Association for Public Policy Analysis & Management

As we increasingly consider adaptation as a central strategy for addressing climate change, recovery emerges as an important dimension that is often the focus of public policy. The progression of climate change will cause an increase in disaster scale and magnitude, so it is important for policy makers to understand how communities can not only prevent impacts, but also recover from them. However, recovery can be very non-uniform. Communities struck by similar damages may have very different outcomes, and it is important to identify the factors that drive these differences.

This paper examines the role of social capital as an important determinant of community-level recovery. Social capital refers to the linkages between individuals and groups, and the norms, common values and understanding that strengthen them. It manifests either by bonding with those inside the group or bridging outside connections. Recently, research has emerged that suggests that social capital, and in particular bridging social capital, may be a strong predictor of a community’s post-disaster recovery. It can potentially explain divergent recovery outcomes in cases where many of the more frequently cited determinants, such as income of residents, governance, aid, disaster severity, or population density fall short.

At the community level, social capital is often manifested through volunteerism and participation in local organizations, suggesting that investment into community groups could potentially be an important strategy for building local-level resilience. To test this, the paper uses building permits to quantify long-term recovery trajectories at the county level in the northeastern United States following Hurricane Sandy. The relationship between different recovery trajectories and social capital is then examined using data on county involvement in disaster-preparedness activities specifically and community groups more generally, which will help to determine whether social capital primarily builds resilience through the formation of groups that assist in the recovery process or if indirect effects such as the strengthening of community bonds also play a role. This distinction between direct and indirect effects is presently underexplored in the literature and requires clarification so as to better inform policy makers in their efforts to strengthen community resilience.