Social Capital and Urban Resilience:

Research Design

Preparedness and Resilience to address Urban Vulnerability (PRUV)

Work Package 1

16th March 2017

This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No 691060

1

Social Capital and Urban Resilience: Research Design

Preparedness and Resilience to Reduce Urban Vulnerability (PRUV)

Work package one

It is not by accident that social capital is a main theme in the PRUV programme. A shift of

thinking is required to avert the apocalyptic predictions of rapid urbanisation and to create

resilient metropolises. At the core of this change in mindset is a move from viewing people

as the problem to facilitating their considering themselves as their own best resource in

building a better future; in other words, a source of ‘capital’. Acknowledging the

complexities of urban social interaction and understanding how social interaction can

constitute ‘capital’ is central to the PRUV programme. This document provides a

justification for investigating social capital within the PRUV project. It defines the concept

and then presents a framework to research the complex nature of social capital in line with

PRUV study objectives.

Background and Context

Global trends such as climate change, urbanisation, economic growth and inequality, food

insecurity and resource scarcity have an impact that extends beyond national boundaries

(World Humanitarian Summit, 2015). Urban areas are rendered vulnerable due to multiple

exacerbating factors such as rapid and unplanned development, environmental

degradation, precarious livelihoods and resource pressures. These challenges are likely to

grow given that the proportion of the world’s population living in urban areas is projected to

increase from the current 53% to a projected 70% by 2050 (IDMC and NRC, 2014; UNISDR,

2014). Over the past forty years, the urban population in lower income and fragile countries

has increased by 326% (UNISDR, 2014). Nearly one billion people or one-third of the

developing world’s urban population live in slums, mostly in highly vulnerable areas (UN-

Habitat, 2009; Lall and Deichmann, 2012). Amongst displaced persons, more than half seek

safety and opportunity in urban areas, often living alongside the urban poor and other

migrants and exposed to the risk of abuse, exploitation and a range of hazards (Global CCCM

Cluster 2014).

The ‘typical’ humanitarian crisis of the future is likely to be urban rather than rural with all

the attendant systemic complexity that cities present (Apraxine et al., 2012; Pantuliano et

al. 2012; Parvanello, 2012; World Humanitarian Summit, 2015). This sentiment is echoed in

a raft of recent global policy documents that warn of the future urban threat, including: the

Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030; Sustainable Development Goals

(Murshed 2015); World Humanitarian Synthesis Report- October 2015 (WHS Secretariat

2015); Secretary General’s Report in preparation for the World Humanitarian Summit (UN

General Assembly 2016), UN-Habitat III, October 2016 (UN Habitat 2016) and the IFRC

2

World Disasters Report 2016 (IFRC 2016). Against this policy backdrop, there are calls to

build urban resilience.

While the debate concerning the definition and practice of urban resilience continues, a

growing number of academics and policy makers are suggesting that the solutions to

humanitarian need should come from within affected communities or what is being termed

‘localised response’. In this vein, the WHS consultations recommended that humanitarian

aid organisations invest in building social capital and strengthening of local structures (WHS,

2015). However, the urban context, especially in such places as informal settlements and

slum areas, are extremely diverse and complex. Contemporary approaches and strategies

do not fully understand the community institutions and the relationships that shape the

quality and quantity of social interactions in urban settings that ultimately impact on the

lives and livelihoods of vulnerable urban dwellers worldwide (Concern Worldwide,

unpublished). Such community institutions and relationships emerge and develop under

conditions generally characterised by increased transience of populations, greater

communication possibilities, increased marketisation of relations and stark economic, social

and ethnic heterogeneity (Knox-Clarke & Ramalingam 2012).

Understanding how the quality and quantity of social interactions within such urban settings

impacts on the lives and livelihoods of their inhabitants demands an assessment of the

relationship between social capital and resilience. While a link between social capital and

improved individual, household and community welfare in resource-poor settings has been

identified (Grootaert 1999; Grootaert et al. 2002; Story 2012; Aldrich & Smith 2015), the

contribution that social capital makes to resilience is still unclear (Adger, 2003; Aldrich,

2012; Bene et al 2015: 16; Pfefferbaum et al., 2015). The complexity and diversity of urban

social systems combined with the recognition of increasing urban vulnerability provide an

ideal test-bed for exploring this relationship.

In exploring the relationship between social capital and resilience, it is important to be

cognisant that the measurement of social capital remains problematic. While focused

primarily on the link between social capital and health outcomes, Story (2013) has identified

on the basis of a systematic review that there is a need to better understand the nuances of

social capital in resource-poor contexts and to adapt and validate instruments for measuring

social capital at multiple levels of analysis. This is especially the case in urban informal

settlements where aggregated data can mask stark inequalities within populations which in

turn can undermine social capital (Concern Worldwide, unpublished). The adaptation and

validation of approaches to measuring social capital at different levels of analysis, in

particular in the multi-faceted complexity of urban informal settlements, is thereby urgently

warranted.

3

Such adaptation and validation of approaches to measuring social capital in urban informal

settlements would be crucial to assisting the aid community in its interventions in such

contexts. Within the current context in which the humanitarian sector has been exhorted to

recalibrate their approaches to take into account the urban dimension, Aldrich and Smith

(2015: 6) identify the need to guide the aid community concerning the form of social capital

- bonding, bridging or linking - that should be emphasized according to the particularities of

a variety of humanitarian settings. Differentiating the forms of social capital is important

given the emergence of literature that eschews the unmitigated celebration of social capital

and highlights its potential dark side, arising in particular from bonding social capital (Portes

2014). By exploring the variety of possible relationships between social capital and

resilience more informed recommendations can be provided to the aid community

concerning how they address social capital in their programming.

