Bourgeoning literature has been taking into cognisance how endogenous social practices in the community influence disaster response, preparedness, perception and resilience o f the community. There are so many empirical studies that have tried to link Social Capital and community resilience to disasters. As disasters tend to occur in certain geographical areas, it is very crucial to comprehend how endogenous strategies lead to greater community resilience and adaptive capacity.
Mutual help within disaster prone communities is critical in the recovery phase. “This mutual help can include physical help (tools, living space and food), or information sharing and financial aid. Information sharing is important in allowing victims to ascertain where support is being provided, and it can provide an important means for governments and non
governmental organisations (NGOs) to reach vulnerable people (for example the elderly and
disabled) in disaster-affected areas” (Go Shimanda 2014: 156). Paton and Johnston (2001: 45) also supported the view that Social Capital promotes community resilience to disasters as they argued that “social ties and networks enable communities to respond to adversity whilst retaining their core functions” . This can be seen in Granovetter’s (1974) study o f the United States labour market where he found out that social networks raised the efficiency o f the job matching process, and sped up the job search for workers. Thus, in the event that a disaster has occurred people can move to other places to look for a job through connections and they will be able to send remittances to their families so that they will be able to buy food and other things that make their lives miserable, in the event that they do not access them.
Social Capital theory has two main dominant features that makes it more crucial in disaster resilience and these are networks and norms, trust and reciprocity. Norms, trust and reciprocity smoother the functioning o f networks that are indispensable in disasters. Networks provide the resources that are needed to “solve collective problems and pursue specific goals in the larger society” (Paton, 1999: 6). There are vast researches that have shown that Social Capital and social networks enabled people in disaster communities to be able to bounce back following a disaster. Defining features o f Social Capital/dimensions o f Social Capital such as participation, networks, provision o f support, reciprocity and trustworthiness are theorised as critical in promoting community resilience in the aftermath o f a disaster. In most cases, after disasters,
“it has been observed that tight bonds between relatives and neighbours led to collective action on the part o f the community and the efficient allocation o f resources, catalysing communication to access assistance” (Go Shimada, 2013: 156). Thus, Social Capital can be considered as a significant tool in disaster resilience. Through the use o f networks, residents can urgently cement communication and knowledge on how to address the situation and how it can be communicated among members. This enables them to make use o f scarce resources more efficiently so that they can survive. This is very difficult in communities where there are no networks.
“Concepts like social resilience are related to theories o f Social Capital which stress the importance o f social networks, reciprocity and interpersonal trust” (Patterson, Weil and Patel, 2009: 127). These allow disaster victims to successfully “bounce back,” recover, and respond than they can do in isolated efforts. Patterson et al (2009: 137) further highlighted that community responses to Hurricane Katrina demonstrate the importance o f local knowledge, resources and cooperative strategies in determining their survival and recovery and that is their
resilience. They show examples o f community’s behaviours during Hurricane Katrina and clearly elaborated how local community members worked in preparedness, evacuation, rescue, relief, and recover to the impacts o f the disaster. On recovery stage, “as soon as water had been drained from their neighbourhood, the Vietnamese community returned and began rebuilding, assisting each other, starting from one roof down whilst cooking and eating as a community.
Despite some challenges that they faced, working together lessened their burden to recover.
The city and utility companies had initially declined to reconnect water and electric services but church leaders collected hundreds o f signatures to prove that community members were back in residence and successfully pressed for the establishment o f services.” (Patterson et al, 2009: 138). In this case, people did not rely on external help in the first place but on their relations, networks and understanding o f one another. Each one o f them had the zeal to work for the benefit o f the community and that is why they were able to go back in the area which was initially devastated by the disaster. This clearly indicates that the community has an important role to play in enhancing disaster resilience and community’s adaptive capacity.
