Front. Environ. Sci. Frontiers in Environmental Science Front. Environ. Sci. 2296-665X Frontiers Media S.A. 1496813 10.3389/fenvs.2024.1496813 Environmental Science Systematic Review How does social capital facilitate community disaster resilience? A systematic review Zhao et al. 10.3389/fenvs.2024.1496813 Zhao Guanhu 1 2 * Hui Xu 3 4 Zhao Fazhen 1 2 5 Feng Lufang 1 2 Lu Yao 1 2 Zhang Yuting 1 2 1 School of Management, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China 2 Research Center for Emergency Management, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China 3 Evidence-Based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China 4 Centre for Evidence-Based Social Science/Center for Health Technology Assessment, School of Public Health, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China 5 Lanzhou University Library, Lanzhou, China

Edited by: Jonatan A. Lassa, GNS Science, New Zealand

Reviewed by: Srirath Gohwong, Kasetsart University, Thailand

John Petrus Talan, University College London, United Kingdom

Hestin Kezia Octalina Klaas, University of Sussex, United Kingdom

 *Correspondence: Guanhu Zhao, zhaogh19@lzu.edu.cn 06 01 2025 2024 12 1496813 15 09 2024 11 12 2024 Copyright © 2025 Zhao, Hui, Zhao, Feng, Lu and Zhang. 2025 Zhao, Hui, Zhao, Feng, Lu and Zhang

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

 Introduction

Community disaster resilience has emerged as a significant research topic within the domain of disaster risk management. One promising approach to enhance community disaster resilience lies in fostering social capital participation within the framework of community disaster risk management. However, there is currently limited systematic evidence illustrating how social capital facilitates community disaster resilience.

 Methods

A comprehensive search of the electronic databases yielded a total of 1,021 papers deemed to be relevant to the topic under investigation. Using rigorous inclusion criteria, this study identified 24 studies that met the final review requirements. Based on this foundation, this paper demonstrates how social capital facilitates community disaster resilience through a systematic review utilizing thematic content analysis.

 Results

This study identifies five critical mechanisms through which social capital facilitates community disaster resilience, including (1) social learning, (2) collective action, (3) disaster preparedness, (4) information communication, and (5) moral or civic responsibility. Furthermore, social capital mechanisms for enhancing community disaster resilience are observed across social (man-made) and natural disaster scenarios.

 Conclusion

These findings provide valuable guidelines for risk management practice by social capital to improve community disaster resilience: (1) enhance community residents’ risk perception and social learning capacity; (2) reinforcing offline face-to-face and social media-based disaster risk communication; (3) placing greater emphasis on the capacity for community collective action and disaster preparedness.

 social capital community disaster resilience risk management thematic synthesis systematic review section-at-acceptance Social-Ecological Urban Systems 1 Introduction

In recent years, floods, droughts, earthquakes, public health emergencies and other emergencies have increased frequently, causing enormous loss and damage worldwide (Awad et al., 2020). In 2011, the 9.0 magnitude earthquake in Tohoku, Japan, killed over 18,500 people and displaced nearly 500,000 people (Aldrich and Meyer, 2015). In 2013, Typhoon Yolanda ripped through the Philippines, killing more than 6,000 people and causing extensive damage estimated at hundreds of millions of dollars in damage (Aldrich and Meyer, 2015). In 2015, Hurricane Katrina caused at least 1836 deaths and resulted in a total economic loss of 125 billion dollars (Zakour et al., 2017). As of October 13, 2024, the COVID-19 public health outbreak had caused 776,618,091 infections and 7,071,324 deaths worldwide (WHO, 2024). The frequency of disasters such as those mentioned above has had a profound impact on the daily lives of community residents around the globe, resulting in a significant number of casualties and substantial economic losses. Therefore, it is paramount to implement effective community disaster risk management strategies and enhance community disaster resilience.

The practice and academia in disaster governance have led to an increased focus on social factors (Okada et al., 2018; Seng, 2013), and the concept of “community resilience” has gained popularity in the field of risk management (Warner, 2020). Community disaster resilience has emerged as a prominent research subject of urban resilience and community resilience. Originating from the field of ecology, community disaster resilience is defined as the enhancement of a community’s capacity to prepare, absorb, recover, and more successfully adapt to actual or potential adverse events in a timely and efficient manner (Chen et al., 2020). Given that government and international aid may not always reach communities immediately after disasters, these communities must establish self-reliance mechanisms (Nakamura and Kanemasu, 2020). Social capital is recognized as a role and intervention in strengthening the capacity for better community risk reduction (Lo et al., 2015; Nakagawa and Shaw, 2004; Sanyal and Routray, 2016). Scholars are increasingly directing their attention toward the positive effects of social capital on enhancing community disaster resilience (Aldrich and Meyer, 2015; Carmen et al., 2022; Liu et al., 2022). Social capital can promote community cohesion, thus strengthening the capacity of communities to respond to emergencies, including information, search and rescue, sheltering, child care, financial resources, and emotional support (Aldrich and Meyer, 2015). Many scholars have conducted analyses of the significant role of social capital in community disaster resilience across different cycles of disaster management, including mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery (Adger, 2010; Goulden et al., 2013; Kumari and Frazier, 2021; Pelling, 1998; Sadri et al., 2018). It is clear that governance for community disaster requires social capital to increase community resilience and social capital has become an critical policy option for building community disaster resilience in risk management.