In response to the above issues within the theory and practice relating to social capital and

urban resilience, PRUV work package 1 intends to address the following central question:

How can aid organisations ensure that their interventions in urban settings build on existing

social capital to promote resilient societies?

More specifically the work package seeks to ascertain:

What constitutes social capital in urban contexts?

How can social capital be measured within vulnerable urban contexts?

How does social capital relate to other forms of capital and capacity?

Social capital concept

Though only becoming fashionable recently, the term social capital has been in use for

decades. Keeley (2007) indicates that the term ‘social capital’ may first have appeared in a

book authored by Lyda Hanifanin published in 1916. The book discussed how neighbours

could work together to oversee schools. The term was used to describe what counts for

most of the daily lives of people: namely good will, fellowship, sympathy and social

intercourse (Keeley, 2007). Its understanding has evolved over these decades resulting in a

rich body of literature on social capital. Some of the earlier authors associated with

popularizing the concept like Bourdieu, Coleman and Putnam placed an emphasis on social

capital as a collective asset (Lin, 1999). Bourdieu’s (1985) contribution concerned the size

and strength of networks, while Coleman (1990) considered social capital as a resource that

can be deployed by social actors and transformed into other forms of capital, including

4

human capital. Putnam (1993:2000), on the other hand was interested in social

organisations emphasizing the importance of features including norms, trust and networks.

More recent definitions focus on the links, shared values and understanding in the society

that enable individuals and groups to trust each other and so work together (Keeley, 2007).

For instance, Siegler (2014) contends that social capital brings about connections which

generate benefits due to tolerance, solidarity and or trust. Scrivens and Smith (2013) argue

that the term social capital conveys the idea that human relations and norms of behaviour

have an instrumental value in improving different aspects of people’s lives. Such aspects

play a significant role in shaping individual as well as collective well-being outcomes.

The PRUV programme proposes to adopt a broad understanding of the social capital

concept. In bringing together the disparate and rich understandings of social capital, the

PRUV programme recognises both the quantity and quality of the social interactions, the

varying levels of such social interaction (individual, community, and locality) and the value

of the interaction in achieving individual and collective goals. As such social capital will be

understood as:

“the institutions and relationships that shape the quality and quantity of social

interactions which in the end enhances individual, community and society’s capacity

to collaborate in the achievement of both individual and collective aims.”

Therefore, the starting point to analyse social capital is to examine the relationships that

shape the quality and quantity of social interaction. The literature identifies that such

relationships are embedded in three forms of social capital; bonding, bridging and linking

capitals (Lin, 1999; Narayan, 1999; Whitley and McKenzie, 2005; Mignone and O’Neill, 2005;

Lofors and Sundquist, 2007; Keeley, 2007; Ledogar and Fleming, 2008).

Bonding capital

Bonding capital refers to personal relations within the locality. That is relations of people

based on a sense of common identities such as family, close friends and individuals who

share the same culture or ethnicity. Siegler (2013) consider it to be concerned with who

people know and what they do to establish and maintain their personal relationships.

Therefore, it concerns the quality, structure and nature of people’s relationships (Scriven

and Smith, 2013). These relations influence physical, mental health, economic well-being,

and life satisfactions. Such factors are what Lin (1999) argued to be the outcomes or in

other words the returns of social capital due to expressive actions. Putnam (2000) and Stone

(2001) indicate that bonding social capital involves trust and reciprocity in closed networks,

and helps the process of ‘getting by’ in life on a daily basis. No wonder, Siegler (2014) argue

that the quality of relationships (trust and values) that are beneficial for society can

determine how much people in a society are willing to cooperate with one another.

Quality of relationships (norms of trust and reciprocity)

5

Smith (2010) in her review of sociological, psychological and philosophical works, identified

three types of trust namely- a) generalised trust, a kind of trust that is based largely on

social learning and developmental processes; b) particularised trust, the idea that people

‘like me’ can be trusted, but that other groups may not share my moral values; and c)

strategic trust, the belief that specific others have the appropriate motives and intentions.

The idea that significant others can be relied upon to act in one’s own interests in specific

situations, around specific issues. Stone (2001) may have likened strategic trust to civic

trust. The trust in institutions that they will provide services according to the interest of the

people. An example of this kind of trust is that the belief that police officers have

appropriate motives towards citizens and are technically competent to protect the citizens

(Jackson et al., 2011 p270). Reliance on others, belief in the ability of others, reliance and

belief in the competence of the institutions are a few examples of particularised,

generalised and strategic trust. However, the challenge is that trust in one culture may not

mean the same thing in another (Keeley, 2007). It would be interesting to explore what trust

means and how it [trust] is distributed across the eight urban localities of the PRUV

programme.

On the other hand, reciprocity includes the processes of exchange within a relationship

whereby ‘goods and services’ (meaning exchange of any kind) given by one party are repaid

to that party by the party who received the original ‘goods and services’ (Stone, 2001 p30).

He further argues that reciprocal relations are governed by norms, such that parties to the

exchange understand the social contract they have entered and therefore their obligations.