Dyne (2005: 15) notes that disaster research has shown concretely that isolated individuals are
“less likely to be rescued, seek medical help, and take preventative action such as evacuate, or receive assistance from others in the form o f shelter” . From local to international levels, formal Social Capital improves disaster response and recovery (Varda et al, 2009). Communities with more trust, civic engagement, and stronger networks can better bounce back after a crisis than fragmented, isolated ones (Aldrich, 2008). “In disaster after disaster, parents find and pull their children from the rubble and residents struggle with shovels to extricate elderly neighbours from collapsed houses and by the time domestic or international rescue personnel arrive on the scene, many victims are already rescued by locals or are dead” (Aldrich, 2010: 5). In other words, Social Capital brings bonding amongst people.
Several studies outside Zimbabwe show that Social Capital plays a significant role in disaster resilience. Brouwer and Nhassengo (2006) found that Social Capital played an important role in the recovery o f poor households after the 2000 floods in Mabalane district, Mozambique.
M ogues’ (2006) study also showed that social networks play an important role in asset recovery and growth after environmental shocks in Ethiopia. Barker’s (2011) study in Brima, Australia showed that the collective unit enhances community resilience as strangers helped strangers and local residents helped each other. Furthermore, Kien (2011) conducted a study in the Vietnamese Mekong River Delta and found that Social Capital (relationships with neighbours)
is crucial in enhancing household resilience to floods. The importance o f Social Capital in enhancing community resilience to disasters was identified by Hawkins and M aurer (2010:
1789) who found instances in which “bonding, bridging and Social Capital were instrumental in aiding people to prepare for, endure and mutually aid one another before and during the storm, in addition to recovery following the floods in New Orleans” . They found that residents in New Orleans helped each other within the community. Furthermore, Hawkins and Maurer (2011: 1780) note that “ Social Capital not only helped the survivors o f Hurricane Katrina survive the storm but to also relocate and rebuild their lives and revitalise their communities.”
As droughts and floods continue to get worse, understanding residents’ resilience to floods and droughts has become a necessity in the contemporary world where disasters are ever- increasing. Studies on community resilience to natural disasters have become an issue in the contemporary world where development agencies such as the Department o f International Development (DFID) are “committed to build disaster resilience into all its programmes by 2015” (DFID, 2011: 14) and where “increasing attention is paid to the capacity o f disaster affected communities to recover with little or no external assistance following a disaster”
(Manyena, 2009: I). Ang, Oeur and M cAndrew (2007) carried out a study where they sought to understand Social Capital in response to floods and droughts in the San Kor rural district of Cambodia. They found that residents helped each other to evacuate family members, watch over animals and ferry children to school. Once flood waters had receded, residents worked together to repair community infrastructure. During severe droughts in San Kor, “relatives and neighbours from villages helped each other to replenish rice seeds and assist vulnerable people”
(ibid: 12).
Chamlee-Wright and Storr (2011) examined how Social Capital in the form o f collective narratives affected post disaster recovery in Katrina o f Bernard Parish which is an area that was hit by flooding. They found that Social Capital in the form o f collective narratives shaped post disaster recovery efforts. “Community members who had returned within the first few years after Katrina needed to have embraced a self-reliant strategy in which they relied on their own efforts and on informal support from their family and their neighbours”(Chamlee-Wright and Storr, 2011: 280). Their study also found that in the post Katrina context, in which the state and federal assistance was characterised by frustrating and slow progress, an independent posture proved to be an advantage, particularly when combined with the working class values o f self-reliance.
Although the study found some flaws that are associated with Social Capital (in the form of collective narratives) in facilitating community resilience after a disaster, the major findings revealed that Social Capital is very useful in enhancing community resilience as is shown by the explanation above. The shared identity o f St Bernard as a closely knit family oriented community comprised o f hard workers emerged as a dominant narrative on how people described “who they were” and how they responded to the challenges of the rebuilding effort Chamlee-Wright and Storr (2011: 280). However, their study is different from the present study in the different dimensions. These are the study context (that is, their study was conducted in a developed country). Their study did not also look at how the most vulnerable groups such as the elderly, child-headed families and women responded to floods and other environmental changes, using Social Capital. In addition, they employed a specific element o f Social Capital that is, collective narrative, whilst this study took the following elements o f Social Capital;
collective efficacy, social interaction and networks, trustworthy and understanding, aggregate support, volunteerism and pro-social behaviour, information circulation, celebration of diversity and different ideas and participation. Furthermore, their study did not examine how Social Capital helped residents in preparedness and prevention. Rather, they looked at the recovery phase. This study scouts deeper on how Muzarabani residents make use o f Social Capital in enhancing their resilience to floods and droughts from preparedness, response and recovery to the mitigation phase.
