Tag Archives: Capital

Latest Findings on Disaster Resilience: From Burma to California via the Rockefeller Foundation

I’ve long been interested in disaster resilience particularly when considered through the lens of self-organization. To be sure, the capacity to self-organize is an important feature of resilient societies. So what facilitates self-organization? There are several factors, of course, but the two I’m most interested in are social capital and communication technologies. My interest in disaster resilience also explains why one of our Social Innovation Tracks at QCRI is specifically focused on resilience. So I’m always on the lookout for new research on resilience. The purpose of this blog post is to summarize the latest insights.

Screen Shot 2014-05-12 at 4.23.33 PM

This new report (PDF) on Burma assesses the influence of social capital on disaster resilience. More specifically, the report focuses on the influence of bonding, bridging and linking social capital on disaster resilience in remote rural communities in the Ayerwaddy Region of Myanmar. Bonding capital refers to ties that are shared between individuals with common characteristics characteristics such as religion or ethnicity. Bridging capital relates to ties that connect individuals with those outside their immediate communities. These ties could be the result of shared geographical space, for example. Linking capital refers to vertical links between a community and individuals or groups outside said community. The relationship between a village and the government or a donor and recipients, for example.

As the report notes, “a balance of bonding, bridging and linking capitals is important of social and economic stability as well as resilience. It will also play a large role in a community’s ability to reduce their risk of disaster and cope with external shocks as they play a role in resource management, sustainable livelihoods and coping strategies.” In fact, “social capital can be a substitute for a lack of government intervention in disaster planning, early warning and recovery.” The study also notes that “rural communities tend to have stronger social capital due to their geographical distance from government and decision-making structures necessitating them being more self-sufficient.”

Results of the study reveal that villages in the region are “mutually supportive, have strong bonding capital and reasonably strong bridging capital […].” This mutual support “plays a part in reducing vulnerability to disasters in these communities.” Indeed, “the strong bonding capital found in the villages not only mobilizes communities to assist each other in recovering from disasters and building community coping mechanisms, but is also vital for disaster risk reduction and knowledge and information sharing. However, the linking capital of villages is “limited and this is an issue when it comes to coping with larger scale problems such as disasters.”

sfres

Meanwhile, in San Francisco, a low-income neighborhood is  building a culture of disaster preparedness founded on social capital. “No one had to die [during Hurricane Katrina]. No one had to even lose their home. It was all a cascading series of really bad decisions, bad planning, and corrupted social capital,” says Homsey, San Francisco’s director of neighborhood resiliency who spearheads the city’s Neighborhood Empowerment Network (NEN). The Network takes a different approach to disaster preparedness—it is reflective, not prescriptive. The group also works to “strengthen the relationships between governments and the community, nonprofits and other agencies [linking capital]. They make sure those relationships are full of trust and reciprocity between those that want to help and those that need help.” In short, they act as a local Match.com for disaster preparedness and response.

Providence Baptist Church of San Francisco is unusual because unlike most other American churches, this one has a line item for disaster preparedness. Hodge, who administrates the church, takes issue with the government’s disaster plan for San Francisco. “That plan is to evacuate the city. Our plan is to stay in the city. We aren’t going anywhere. We know that if we work together before a major catastrophe, we will be able to work together during a major catastrophe.” This explains why he’s teaming up with the Neighborhood Network (NEN) which will “activate immediately after an event. It will be entirely staffed and managed by the community, for the community. It will be a hyper-local, problem-solving platform where people can come with immediate issues they need collective support for,” such as “evacuations, medical care or water delivery.”

Screen Shot 2014-05-12 at 4.27.06 PM

Their early work has focused on “making plans to protect the neighborhood’s most vulnerable residents: its seniors and the disabled.” Many of these residents have thus received “kits that include a sealable plastic bag to stock with prescription medication, cash, phone numbers for family and friends. They also have door-hangers to help speed up search-and-rescue efforts (above pics).

Lastly, colleagues at the Rockefeller Foundation have just released their long-awaited City Resilience Framework after several months of extensive fieldwork, research and workshops in six cities: Cali, Columbia; Concepción, Chile; New Orleans, USA; Cape Town, South Africa; Surat, India; and Semarang, Indonesia. “The primary purpose of the fieldwork was to understand what contributes to resilience in cities, and how resilience is understood from the perspective of different city stakeholder groups in different contexts. The results are depicted in the graphic below, which figures the 12 categories identified by Rockefeller and team (in yellow).