Providing and receiving support in kind is one example of the process of reciprocity. Siegler

(2014) indicates the support received could be different types of resources an individual can

receive from others, including emotional, practical or financial support, advice and

guidance. While the support provided includes unpaid work (or informal volunteering),

which is the help given by an individual to another individual on a personal basis. Examples

include the help of grandparents for childcare, or care given to elderly parents. Stone (2001)

further highlights that reciprocity can be investigated either through asking directly about

perceived norms, or by investigating behavioural outcomes which result from and

demonstrate the norm of reciprocity at work.

Quantity of relationships (structure and nature of relationships)

Quantity of relationships mainly refers to the structure and nature of the connections

among and between individuals. A social structure is made up of a network of individuals or

organizations connected by one or more specific types of interdependency, such as

friendship, kinship, common interest, financial exchange, dislike, sexual relationships, or

relationships of beliefs, knowledge or prestige (Wasserman and Faust, 1994; Freeman,

2004). Social structure is mainly analysed through use of social network analysis (SNA)

technique. SNA is a process of examining these social relationships (interdependency) in

terms of network theory consisting of nodes and ties also called edges, links, or connections

6

(Wasserman and Faust, 1994; Freeman, 2004). SNA has two main components- egocentric

analysis1, also referred to as personal network analysis and socio-metrical analysis or whole

network analysis2 (Freeman, 2004; Rice and Yoshioka-Maxwell, 2015). In this study the

focus will be on both egocentric for the bonding capital and socio-metrical analysis for the

bridging and to some extent the linking capital. It will be interesting in this study to find out

how slum dwellers use such connections and interdependencies in order to enhance

preparedness and resilience.

Social influence

Interactions between and among individuals are shaped by the attitudes and the feelings

individuals hold towards another. The observable macro patterns such as individual or

group behaviour are shaped by micro phenomena through mechanisms of influence.

Therefore, social influence which is characterised by change in an individual’s thought,

feelings, attitudes or behaviours that results from interaction with another individual or

group (Coleman et al., 1957; Salganik and Watts, 2009) plays a greater role in shaping the

social connections. Social influence is mainly explored through dimensions including

conformity, obedience and compliance (Solomon Asch, 1951).

Conformity includes normative influence (change to fit in a group – to be liked or accepted;

change in thoughts, attitudes, feelings, and behaviour because of interaction with others)

and informational influence (change because of a desire to be correct, belief that others

have right information) Solomon Asch (1951). While obedience concerns the extent to

which individuals are willing to do things for others with a choice to deny, compliance

means doing things for others without a choice to deny.

Bridging capital

Bridging capital concerns the relations with other localities, i.e. links stretching beyond a

shared sense of identity, for example to distant friends, colleagues, and associates. Drawing

on Lin (1999) it can be argued that bridges give rise to instrumental actions with three

possible outcomes: economic (material resources such as wealth); political; and social.

Kreuter and Lezin (2000) argue that bridging social capital is comparable to institutional

infrastructure; therefore, it can be detected at the organisational level, where norms,

values, and social structures facilitate more macro-connections. These values could be

formal or informal and well-articulated. Bridging capital, as opposed to bonding capital, is

about ‘getting ahead,’ involving multiple networks which may make accessible the resources

and opportunities which exist in one network to a member of another network or locality

(Stone, 2001).

1 See for example Grund, T. (2014) Why Your Friends Are More Important and Special Than You Think. Sociological Science, 1, 128-140. Or Eom, Y. and Jo, H. (2014). “Generalized Friendship Paradox in Complex Networks: The Case of Scientific Collaboration. Scientific Reports 4 (4603), 1-6. 2 See for example Duncan, J. Watts (1998) Six Degrees: the small world phenomena See for example Granovetter, M. S., (1973) The Strength of Weak Ties. American Journal of Sociology 78 (6): 1360–1380.

7

Quality and quantity of meso-level connections

Bridging capital facilitates collective action, civic engagement or citizen participation. Such

actions, engagement and behaviours contribute positively to the collective life of a locality,

community or society (Scriven and Smith 2013; Siegler, 2014). Civic engagement includes

activities such as volunteering, political participation and other forms of community actions

(Grootaert and Bastelaer, 2001; Siegler, 2014). Evaluation of bridging capital requires

examination of such aspects of community governance and decision making; identification

of community institutions; characterization of community-institutional relationship; and

assessment of institutional networks and organizational density (Krishna and Shrader,

1999). This means bridging capital is mainly assessed at meso-level (Grootaert and

Bastelaer, 2001; Scriven and Smith 2013; Siegler, 2014), to achieve a more focused

observation of local institutions, collective actions and civic engagement. Due to the

diversity of the localities and also the complexity that comes with the definition and types of

community, the focus within PRUV will be on the locality.

Linking capital

Linking capital concerns relations with formal societal institutions - Links to people or groups

further up or lower down the social ladder (Keeley, 2007 p102). These linkages can be

viewed to be hierarchical in nature and reflect power, wealth, and social status. They mainly

refers to connections between a community and institutions and systems such as education,

governance, and the economy. Linking social capital involves social relations with those in

authority, often the type of capital used to garner resources or power (Stone, 2001). These

include connections of a person with others of greater status, resources and power (Siegler,

2014).

