Social capital and sociological resilience in megacities context

Abstract

Purpose -During the last few decades social resilience and social vulnerability have been two crucial sociological concepts for everyone involved in crisis and disaster management. The fundamental purpose in the present analysis is based on the consideration of resilience from a sociological perspective and the notion of social capital, its proper features, dynamics and processes within different groups of people involved in a disaster process. Design/methodology/approach -All these social components could be evaluated as social indicators of vulnerability and resilience according to the sociological approach and its main theories about social capital and resilience, social and methodological implications. The operative context of this theoretical reflection has been constituted by megacities, considered as the "new" social space where, nowadays, major social relations and risk reduction actions take place through a collaborative pattern not based on a top down organizational model. Findings -Attention is focused on the sociological findings as the importance of social cohesion, strengthening social relationships with particular consideration for the crucial role of social capital during all stages of the disaster process: prevention and preparedness, planning, warning communication, physical and psychological impacts, emergency and disaster response, recovery and reconstruction with the specific aim of enhancing social resilience and attempting to diminish social vulnerability. Originality/value -The originality of this proposal in the field of disaster resilience is its use of the sociological approach and its theoretical characteristics and instruments, such as, for example, the definitions of social capital. The consideration for this topic will be future challenges to improve urban disaster risk reduction according to social relationship and its characteristics of interconnection and multidimensionality.

Geographies of resilience

“…This descriptive expansion moves the concept more towards the social sciences and philosophy (e.g. Lucini, 2013) with the normative consequence that it has to deal with 'equity', 'power', 'justice' and 'social capital', thus increasing complexity. Geography continues to provide a solid grounding of theory in reality while linking ecology and society (see also Cote and Nightingale, 2012).…”

Disaster recovery: narrating the resilience process in the reconstruction of L’Aquila (Italy)

“…Conversely, qualitative approaches are able to frame the representation of social processes (Bailey et al, 1999) and to grasp complexity in DR as a social construct (Hutter et al, 2011;Kuhlicke, 2013;Weichselgartner & Kelman, 2014). Qualitative methodologies can collect data related to the political 'embeddedness' of resilience (Raco & Street, 2012), individual and community perceptions (Amundsen, 2012;Kuhlicke, 2013;Lucini, 2013Lucini, , 2014 and power relations (Cannon & Müller-Mahn, 2010;Lorenz, 2013). Interviews are part of a larger set of qualitative methodologies in social sciences (Crang, 2002) that add evidence to archival research (Secor, 2010).…”

Application of project management to disaster resilience

“…Scholars (e.g., Kenis et al 2009;Lundin and Söderholm 1995) have suggested that social relations and human interaction can be crucial to project management; often, the real challenge in disaster management projects is understanding the specific nature of social relations, structures, and processes (Lucini 2013). One aspect of social relations that is applicable to our context is the role of community groups.…”