The study o f the flooding in Brisbane, Australia by Barker (2011) concurs with Murphy (2007:
300) who indicated that “researchers have found that there is a strong positive relationship between Social Capital and community resilience” . The role o f Social Capital in disaster resilience cannot be underestimated the world over. According to Chamlee-Wright and Storr 2011: 266), Social Capital facilitates community level planning for disaster mitigation, preparedness, evacuation and provision o f shelter before a disaster. Residents in St Bernard utilised Social Capital to coordinate emergency management and community return to provide material resources (in the form o f portable water, food, shelter and clothing) to the vulnerable and to rebuild damaged houses, business and other special spaces in their communities (Chamlee-Wright and Storr 2011: 266).This also goes in tandem with Magis (2010: 402) who notes that members o f resilient communities intentionally develop personal and collective capacity that they engage to respond to and influence change, to sustain and renew the community and develop new trajectory for the community’s future.
A Study by Dynes, Quarentelli and Wenger (1990) demonstrated the usefulness o f Social Capital when they examined the 1985 Mexico City Earthquake, which they used as a sample o f the entire city population. They found that 10% o f the respondents highlighted that they had left their homes a year later after the earthquake and 86% went to relatives and another 5%
went to friends. This has shown that Social Capital has helped some communities to deal with the negative effects o f natural disasters.
If community residents view their lives to be vulnerable to hazards, they are more likely to cooperate in order to enhance their resilience. This is also supported by Patton, Johnson, Smith and M iller (2001: 49) who note that community members who perceive their lives or livelihoods to be especially vulnerable to hazards are more likely to cooperate in relevant disaster preparedness initiatives than those who do not. That means Social Capital in the name of “who we are” helps vulnerable residents to enhance their resilience to disasters as has also been shown by A llen’s (2006) study o f Philippines where he found out that family and cultivated kinship networks also frequently provide access to important resources and opportunities to improve an individual or household standard o f living or support adaptation to change. Although there were some flaws, Social Capital assisted residents in the Philippines to withstand harsh conditions that were triggered by climate change.
Moreover, the study by Aghabakhshi and Gregor (2007) revealed that Social Capital is o f much importance when it comes to community resilience to natural disasters since it helped earthquake victims in Bam and Tehcon. They noted that “a sense of solidarity reported in Iranian newspapers with many individuals from surrounding areas travelling to the city to offer assistance and injured people were transported haphazardly to the neighbouring city o f Kerman for medical care in cars, vans and even rubbish trucks” (Aghabakhshi and Gregor, 2007: 349).
W ithout Social Capital, it would have been difficult for the people to assist each other. Even though relief supplies were inefficient, victims got assistance quickly and this helped them to survive.