Quality and structure of institutions

According to North (1992, p11), institutions comprise of formal and informal rulesas well as

the enforcement characteristics of both, the structures that humans impose on their

dealings with each other. On the other hand, however, organizations consist of groups of

individuals engaged in purposive activity (North, 1990; 1992). Institutions are viewed as

economic, social and political environments that shape social structure and enable norms

and values to develop (Grootaert and Bastelaer, 2001). Such institutions encompass

informal [local and horizontal] and formal [hierarchical and vertical] associations and

relationships. Institutional structures (organisations) include education, health services, the

economy, and the justice system amongst others. While institutional relationships include

macro level governance, political regime, the rule of law, the court system, and civil and

political liberties [as part of quality]. In adaptation scholarship, Adger (2003) argues that the

relations between actors and institutions play an important role in shaping people’s ability

to act collectively when adapting to and recovering from natural disasters.

8

Measures of institutions in social capital include those that examine their homogeneity and

heterogeneity as well as horizontal (informal) and vertical (formal) connections (Grootaert

and Bastelaer, 2001) that exist between individuals and groups with the institutions and

organisations. Structurally, organizational density and characteristics, networks and mutual

support organizations, exclusion, collective action, and conflict resolution are among the

issues considered. The value of linking capital is individual and collective access to resources

and opportunities such as jobs, micro finance, education, justice among others. It will be

interesting to understand the role of relations between actors and institution in the eight

urban localities of the PRUV programme.

Study framework

Numerous attempts have been made to measure social capital. Scholars agree that settling

on a single means of measuring it is challenging (Woolcock and Narayan, 2000). This might

be due to a number of reasons: a) most of the definitions highlight that social capital is a

multidimensional concept with different levels of analysis; b) the nature and form of social

capital changes over time; c) the concept is still essentially in its infancy (Keeley, 2007).

Critics also argue that the term social capital is vague, hard to measure, poorly defined and

perhaps not even a form of capital at all (ibid.). Table 1 shows the variety of different

approaches to measuring social capital.

Table 1 some of the recent social capital measurement frameworks

Author Level of Analysis

Dimensions Key issues considered

Stone (2001) for Australian Institute of family studies

Multilevel Networks of social relations Structure of social relations -size, spatial, structural, relational

Norms of trust and reciprocity

Quality of social relations -trust, reciprocity

Grootaert and Bastelaer (2001) For World Bank’ Social Capital Initiative

Collective Structural and Micro

Local institutions, networks Membership in local associations and networks.

Structural (Macro) Institutions of the state, rule of law

Individual Cognitive (Micro) Trust, norms and Values Indicators of trust and adherence to norms.

Cognitive (Macro) Governance - an indicator of collective action.

Tsujikana (2002) Community participation Participation in organized groups, volume Participation in civil society Informal networks

Trust

Ledogar and Fleming (2008)

Individual Individual resilience and individual social capital.

Individual asset person’s relationships to available social resources

Community community resilience and community social capital;

Community characteristics, ttributes such as trust, reciprocity, collective action, and participation

Scrivens and Smith (2013) for OECD Well-being studies

Individual Personal Relationships

structure and nature of people’s personal relationships concerned with who people know and what they do to establish and maintain their personal relationships

Social Network Support the level of resources or support that a

9

Siegler (2014; 2015) for UK Office of National Statistics

person can draw from their personal relationships, what people do for other individuals on a personal basis.

Collective Civic Engagement the actions and behaviours that can be seen as contributing positively to the collective life of a community or society

Trust and Cooperative Norms

the trust and the cooperative norms or shared values that shape the way people behave towards each other and as members of society.

Woolcock and Narayan (2000) focused on membership in informal and formal associations

and networks. They examined formal group functioning, contributions to groups,

participation in decision making and heterogeneity of membership, interpersonal trust and

changes over time. Stone (2001) proposes focusing on the structure of social relations

(network types, structure and systems) and quality of social relations (norms of trust and

reciprocity). While focusing on economic development3, Grootaert and Bastelaer (2001)

recommended at around the same time focusing on the structural (local and societal

institutions) and the cognitive dimensions (norms, trust and governance at higher level) of

social capital.

A more recent measurement is the one that measured social capital as it relates to

economic well-being (Scrivens and Smith, 20134; Siegler, 2013; 2014). Scrivens and Smith

proposed a two-by-two dimension measurement framework with two levels of

analysis,individual and collective. Siegler (2014) used the same measure to assess how social

capital contributes to the well-being of the people in the United Kingdom (UK).

However, Tsujikana (2002) argues that studies have often considered cognitive aspects such

as trust, shared values, and understandings to serve as indices of the dependent variables of

cooperation, co-ordination, and bonding. But they are not indices of independent variables.

He further contends they are worth researching but should not be treated as the main

themes of social capital because they lack the essential nature of capital. He further argues

that all networks, social organizations, and institutions are not necessarily social capital. He

therefore recommends that we have to examine the type, context, and how they may

function as social capital. Such argument can be extended to slums and informal

settlements in urban areas. This study proposes the designing of the broader framework

based on the understanding of social capital forms as bonds, bridges and linkages.

Nevertheless, both qualitative and quantitative indicators will be informed by the baseline

surveys to be carried out in the eight localities identified. Therefore, there will be an

inductive construction of indicators (Béné et al., 2013; Mitchell, 2013).

