Social Resources and Community Resilience in the Wake of Superstorm Sandy

Abstract

Recovery efforts after natural disasters typically focus on physical infrastructure. In general less attention is paid to the social infrastructure that might impact the capacity of the community to rebuild. We examine perceptions of preparedness and recovery (markers of resilience at the community level) in the wake of Superstorm Sandy with a novel data set that includes a multi-mode survey of twelve neighborhoods severely affected by the storm. With these data, we suggest that social resources are associated with beliefs about neighborhood resilience. People who live in communities with higher social cohesion (coefficient = .73, p <.001), informal social control (coefficient = .53, p <.001), and social exchange (coefficient = .69, p <.001) are more likely to believe their neighborhoods are well prepared for a disaster. Likewise, people living in communities with higher social cohesion (coefficient = .35, p <.01), informal social control (coefficient = .27, p <.05), and social exchange (coefficient = .42, p <.001) are more likely to be confident their neighborhoods will recover quickly from a disaster. However, the effects of social resources on beliefs about resilience vary based on neighborhood socioeconomic status (SES) and the impact of the storm. Informal social control and social exchange lead to a greater increase in confidence in recovery in low, as compared to high, SES neighborhoods. Social resources tend to have more impact on perceptions of recovery in communities less affected by the storm. In sum, these findings suggest the potential value of various forms of social intervention to better equip communities to respond when disaster strikes.

Killing Martin county : resiliency in a central Appalachian community.

“…Scholars have challenged outcome definitions that ignores the process of resiliency (Gilbert 2010). Outcome definitions fail to recognize the complexity, multi-dimensionality, and subjectivity of disaster recovery (Cagney et al 2016;Cutter 2016). Outcome definitions also fail to describe disaster resiliency through the lens of inequality (Bergstand et al 2015).…”

“…A lack of government response makes disaster impacts persist and strengthens structural and institutional forms of inequality (Chamlee- Wright & Storr 2010;Bergstrand et al 2015;Henly-Shepard et al 2015). Residents of communities who lack political capital reported feelings of confusion, uncertainty (Gill, Picou, & Ritchie 2012) and resentment for political institutions (Cagney et al 2016).…”

“…Each disaster will impact a community uniquely. Once disaster hits, countless factors influence the speed, in which impacts are reduced, like the racial and economic composition of the community (Cagney et al 2016;Cutter 2016;Gil-Rivas & Kilmer 2016). Resilient capacity, political capital, social capital, and adaptive resiliency will differ across multiple settings.…”

“…As resiliency is a subjective process (Cagney et al 2016;Cutter 2016) To capture meanings and perceptions of the county's resiliency process I began this research with semi-structured interviews with Martin County community members.…”

“…Governments help reduce feelings of uncertainty by informing communities about the disaster and by directing recovery. Social capital refers to any anything that connects a community, like networks, relationships, trust, and collective identity (Gilbert 2010;Cagney et al 2016;Gil-Rivas & Kilmer 2016). However, forms of political and social capital reduce in marginalized communities (Henly-Shepard et al 2015).…”