City Resilience Framework

These 12 categories are important because “one must be able to relate resilience to other properties that one has some means of ascertaining, through observation.” The four categories that I’m most interested in observing are:

Collective identity and mutual support: this is observed as active community engagement, strong social networks and social integration. Sub-indicators include community and civic participation, social relationships and networks, local identity and culture and integrated communities.

Empowered stakeholders: this is underpinned by education for all, and relies on access to up-to-date information and knowledge to enable people and organizations to take appropriate action. Sub-indicators include risk monitoring & alerts and communication between government & citizens.

Reliable communications and mobility: this is enabled by diverse and affordable multi-modal transport systems and information and communication technology (ICT) networks, and contingency planning. Sub-indicators include emergency communication services.

Effective leadership and management: this relates to government, business and civil society and is recognizable in trusted individuals, multi-stakeholder consultation, and evidence-based decision-making. Sub-indicators include emergency capacity and coordination.

How am I interested in observing these drivers of resilience? Via social media. Why? Because that source of information is 1) available in real-time; 2) enables two-way communication; and 3) remains largely unexplored vis-a-vis disaster resilience. Whether or not social media can be used as a reliable proxy to measure resilience is still very much a  research question at this point—meaning more research is required to determine whether social media can indeed serve as a proxy for city resilience.

As noted above, one of our Social Innovation research tracks at QCRI is on resilience. So we’re currently reviewing the list of 32 cities that the Rockefeller Foundation’s 100 Resilient Cities project is partnering with to identify which have a relatively large social media footprint. We’ll then select three cities and begin to explore whether collective identity and mutual support can be captured via the social media activity in each city. In other words, we’ll be applying data science & advanced computing—specifically computational social science—to explore whether digital data can shed light on city resilience. Ultimately, we hope our research will support the Rockefeller Foundation’s next phase in their 100 Resilient Cities project: the development of a Resilient City Index.

Bio

See also:

  • How to Create Resilience Through Big Data [link]
  • Seven Principles for Big Data & Resilience Projects [link]
  • On Technology and Building Resilient Societies [link]
  • Using Social Media to Predict Disaster Resilience [link]
  • Social Media = Social Capital = Disaster Resilience? [link]
  • Does Social Capital Drive Disaster Resilience? [link]
  • Failing Gracefully in Complex Systems: A Note on Resilience [link]
  • Big Data, Lord of the Rings and Disaster Resilience [link]

Why Digital Social Capital Matters for Disaster Resilience and Response

Recent empirical studies have clearly demonstrated the importance of offline social capital for disaster resilience and response. I’ve blogged about some of this analysis here and here. Social capital is typically described as those “features of social organizations, such as networks, norms, and trust, that facilitate action and cooperation for mutual benefit.” In other words, social capital increases a group’s capacity for collective action and thus self-organization, which is a key driver of disaster resilience. What if those social organizations were virtual and the networks digital? Would these online communities “generate digital social capital”? And would this digital social capital have any impact on offline social capital, collective action and resilience?

Social Capital

A data-driven study published recently, “Social Capital and Pro-Social Behavior Online and Offline” (PDF), presents some fascinating insights. The study, carried out by Constantin M. Bosancianu, Steve Powell and Esad Bratovi, draws on their survey of 1,912 Internet users in Bosnia & Herzegovina, Croatia and Serbia. The authors specifically consider two types of social capital: bonding social capital and bridging social capital. “

“Bridging social capital is described as inclusive, fostered in networks where membership is not restricted to a particular group defined by strict racial, class, linguistic or ethnic criteria.  Regular interactions inside these networks would gradually build norms of generalized trust and reciprocity at the individual level. These relationships [...] are able to offer the individual access to new information but are not very adept in providing emotional support in times of need.”

“Bonding social capital, on the other hand, is exclusive, fostered in tight-knit networks of family members and close friends. Although the degree of information redundancy in these networks is likely high (as most members occupy the same social space), they provide [...] the “sociological superglue” which gets members through tough emotional stages in their lives.”