Social Capital and social networks are used to guard disaster victims against foreigners (poor people from other communities that are not affected by disasters) who may want to take the disaster as a great opportunity to enrich themselves. People who are in communities that are not affected by disasters take this as an opportunity to loot belongings o f disaster victims whilst
the victims are battling for life. In addition, these cunning neighbours can also come out and claim to be residents o f the community that would have been affected by the disaster so that they receive relief assistance from Non-Governmental Organisations. For example, in Bam,
“genuine survivors o f the earthquake found that their immediate needs were not being met because o f the rapid influx o f poor people from the surrounding unaffected areas claiming relief and food” (Aghabakhshi and Gregor, 2007: 349). Furthermore, it was reported that the majority o f survivors preferred to remain among debris o f their former home to protect it from looting by non-community members. This was because o f the fact that their Social Capital was destroyed by the disaster which had claimed the lives o f many and it became difficult for them to identify endogenous residents o f the community. There were very few people whom they could trust. This clearly shows the need to have Social Capital and networks in the community so that people will be able to identify who belongs to their community and who does not, so that assistance can go to those who really deserve it. If Social Capital and networks were not destroyed, non-community members would not have entered and would know that they are being watched and can be arrested. Thus, Social Capital, though it has got its own loopholes, plays a significant role in promoting resilience. The absence o f Social Capital and networks makes life difficult for the disaster victims. Community volunteers and other members can help identify the vulnerable population and establish a register for the survivors so that external assistance can be channelled to the right people who have been affected by the disaster and not non-community members who were not directly affected by the disaster.
Theresearcher adopted Putnam ’s Social Capital theory and social networks analysis as suitable frameworks in understanding how the local people in Muzarabani are responding to floods and droughts. Although the study by Patterson et al (2009) did not clearly elaborate how vulnerable groups made use o f Social Capital to withstand harsh conditions that are imposed by floods and droughts, their findings have demonstrated that Social Capital and social network analysis are crucial in disaster preparedness as residents took actions that enabled them to successfully recover in the aftermaths o f a disaster. In relation to this study, people in the lower Muzarabani area can develop relationships that are independent o f blood so that they can secure each other in times o f crises, especially when hit by disasters. Freeman (2004: 2) notes that the “social network approach is grounded in the intuitive notion that the patterning o f social ties in which actors are embedded has important consequences for those actors” . Thus, disaster victims can achieve some benefits by helping each other when a disaster strikes.
Abheuer, Eich and Braun (2013) examined the role o f Social Capital in coping with the impacts o f severe floods o f 2009 in Dhaka’s slums using both qualitative and quantitative methodologies that were also employed in this study. Their study found that community social resources did not disappoint households substantially; rather households were disappointed by the government and Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs). The majority o f their respondents used their “ Social Capital to access loans which were mostly provided through bonding and linking ties which they used to repair damaged houses” (Abheuer, Eich and Braun, 2013). In addition, Social Capital helped people to find work in the aftermath o f the flood.
“Neighbours helped each other in critical situations and some respondents indicated that they received help from other people in the form o f exchange o f material objects o f everyday use such as clothes, money, food and assistance to repair houses and to provide shelter for people who lost their homes” (ibid: 291). Despite fragile livelihoods and disadvantageous living conditions, slum dwellers were in most cases able to cope with even more floods because they employed Social Capital which enabled them to receive social support. High prevalence of trust enabled slum dwellers to borrow food, clothes and money. Thus, Abheuer et al (2013: 34) note that Social Capital and informal modes o f transactions made urban households resilient, as both allow them to react to and to cope with natural extreme events.
Abheuer et al’s (2013) study provided a solid background to the present study where the researcher sought to understand the role o f Social Capital in community resilience to floods and droughts in Muzarabani. However, their study applied Social Capital in the urban context where there are more formal employment opportunities and money circulates in larger amounts, which is a different case from one o f Zimbabwe’s rural areas. The present study has been conducted in a rural area where residents are very poor and there are very few if not none, formal employment opportunities. Abheuer et al’s (2013) study did forego the strategies that were adopted by women, child headed families and the elderly to deal with floods, which is one o f the objectives o f this study. Their survey was conducted in November and December 2009 in cooperation with colleagues from Universities o f Rajshahi and Dhaka where seven research assistants were employed to conduct interviews. Thus, the time period was too short to provide adequate answers as to how people in the area made use o f Social Capital to increase their resilience to floods. In this present study, the researcher, employed observations where she had to reside in the study site for nine months, investigating in detail how residents make use o f Social Capital in dealing with floods and droughts. The study is purely ethnographic in nature where the researcher gathered detailed, first-hand information from residents in their