3 The World Bank Social Capital Initiative

4 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Economic Well-being study

10

Figure 1 (below) demonstrates the multilevel and multidimensional nature of social capital.

The figure ranges from the cognitive to the structural and the micro to the macro as defined

by Grootaert and Bastelaer (2001) depicting the multidimensional factor as argued by Stone

(2001). Also, ranging from individual, collective to societal level demonstrating the

multilevel nature of the concept (Scriven and Smith, 2013; Siegler, 2013; 2014).

Figure 1 proposed social capital measurement framework

Figure 1 presents the proposed measurement framework of social capital. It captures all the

three forms of social capital of bonding, bridging and linking hence the synergy perspective

view. The forms are well aligned with the multilevel and multidimensional view of social

capital providing an opportunity to examine the concept in greater detail. It therefore

fits well with the exploratory nature of the study. Considering that as argued by Krishna and

Shrader (1999) indicators of social capital cannot be assumed a priori but must be

investigated independently for each separate context.

Table 2 social capital analytical framework (from theory to measurement, Authors)

Form of social capital

Dimension Key issues

Bonding capital Personal relationships

Quality of relationships

Norms of trust (Particularised trust among familiars, Generalised trust of strangers, strategic trust Civic/institutional trust)

Reliance on others Belief in the ability of others Reliance and belief in the competence of the institutions

Norms of reciprocity -Providing and receiving support could be in kind

Structure and nature of relationships

Social networks (types, size, spatial, structural, relational)

-Centrality (degree, betweenness, farness, closeness) perceived importance of individuals

11

-Distance i.e. connectedness of individuals -Attributes of networks (e.g. successfulness and attractiveness

Social influence

Conformity Normative (change to fit in a group – to be liked or accepted)

Change in thoughts, attitudes, feelings, and behaviour because of interaction with others

Informational (change because of desire to be correct, belief that others have right information)

Obedience Obedience Doing things for others with a choice to deny.

Compliance Compliance Doing things for others without a choice to deny

Bridging capital Groups, organisations and local institutions

Quality of local groups and institutions

Group Membership Group Participation Policies Rules and regulations Collective actions Civic engagement

Participation Capacity Voluntary activities

Structure and nature of local groups and institutions

Homogeneous, heterogeneous Horizontal, vertical Capacity and size

Organizational density Organisational characteristics

Linking capital Societal institutions and organisations

Existence of institutions

Education, political, justice systems

Micro finances, Education, Health, security, market religious

Societal processes

Quality of services

Governance, laws, policies, approaches and strategies

Rules, regulations, policies laws

Individual and collective access to services

Individual access Job opportunities Access to loans Access to education

Collective access

Relationship of social capital with other forms of capital5

Though social capital is included as one of the five capitals in the sustainable livelihood

framework (DFID, 1999); it remains under explored. Adger (2003) argue that social capital is

a misnomer as it does not share the fundamental characteristics of the other forms of

capital. Mayunga (2007) share the same view that forms of social capital encompass many

dimensions some of which are difficult to quantify. However, social capital does not exist in

isolation (Keeley, 2007). It links in a very complex way with the other capitals. Social capital

can directly enhance output and lead to higher productivity of other resources, such as

natural, human and physical capital (Grootaert and Bastelaer, 2001; Siegler, 2014). For

example, Keeley (2007 p100) highlights that citizens with higher levels of education have

higher levels of civic and social engagement. He further argues that in turn social capital

facilitates access to other forms of capitals such as economic and natural capital. For 5 DFID (1999) Sustainable Livelihood Framework

12

example, communities with high levels of social capital tend to achieve better school

outcomes than communities which face social fragmentation and isolation (OECD, 2001). Of

importance in the consideration of how social capital interacts with other capitals within the

sustainable livelihoods framework is that the latter framework was originally developed in

the rural context. The inter-play within the urban setting has not been explored to the same

extent.

Since resilience is measured primarily based on the capitals and capacities, Pfefferbaum et

al., (2015) in their paper “A Conceptual Framework to Enhance Community Resilience Using

Social Capital” have recognized the importance of social capital in building resilience of

communities. Béné et al. (2016) argue that in addition to robust measurement, improving

the understanding of resilience also requires a better insight into the social factors that

influence and affect individual and collective capacity to respond to shocks and stressors.

However, as argued by Grootaert and Bastelaer (2001 p22) the challenge for research,

therefore, is to give meaningful and pragmatic content to the rich notion of social capital in

each context and to define and measure suitable indicators. This is especially the case in

complex urban environments characterised by slums and informal settlements that are

prone to humanitarian crises .

13

References

Adinolfi, C., Bassiouni, D., Lauritzsen, H. F. and Williams, H. R., (2005). Humanitarian Response

Review. New York: OCHA.

Aguiler, M. (2002) The impact of social capital on labour force participation: Evidence from the 2000

Social Capital Benchmark Survey. Social Science Quarterly 83(3): pp 853-74

Aldrich, D., (2012) Social, not physical, infrastructure: the critical role of civil society after the 1923

Tokyo earthquake. Disasters, 36(3): PP 398−419.

ALNAP (2015) The State of the Humanitarian System, ALNAP Study. London: ALNAP/ODIApraxine

Bell, G. G. and Zaheer, A., (2007) Geography, Networks, and Knowledge Flow. Organization Science

18(6): pp 955-972.