The study’s findings reveal that online and offline social capital were correlated with each other. More specifically, online bridging social capital was closely correlated with offline bridging social capital, while online binding social capital was closely correlated with offline binding social capital. Perhaps of most interest with respect to disaster resilience, the authors discovered that “offline bridging social capital can benefit from online interactions.”

bio

Digital Humanitarians and The Theory of Crowd Capital

An iRevolution reader very kindly pointed me to this excellent conceptual study: “The Theory of Crowd Capital”. The authors’ observations and insights resonate with me deeply given my experience in crowdsourcing digital humanitarian response. Over two years ago, I published this blog post in which I wrote that, “The value of Crisis Mapping may at times have less to do with the actual map and more with the conversations and new collaborative networks catalyzed by launching a Crisis Mapping project. Indeed, this in part explains why the Standby Volunteer Task Force (SBTF) exists in the first place.” I was not very familiar with the concept of social capital at the time, but that’s precisely what I was describing. I’ve since written extensively about the very important role that social capital plays in disaster resilience and digital humanitarian response. But I hadn’t taken the obvious next step: “Crowd Capital.”

Screen Shot 2013-03-30 at 4.34.09 PM

John Prpić and Prashant Shukla, the authors of “The Theory of Crowd Capital,” find inspiration in F. A. Hayek, “who in 1945 wrote a seminal work titled: The Use of Knowledge in Society. In this work, Hayek describes dispersed knowledge as:

“The knowledge of the circumstances of which we must make use never exists in concentrated or integrated form but solely as the dispersed bits of incomplete and frequently contradictory knowledge which all the separate individuals possess. […] Every individual has some advantage over all others because he possesses unique information of which beneficial use might be made, but of which use can be made only if the decisions depending on it are left to him or are made with his active cooperation.”

“Crowd Capability,” according to John and Prashant, “is what enables an organization to tap this dispersed knowledge from individuals. More formally, they define Crowd Capability as an “organizational level capability that is defined by the structure, content, and process of an organizations engagement with the dispersed knowledge of individuals—the Crowd.” From their perspective, “it is this engagement of dispersed knowledge through Crowd Capability efforts that endows organizations with data, information, and knowledge previously unavailable to them; and the internal processing of this, in turn, results in the generation of Crowd Capital within the organization.”

In other words, “when an organization defines the structure, content, and processes of its engagement with the dispersed knowledge of individuals, it has created a Crowd Capability, which in turn, serves to generate Crowd Capital.” And so, the authors contend, a Crowd Capable organization “puts in place the structure, content, and processes to access Hayek’s dispersed knowledge from individuals, each of whom has some informational advantage over the other, and thus forming a Crowd for the organization.” Note that a crowd can “exist inside of an organization, exist external to the organization, or a combination of the latter and the former.”

Screen Shot 2013-03-30 at 4.30.05 PM

The “Structure” component of Crowd Capability connotes “the geographical divisions and functional units within an organization, and the technological means that they employ to engage a Crowd population for the organization.” The structure component of Crowd Capability is always an Information-Systems-mediated phenomenon. The “Content” of Crowd Capability constitutes “the knowledge, information or data goals that the organization seeks from the population,” while the “Processes” of Crowd Capability are defined as “the internal procedures that the organization will use to organize, filter, and integrate the incoming knowledge, information, and/or data.” The authors observe that in each Crowd Capital case they’ve analyzed , “an organization creates the structure, content, and/or process to engage the knowledge of dispersed individuals through Information Systems.”

Like the other forms of capital, “Crowd Capital requires investments (for example in Crowd Capability), and potentially pays literal or figurative dividends, and hence, is endowed with typical ‘capital-like’ qualities.” But the authors are meticulous when they distinguish Crowd Capital from Intellectual Capital, Human Capital, Social Capital, Political Capital, etc. The main distinguishing factor is that Crowd Capability is strictly an Information-Systems-mediated phenomenon. “This is not to say that Crowd Capability could not be leveraged to create Social Capital for an organization. It likely could, however, Crowd Capability does not require Social Capital to function.”

That said, I would opine that Crowd Capability can function better thanks to Social Capital. Indeed, Social Capital can influence the “structure”, “content” and “processes” integral to Crowd Capability. And so, while the authors argue that  “Crowd Capital can be accrued without such relationship and network concerns” that are typical to Social Capital, I would counter that the presence of Social Capital certainly does not take away Crowd Capability but quite on the contrary builds greater capability. Otherwise, Crowd Capability is little else than the cultivation of cognitive surplus in which crowd workers can never unite. The Matrix comes to mind. So this is where my experience in crowdsourcing digital humanitarian response makes me diverge from the authors’ conceptualization of “Crowd Capital.” Take the Blue Pill to stay in the disenfranchised version of Crowd Capital; or take the Red Pill if you want to build the social capital required to hack the system.