Although social capital is a central concept in risk management and disaster resilience research and practice, there is no consensus on its definition (Beilmann et al., 2018; Jeong et al., 2021; Rupasingha et al., 2006). Social capital is a multidimensional concept, and distinguishing types of social capital help analyze the mechanisms by which social capital works. Social capital can be conceptualized in functions and dimensions (Abunyewah et al., 2023). Concerning the function, the concept can be categorized into three typologies: (1) bonding, (2) bridging, and (3) linking social capital (Szreter and Woolcock, 2004). Bonding social capital is the connection between groups with similar characteristics, values, and goals while bridging social capital involves individuals and groups with different socioeconomic and other characteristics (Putnam, 2004; Granovetter, 2000). Linking social capital can be seen as having a relationship across power and authority gradients in society (Szreter and Woolcock, 2004). Other studies pointed out that trust, norm, network and participation are shown as elements for bonding social capital; bridging social capital might be with different stakeholders like other communities, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and universities; linking social capital is usually with local administration (Nakagawa and Shaw, 2004). By dimensions, social capital is conceptualized as structural (social structure) social capital, cognitive (shared understanding) social capital, and relational (nature and quality of relationships) social capital (Almedom, 2005; Ansari et al., 2012). This paper uses the functional and dimensional classification of social capital described above for the subsequent analyses.

Despite this vital role of social capital in community disaster resilience, the extant literature has not systematically studied how social capital contributes to community disaster resilience in risk management. Links between social capital and community resilience are not well understood across different types of disaster contexts (Partelow, 2021). Resilience is recognized as an adaptive dynamic process and a set of capacities, and there are multiple mechanisms by which social capital influences community resilience, involving various social processes and varying over time and with different participants in different disaster situations. Based on original research with the explicit objective of community resilience improvement, this paper seeks to answer the question “How does social capital facilitate community disaster resilience?” by conducting research through a systematic review approach. This qualitative systematic review, grounded in risk management theory, goes beyond the question of “what works” to ask the question of “how and why” social capital works and provides speculative explanations of causal chains that may benefit policymakers working to improve community disaster resilience. Furthermore, this study endeavors to analyze the possible moderating variables in the process where social capital affects community disaster resilience, which will facilitate providing evidence for the selection of moderating variables in future empirical studies.

 2 Method

This paper used a qualitative systematic literature review research methodology, focusing primarily on the qualitative evidence found in original studies. Various synthesis methods have been developed by scholars, such as meta-ethnography, meta-narrative, textual narrative synthesis, grounded theory, framework synthesis, critical interpretive synthesis, ecological triangulation, “fledgling” approaches and thematic synthesis (Barnett-Page and Thomas, 2009).

To answer our research question, we employed a thematic synthesis approach. The systematic review was executed using the protocols established by the Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group. The identification and selection process of studies strictly adhered to the guidelines provided by the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) statement (Page et al., 2021). The Prisma flow diagram is shown in Figure 1.

The Prisma flow diagram.

 2.1 The hypothesized causal chain

A substantial body of research has consistently emphasized the pivotal role of social capital throughout all stages of disaster risk management (Shah et al., 2024; Straub et al., 2020). In this review, we integrate scholarship on social capital and risk management to explore the mechanisms of how social capital can facilitate community disaster resilience. Risk management contributes to the generation of performance and value, with resilience being considered one of the outcomes and performance of risk management (Thekdi and Aven, 2016). In disaster risk management research, social capital often directly affects community resilience (Guo et al., 2018). Still, it may also be an indirect effect, mediating the relationship between social capital and community disaster resilience (Rayamajhee and Bohara, 2021). Drawing from the risk management process theory by Fone and Young (2005) and Van Staveren (2009), this study will illustrate mechanisms focusing on three distinct aspects: risk perception related mechanisms, risk response related mechanisms and risk communication related mechanisms (Fone and Young, 2005). The hypothesized causal chain between social capital and community disaster resilience is shown in Figure 2.

The hypothesized causal chain.