Ben, F. (2007) Social capital. Development in Practice, 17(4-5: pp 566-574,

Béné C, Godfrey-Wood R, Newsham A, Davies M. (2012) Resilience: New Utopia or new tyranny?—

Reflection about the potentials and limits of the concept of resilience about vulnerability

reduction programmes. IDS working Paper 405, Brighton: Institute of Development Studies

Béné C, Frankenberger, T. & S. Nelson (2015) “Design, Monitoring and Evaluation of Resilience

Interventions: Conceptual and Empirical Considerations,” IDS Working Paper 459, Brighton:

Institute of Development Studies

Béne et al., (2016) Is res,ilience socially constructed? Empirical evidence from Fiji, Ghana, Sri Lanka,

and Vietnam. Global Environmental Change 38: pp 153-170

Bourdieu, P. (1986). In J. G. Richardson, & C. T. Westport (Eds.), ‘‘Forms of Capital’’ in Handbook of

theory for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). Greenwood Press.

Brannen, J., (2006). Mixed Methods: The Entry of Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches into

Research Process. Social Science. 8(3): pp 173-184.

Bryman, A., (2015) Social Research Methods. Oxford University Press, Oxford: New York.

Burt, R. (1992). Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition. Cambridge: Harvard University

Press.

Castells, M., (2004). Why Networks Matter. Network Logic: Who Governs in an Interconnected

World. London: Demos.

Castells, M., and Cardoso, G., (2005) The Network Society: From Knowledge to Policy. Washington,

DC: Johns Hopkins Center for Transatlantic Relations.

Clarke, J.D., (2013) Transitional coordination in Sudan (2006–08): lessons from the United Nations

Resident Coordinator’s Office. Disasters. 37(1): pp. 420–441.

Coffey, A., and Atkinson, K. (1996) Narratives and stories. In Making Sense of Qualitative Data.

Complementary Research Strategies pp54-82. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publication

Coleman, J. (1990) Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Coleman, S. (1988) Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology,

(94): pp 95–120.

Concern Worldwide (unpublished) Indicator Development for Surveillance of Urban Emergencies

Year 5 Annual Research Report

Creswell, J., (2014) Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods (4th Ed).

International Students Edition, London: Sage Publications

DFID, (1999) Department for international development. Sustainable livelihoods guide sheets.

London: DFID.

14

Dynes, R. R., (2002) The Importance of Social Capital in Disaster Response. Preliminary Paper number

327. Disaster Research Centre University of Delaware

Dynes, R. R., (2002) The Importance of Social Capital in Disaster Response. Preliminary Paper number

327. Disaster Research Centre University of Delaware

Eom, Y. and Jo, H. (2014) Generalized Friendship Paradox in Complex Networks: The Case of

Scientific Collaboration. Scientific Reports 4(4603), 1-6.

EU, (2015) Indicators for promoting and monitoring Responsible Research and Innovation: Report

from the Expert Group on Policy Indicators for Responsible Research and Innovation

European Commission (2009) Gender Toolkits

http://www.yellowwindow.be/genderinresearch/downloads/YW2009_GenderToolKit_Modul

e1.pdf

Farr, J. (2004) Social Capital: A conceptual history. Political Theory. 42(1): pp 6-33

Flap, H., (1994) No Man is an Island: The Research Programme of Social Capital Theory. World

Congress of Sociology. Berlin

Frankenberger, T., Langworthy, M., and Spangler, T., (2014) Enhancing Resilience to Food Security

Shocks. White Paper. Tuscon: TANGO.

Freeman, L. C. (2004). The development of social network analysis: A study in the sociology of

science. Vancouver: Empirical Press.

Gibbons, P., Dupré, E., Stirling, M., McDermott, R., (2016) Measuring the Impact of Concern

Ethiopia’s Interventions on the Level of Poverty in Damot Woyde. UCD: Dublin

Global CCCM Cluster (2014) Desk Review: Urban Displacement and Outside of Camp,

https://www.dropbox.com/s/p32dsdnl9e9gb9g/UDOC%20Desk%20Review_Digital%20publish

ing.pdf?dl=0 retrieved 1st March 2017

Grootaert, C. (1998) Social Capital: The Missing Link? Social Capital Initiative Working Paper No. 3.

Washington D.C: World Bank

Grootaert, C. (1999) Social Capital, Household Welfare, and Poverty in Indonesia. World Bank Policy

Research Working Paper No. 2148. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=569207

Grootaert, C. and Bastelaer, T. (2001) Understanding and Measuring Social Capital: A Synthesis of

Findings and Recommendation from the Social Capital Initiative Working Paper No. 24.

Washington D.C: World Bank

Grootaert, C., O. Gi‐Taik, & A. Swamy (2002) Social Capital, Household Welfare and Poverty in

Burkina Faso. Journal of African Economies, 11 (1): 4-38 Grund, T. (2014) Why Your Friends Are

More Important and Special Than You Think. Sociological Science, 1, 128-140.

IASC, (2007). Inter-Agency Contingency Planning Guidelines for Humanitarian Assistance, Inter-

Agency Standing Committee. New York: UNOCHA

IFRC, (2014) World Disaster Report: Focusing on Culture. IFRC: Geneva

IFRC (2016) World Disasters Report 2016: Resilience: saving lives today, investing for tomorrow,

Geneva: IFRC

Irish Research Council, (2015) Gender Strategy & Action Plan 2013 – 2020: Ensuring excellence and

maximising creativity and innovation in Irish Research.

