid and social change

“…; Jones et al. ); and individually and internally differentiated human agencies (Barrios ; Fortun ; Hilhorst ).…”