MatrixBluePillRedPill

To be sure, the authors of Crowd Capital Theory point to Google’s ReCaptcha system for book digitization to demonstrate that Crowd Capability does not require a network of relationships for the accrual of Crowd Capital.” While I understand the return on investment to society both in the form of less spam and more digitized books, this mediated information system is authoritarian. One does not have a choice but to comply, unless you’re a hacker, perhaps. This is why I share Jonathan Zittrain’s point about “The future of the Internet and How To Stop It.” Zittrain promotes the notion of a “Generative Technologies,” which he defines as having the ability “to produce unprompted, user-driven change.”

Krisztina Holly makes a related argument in her piece on crowdscaling. “Like crowdsourcing, crowdscaling taps into the energy of people around the world that want to contribute. But while crowdsourcing pulls in ideas and content from outside the organization, crowdscaling grows and scales its impact outward by empowering the success of others.” Crowdscaling is possible when Crowd Capa-bility generates Crowd Capital by the crowd, for the crowd. In contrast, said crowd cannot hack or change a ReCaptcha requirement if they wish to proceed to the page they’re looking for. In The Matrix, Crowd Capital accrues most directly to The Matrix rather than to the human cocoons being farmed for their metrics. In the same vein, Crowd Capital generated by ReCaptcha accrues most directly to Google Inc. In short, ReCaptcha doesn’t even ask the question: “Blue Pill or Red Pill?” So is it only a matter of time until the users that generate the Crowd Capital unite and revolt, as seems to be the case with the lawsuit against CrowdFlower?

I realize that the authors may have intended to take the conversation on Crowd Capital in a different direction. But they do conclude with a number of inter-esting, open-ended questions that suggest various “flavors” of Crowd Capital are possible, and not just the dark one I’ve just described. I for one will absolutely make use of the term Crowd Capital, but will flavor it based on my experience with digital humanitarias, which suggests a different formula: Social Capital + Social Media + Crowdsourcing = Crowd Capital. In short, I choose the Red Pill.

bio

Resilience = Anarchism = Resilience?

Resilience is often defined as the capacity for self-organization, which in essence is cooperation without hierarchy. In turn, such cooperation implies mutuality; reciprocation, mutual dependence. This is what the French politician, philo-sopher, economist and socialist “Pierre-Joseph Proudhon had in mind when he first used the term ‘anarchism,’ namely, mutuality, or cooperation without hierarchy or state rule” (1).

Screen Shot 2013-03-24 at 6.36.22 PM

As renowned Yale Professor James Scott explains in his latest bookTwo Cheers for Anarchism, “Forms of informal cooperation, coordination, and action that embody mutuality without hierarchy are the quotidian experience of most people.” To be sure, “most villages and neighborhoods function precisely be-cause of the informal, transient networks of coordination that do not require formal organization, let alone hierarchy. In other words, the experience of anar-chistic mutuality is ubiquitous. The existence, power and reach of the nation-state over the centuries may have undermined the self-organizing capacity (and hence resilience) of individuals and small communities.” Indeed, “so many functions that were once accomplished by mutuality among equals and informal coordination are now state organized or state supervised.” In other words, “the state, arguably, destroys the natural initiative and responsibility that arise from voluntary cooperation.”

This is goes to the heart what James Scott argues in his new book, and he does so  in a very compelling manner. Says Scott: “I am suggesting that two centuries of a strong state and liberal economies may have socialized us so that we have largely lost the habits of mutuality and are in danger now of becoming precisely the dangerous predators that Hobbes thought populated the state of nature. Leviathan may have given birth to its own justification.” And yet, we also see a very different picture of reality, one in which solidarity thrives and mutual-aid remains the norm: we see this reality surface over & over during major disasters—a reality facilitated by mobile technology and social media networks.