Iyer, E., (2008) Theory of Alliances: Partnership and Partner Characteristics. Nonprofit & Public Sector

Marketing, 11(1), pp 41-57, DOI

15

Jay Chaudhuri, Erasmus, W. and G. Appleford, (2015) Urban Early Warning? Concern Worldwide’s

Research on Indicators for Urban Crises: Implications for Policy and Practice in Kenya. Concern

Worldwide, Nairobi, Kenya.

Kilby, P., (2008) The strength of networks: the local NGO response to the tsunami in India. Disasters.

32(1), pp. 120–130.

Kim, J., (2006). Networks, network governance, and networked networks. International Review of

Public Administration, 11(1): pp. 19–34).

Knox Clarke, P. and Ramalingam, B. (2012) Meeting the urban challenge: Adapting humanitarian

efforts to an urban world. ALNAP meeting paper. London: ALNAP/ODI

Kodansha, (1993). Japan: An Illustrated Encyclopedia. Kodansha Ltd.

Koppenjan, J. and Klijn, E., (2004) Managing Uncertainties in Networks: A Network Approach to

Problem Solving and Decision Making. Routledge: London

Kreuter, M.W., and Lezin, N. (2002) Social Capital Theory: Implications for Community-Based Health

Promotion. In DiClemente., R.J., Crosby, R.A., and Kegler, M.C., (eds) Emerging Theories in

Health Promotion Practice and Research. New York: Jossey-Bass

Krishna, A. and Shrader, E., (1999) Social Capital Assessment Tool. Paper prepared for the

Conference on Social Capital and Poverty Reduction. Washington D.C.: The World Bank, June

22-24.

Krishna, A. Shrader, E. (2000) Cross-cultural Measures of Social Capital: A Tool and Results from India

and Panama. Social Capital Initiative Working Paper No. 21. Washington D.C: World Bank

Ledogar, R.J., and Fleming, J. (2008) Social Capital and Resilience: A Review of Concepts and Selected

Literature Relevant to Aboriginal Youth Resilience Research. Pimatisiwin. 6(2): pp 25–46.

Lin, N. (1999) Building a Network Theory of Social Capital. Connections. 22(1): pp 28-51

Lin, N. (1999b) Social Networks and Status Attainment. Annual Review of Sociology (25): pp 467-487

Lofors and Sundquist, (2007) Low-linking social capital as a predictor of mental disorders: A cohort

study of 4.5 million Swedes. Social Science and Medicine 64(1): pp 21-34

McKenzie K, Whitley R, Weich S. (2002) Social capital, and mental health. British Journal of

Psychiatry 181:280–283. [PubMed: 12356653]

Mignone J, O’Neil J. (2005) Conceptual understanding of social capital in First Nations communities:

An illustrative description. Pimatisiwim: A Journal of Aboriginal and Indigenous Community

Health 3(2): pp7–44.

Murshed, Z., 2015. United Nationa Development Programme. [Online] Available at:

http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/blog/2015/1/29/Bigger-cities-don-t-have-to-mean-

bigger-risks.html [Accessed 12 01 2016].

Narayan, D. (1999) Bonds and Bridges: Social Capital and Poverty. Policy Research Working Paper

2167. Poverty Reduction and Economic Management Network, Washington, D.C.: World Bank

Narayan, D. (1999) Bonds and Bridges: Social Capital and Poverty. Policy Research Working Paper

2167. Poverty Reduction and Economic Management Network, Washington, D.C.: World Bank

Narayan, D. (1999). Bonds and Bridges: Social Capital and Poverty. Washington D.C.: The World Bank

Nightingale, K. (2012). Building the future of humanitarian aid: local capacity and partnerships in

emergency assistance. Dublin and London: Christian Aid.

Owen-Smith, J., and Powell, W. (2004). Knowledge networks as channels and conduits: The effects of

spillovers in the Boston biotechnology community. Organisation Science. 15(1): pp 5-21.

16

Owen-Smith, Jason and Walter W. Powell (2004) Knowledge Networks as Channels and Conduits:

The Effects of Formal Structure in the Boston Biotechnology Community. Organization

Science. 15(1): pp 5–21.

OECD, (2001), The Well-being of Nations: The Role of Human and Social Capital. OECD Publishing:

Paris.

Pantuliano, S., Metcalfe, V., Haysom, S. and Davey, E., (2012) ‘Urban vulnerability and displacement:

a review of current issues’, Disasters, 36 (s1).

Pfefferbaum, B., Van Horn, R.L., and Pfefferbaum, R.L., (2015) A Conceptual Framework to Enhance

Community Resilience Using Social Capital. Clin Soc Work J Springer Published Online

Portes A. (1998) Social capital: Its origins and applications in modern sociology. Annual Review of

Sociology. 24: pp 1–24.

Portes A. (1998) Social capital: Its origins and applications in modern sociology. Annual Review of

Sociology. 24: pp 1–24.

Portes, A. (2014) Downsides of social capital. Proceedings of the National Academy of

Sciences. 111.52: 18407-18408.

Provan, K. G., & Kenis, P. (2007). Models of Network Governance: Structure, Management, and

Effectiveness. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(2): pp 229–252.

Putnam, R. (2001). Social Capital: Measurement and consequences. Policy Research. Retrieved from

http://www.oecd.org/edu/educationeconomyandsociety/1825848.pdf (Accessed 10th May

2016)

Putnam, R. D. (1993) Making Democracy Work — Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton, NJ:

Princeton University Press

Putnam, R. D. (2000) Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. London:

Simon & Schuster.

Putnam, R.D. (1995) Tuning in, tuning out: The strange disappearance of social capital in America.

Political Science and Politics. December: pp 664–668.

Rice, E., and Yoshioka-Maxwell, A., (2015) Social Network Analysis as a Toolkit for the Science of

Social Work. A Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research, 6 (3): pp369-383

Rogers, E. (2010). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed). New York: Free Press.

Rothstien, B., (2005) Social Traps and the Problems of Trust: Theories of Institutional Design.

Cambridge University Press: London

Scriven, K. (2013), A Networked Response? Exploring National Humanitarian Networks in Asia,

London: ALNAP/ODI.

Scrivens, K., and Smith C. (2013) Four Interpretations of Social Capital: An Agenda for Measurement.

OECD Statistics Working Papers, 2013/06, OECD Publishing

Shepherd, A., Mitchell, T., Lewis, K., Lenhardt, A., Jones, L., Scott, L.and Muir-Wood, R., (2013) The

Geography of Poverty, Disasters and Extremes in 2030. London: ODI.

Siegler, V. (2014) Measuring Social Capital. Office for National Statistics

Siegler, V. (2015) Measuring Social Capital. Office for National Statistics. London

Smith, S.S., (2010) Race and trust. Annual Review of Sociology 36: 453–475.

Smith, W., Davies-Colley, C., Mackay, A. and Bankoff, Greg., (2013) Social impact of the 2004

Manawatu floods and the ‘hollowing out’ of rural New Zealand. Disasters, 35(3): 540−553.

Soratauta, M., (2010). Regional Development and Regional networks: The role of regional

development officers in Finland. European Urban and Regional Studies. 17(4): pp. 387–400.

17

Stone, W. (2001). Measuring Social Capital: Towards a Theoretically Informed Measurement

Framework for Researching Social Capital in Family and Community Life. Melbourne:

Australian Institute of Family Studies, Research Paper 24.

Story, W. (2013) Social capital and health in the least developed countries: A critical review of the

literature and implications for a future research agenda, Global Public Health, 8:9: 983-999

Szreter, S., and Woolcock, M., (2004) Health by association? Social capital, social theory, and the

political economy of public health. International Epidemiological Association 33: pp 650-667.

Taylor, G., Stoddard, A., Harmer, K., Haver, P., Harvey, K., Barber, L., Schreter, C. and Wilhelm (2012)

ALNAP: The State of the Humanitarian System. London: ODI

Thompson, W.C. (2010) Success in Kashmir: a positive trend in civil-military integration during

humanitarian assistance operations. Disasters. 34(1), pp. 1–15.

Tidd, J., & Bessant, J. (2015). Managing innovation: integrating technological, market and

organisational change. Sussex: Wiley

Tsujikana, Y. (2002) The Cultural Dimension in Measuring Social Capital: Perspectives from Japan.

Social Capital: The challenge of international measurement - paper 5. OECD Publication

UN General Assembly (2016) One humanity: shared responsibility: Report of the Secretary-General

for the World Humanitarian Summit, UN Doc. A/70/709, 2nd February 2016

UN Habitat (2016) UN Habitat III, Adoption of the final outcome of the Conference, Quito, 17-20

October 2016, A/CONF.226/4

UNISDR (2014). Progress and Challenges in Disaster Risk Reduction: A contribution towards the

development of policy indicators for the Post- 2015 Framework on Disaster Risk Reduction.

Geneva, Switzerland. The United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR).

UNISDR, (2009). Adaptation to Climate Change by Reducing Disaster Risks: Country Practices and

Lessons, Briefing Note 2. Geneva: UNISDR

UNOCHA., (2013). Humanitarianism in the Network Age. UNOCHA: New York.

Upton, S., and M. Ibrahim (2012) “Resilience in Practice.” Programme Briefing Paper, Practical

Action, Rugby, U.K. http://practicalaction.org/resilience-in-practice

Uzzi, B. (1997). Social structure and competition in inter-firm networks: The paradox of

embeddedness. Administrative science quarterly. Vol. 42(1): pp 35-67.

Wasserman, S., and Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Whitley, R. and McKenzie, K. (2005) Social capital and psychiatry: Review of the literature. Harvard

Review of Psychiatry 13: pp71–84. [PubMed: 16020022]

World Humanitarian Summit Secretariat, (2015) Restoring Humanity: Synthesis of the Consultation

Process for the World Humanitarian Summit, New York: United Nations.

Wisner, B., Blaikie, P., et al., (2012) the Routledge Handbook of Hazards and Disaster Risk Reduction.

London: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group.

Woolcock, M. (1998) Social Capital and Economic Development: Toward a Theoretical Synthesis and

Policy Framework. Theory and Society 27 (2): pp 151-208.

Woolcock, M. (1998) Social Capital and Economic Development: Toward a Theoretical Synthesis and

Policy Framework. Theory and Society 27 (2): pp 151-208.

Woolcock, M., and Narayan, D. (2000) Social capital: Its implications for development theory,

research and policy. The World Bank Research Observer 15(2): pp 225–49.

18

This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under

the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No 691060