Recall Jürgen Habermas’s treatise that “those who take on the tools of open expression become a public, and the presence of a synchronized public increas-ingly constrains undemocratic rulers while expanding the right of that public.” One of the main instruments for synchronization is what the military refers to as “shared awareness.” As my colleague Clay Shirky notes in his excellent piece on The Political Power of Social Media, “shared awareness is the ability of each member of a group to not only understand the situation at hand but also under-stand that everyone else does, too. Social media increase shared awareness by propagating messages through social networks.” Moreover, while “Opinions are first transmitted by the media,” they are then “echoed by friends, family mem-bers, and colleagues. It is in this second, social step that political opinions are formed. This is the step in which the Internet in general, and social media in particular, can make a difference.”

metropiano

In 1990, James Scott published Domination and the Arts of Resistance: Hidden Transcripts, in which he distinguishes between public and hidden transcripts. The former describes the open, public interactions that take place between dominators and oppressed while hidden transcripts relate to the critique of power that “goes on offstage” and which the power elites cannot decode. This hidden transcript is comprised of the second step described above, i.e., the social conversations that ultimately change political behavior. Scott writes that when the oppressed classes publicize this “hidden transcript”, they become conscious of its common status. Borrowing from Habermas, the oppressed thereby become a public and more importantly a synchronized public. Social media is the metronome that can synchronize the collective publication of the hidden trans-cript, yielding greater shared awareness that feeds on itself, thereby threatening the balance of power between Leviathan and now-empowered and self-organized mutual-aid communities.

I have previously argued that social media and online social networks also can and do foster social capital, which increases capacity for self-organization and renders local communities more resilient & independent, thus sowing the seeds for future social movements. In other words, habits of mutuality are not all lost and the Leviathan may still face some surprisesAs Peter Kropotkin observed well over 100 years ago in his exhaustive study, Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution, cooperation and mutual aid are the most important factors in the evolution of species and their ability to survive. “There is an immense amount of warfare and extermination going on amidst various species; there is, at the same time, as much, or perhaps even more, of mutual support, mutual aid, and mutual defense… Sociability is as much a law of nature as mutual struggle.” 

Sociability is the tendency or property of being social, of interacting with others. Social media, meanwhile, has become the media for mass social interaction; enabling greater volumes of interactions than at any other time in human history. By definition, these mass social interactions radically increase the probability of mutuality and self-organization. And so, as James Scott puts it best, Two Cheers for Anarchism

bio

Social Media = Social Capital = Disaster Resilience?

Do online social networks generate social capital, which, in turn, increases resilience to disasters? How might one answer this question? For example, could we analyze Twitter data to capture levels of social capital in a given country? If so, do countries with higher levels of social capital (as measured using Twitter) demonstrate greater resiliences to disasters?

Twitter Heatmap Hurricane

These causal loops are fraught with all kinds of intervening variables, daring assumptions and econometric nightmares. But the link between social capital and disaster resilience is increasingly accepted. In “Building Resilience: Social Capital in Post-Disaster Recover,” Daniel Aldrich draws on both qualitative and quantita-tive evidence to demonstrate that “social resources, at least as much as material ones, prove to be the foundation for resilience and recovery.” A concise summary of his book is available in my previous blog post.

So the question that follows is whether the link between social media, i.e., online social networks and social capital can be established. “Although real-world organizations […] have demonstrated their effectiveness at building bonds, virtual communities are the next frontier for social capital-based policies,” writes Aldrich. Before we jump into the role of online social networks, however, it is important to recognize the function of “offline” communities in disaster response and resilience.

iran-reliefs

“During the disaster and right after the crisis, neighbors and friends—not private firms, government agencies, or NGOs—provide the necessary resources for resilience.” To be sure, “the lack of systematic assistance from government and NGOs [means that] neighbors and community groups are best positioned to undertake efficient initial emergency aid after a disaster. Since ‘friends, family, or coworkers of victims and also passersby are always the first and most effective responders, “we should recognize their role on the front line of disasters.”

In sum, “social ties can serve as informal insurance, providing victims with information, financial help and physical assistance.” This informal insurance, “or mutual assistance involves friends and neighbors providing each other with information, tools, living space, and other help.” Data driven research on tweets posted during disasters reveal that many provide victims with information, help, tools, living space, assistance and other help. But this support is also provided to complete strangers since it is shared openly and publicly on Twitter. “[…] Despite—or perhaps because of—horrendous conditions after a crisis, survivors work together to solve their problems; […] the amount of (bounding) social capital seems to increase under difficult conditions.” Again, this bonding is not limited to offline dynamics but occurs also within and across online social networks. The tweet below was posted in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy.

Sandy Tweets Mutual Aid

“By providing norms, information, and trust, denser social networks can implement a faster recovery.” Such norms also evolve on Twitter, as does information sharing and trust building. So is the degree of activity on Twitter directly proportional to the level of community resilience?

This data-driven study, “Do All Birds Tweet the Same? Characterizing Twitter Around the World,” may shed some light in this respect. The authors, Barbara Poblete, Ruth Garcia, Marcelo Mendoza and Alejandro Jaimes, analyze various aspects of social media–such as network structure–for the ten most active countries on Twitter. In total, the working dataset consisted close to 5 million users and over 5 billion tweets. The study is the largest one carried out to date on Twitter data, “and the first one that specifically examines differences across different countries.”

Screen Shot 2012-11-30 at 6.19.45 AM

The network statistics per country above reveals that Japan, Canada, Indonesia and South Korea have highest percentage of reciprocity on Twitter. This is important because according to Poblet et al., “Network reciprocity tells us about the degree of cohesion, trust and social capital in sociology.” In terms of network density, “the highest values correspond to South Korea, Netherlands and Australia.” Incidentally, the authors find that “communities which tend to be less hierarchical and more reciprocal, also displays happier language in their content updates. In this sense countries with high conversation levels (@) … display higher levels of happiness too.”

If someone is looking for a possible dissertation topic, I would recommend the following comparative case study analysis. Select two of the four countries with highest percentage of reciprocity on Twitter: Japan, Canada, Indonesia and South Korea. The two you select should have a close “twin” country. By that I mean a country that has many social, economic and political factors in common. The twin countries should also be in geographic proximity to each other since we ultimately want to assess how they weather similar disasters. The paired can-didates that come to mind are thus: Canada & US and Indonesia & Malaysia.

Next, compare the countries’ Twitter networks, particularly degrees of  recipro-city since this metric appears to be a suitable proxy for social capital. For example, Canada’s reciprocity score is 26% compared to 19% for the US. In other words, quite a difference. Next, identify recent  disasters that both countries have experienced. Do the affected cities in the respective countries weather the disasters differently? Is one community more resilient than the other? If so, do you find a notable quantitative difference in their Twitter networks and degrees of reciprocity? If so, does a subsequent comparative qualitative analysis support these findings?

As cautioned earlier, these causal loops are fraught with all kinds of intervening variables, daring assumptions and econometric nightmares. But if anyone wants to brave the perils of applied social science research, and finds the above re-search questions of interest, then please do get in touch!

Does Social Capital Drive Disaster Resilience?

The link between social capital and disaster resilience is increasingly accepted. In “Building Resilience: Social Capital in Post-Disaster Recover,” Daniel Aldrich draws on both qualitative and quantitative evidence to demonstrate that “social resources, at least as much as material ones, prove to be the foundation for re-silience and recovery.” His case studies suggest that social capital is more important for disaster resilience than physical and financial capital, and more im-portant than conventional explanations.

Screen Shot 2012-11-30 at 6.03.23 AM

Aldrich argues that social capital catalyzes increased “participation among networked members; providing information and knowledge to individuals in the group; and creating trustworthiness.” The author goes so far as using “the phrases social capital and social networks nearly interchangeably.” He finds that “higher levels of social capital work together more effectively to guide resources to where they are needed.” Surveys confirm that “after disasters, most survivors see social connections and community as critical for their recovery.” To this end, “deeper reservoirs of social capital serve as informal insurance and mutual assistance for survivors,” helping them “overcome collective action constraints.”

Capacity for self-organization is thus intimately related to resilience since “social capital can overcome obstacles to collective action that often prevent groups from accomplishing their goals.” In other words, “higher levels of social capital reduce transaction costs, increase the probability of collective action, and make cooperation among individuals more likely.” Social capital is therefore “an asset, a functioning propensity for mutually beneficial collective action […].”

In contrast, communities exhibiting “less resilience fail to mobilize collectively and often must wait for recover guidance and assistance […].”  This implies that vulnerable populations are not solely characterized in terms of age, income, etc., but in terms of “their lack of connections and embeddedness in social networks.” Put differently, “the most effective—and perhaps least expensive—way to mitigate disasters is to create stronger bonds between individuals in vulnerable populations.”

Social Capital

The author brings conceptual clarity to the notion of social capital when he unpacks the term into Bonding Capital, Bridging Capital and Linking Capital. The figure above explains how these differ but relate to each other. The way this relates and applies to digital humanitarian response is explored in this blog post.