For disaster risk management, the following three questions can be used to summarise the different types of mechanisms for increasing community disaster resilience: (1) risk perception related mechanisms: how do changes in risk awareness, stemming from knowledge acquisition and dissemination, influence attitudes and behaviors in risk management; (2) risk response related mechanisms: which behavioral mechanisms underlines processes of community disaster resilience improvement; and (3) risk communication related mechanisms: which mechanisms elucidate indirect changes at individual or macro levels, such as trust or cohesion, and so forth (Zhang et al., 2021). For example, risk communication can indirectly contribute to community disaster resilience through strengthening trust (Karami and Keshavarz, 2023; Rayamajhee and Bohara, 2021).

 2.2 Search strategy

A comprehensive literature search was conducted through electronic databases using a broad search term strategy to identify and collect relevant studies. The keywords used in the primary search were: (social capital) AND (resilien*) AND (communit*). The Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI) (2000.01 - present); Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) (2000.01 - present); Arts & Humanities Citation Index (A&HCI) (1990 - present); Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Social Science & Humanities (CPCI-SSH) (2000 - present); Wiley InterScience (1997 - present); and SAGE Journals Online (1965 - present) are included in the electronic literature data for searching. All databases were searched from 1990 to December 31, 2023.

 2.3 Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Our research question was, “How does social capital facilitate community disaster resilience ?” The review includes original empirical studies investigating the relationship between social capital and community disaster resilience. The following 5 criteria were employed for the inclusion and exclusion of studies:

(1) Studies with the explicit goal of improving community disaster resilience were included, while those without improved outcomes were excluded. Social capital can produce negative externalities (Witvorapong et al., 2015), which could potentially exert an adverse influence on community resilience (Morsut et al., 2022a; Shah et al., 2024), such as the embezzlement of relief supplies. Therefore, papers that study the negative impact of social capital on community resilience alone were excluded.

(2) Studies with community disaster resilience as an outcome variable were included, while other community resilience was excluded, for example, community business resilience was excluded.

(3) Studies that examined community disaster resilience were included, while studies focusing on national disaster resilience or urban disaster resilience were excluded.

(4) Quantitative studies that analyzed the relationship between social capital and community disaster resilience with a mediating role were included, while quantitative studies that only analyzed the relationship between social capital and community disaster resilience without a mediating role were excluded. To illustrate, during the pandemic, social capital facilitated community resilience through collective action (Prayitno et al., 2022), which served as a mediator role, and such studies were included.

(5) Studies not written in English, non-empirical studies (philosophical studies, meta-analyses, systematic reviews, book reviews), or abstracts were excluded.

Studies were imported into EndNote 20 for screening. Two authors independently screened the titles and abstracts to identify studies for inclusion. Any inconsistencies were discussed with the lead authors to reach a consensus. In addition, the authors screened all full texts to guarantee that some critical papers and important information were not omitted.

 2.4 Data extraction and analysis

This qualitative analysis included studies using content analysis along the causal chain to identify, categorize and consolidate evidence. The hypothesized causal chain of the social capital in risk management was used for analysis. Consequently, the results and discussions from the included studies were extracted and grouped according to the hypotheses shown in Figure 2. Two authors extracted all data sets independently using a predetermined data extraction form, and any conflicts were resolved in consultation with the third author.

The specific analysis process is as follows:

(1) We extracted and identified data from the original empirical study’s research area, data collection, research methodology, types of community disasters and types of social capital as background information.

(2) We extracted the changes that followed social capital in each study listed as mechanisms in Table 3. Some of these original studies explicitly mention the mechanisms through which social capital facilitates community disaster resilience, which we have extracted directly. Others did not explicitly mention “mechanism”, so we read between the lines to find statements that alluded to the mechanism.

(3) Themes were classified and generated based on the hypothesized detailed mechanisms and causal chain using theme synthesis. It should be noted that the boundaries between different mechanisms are not always clear all the time, and our research team discussed this before the lead author made the final decision.

(4) Combining the included literature, several moderator variables were identified and categorized based on intervention and respondent characteristics.

3 Results 3.1 Study descriptions

A preliminary literature search yielded 1,021 articles deemed potentially pertinent to our research topic. The process of screening the literature was as follows:

(1) After deduplication using Endnote software, 982 unique documents were retained.

(2) After reviewing the titles and abstracts, a total of 926 documents were identified as irrelevant to the research topic under investigation and subsequently excluded, resulting in a final selection of 56 relevant documents.

(3) Upon full-text reading of the remaining 56 documents, 32 were excluded due to the type of study or the fact that they did not address community disaster resilience.

The remaining 24 studies were ultimately included in this study (Figure 1). The fundamental characteristics of the included studies are presented in Table 1. Among the 24 included studies, the majority were conducted in Asia, with ten studies originating from this region. Additionally, there were three studies each in North America, Oceania, and Africa, and two studies in Europe and South America, separately. More specifically, two studies each were conducted in Indonesia, Nepal, Taiwan (China), Australia and the United States, and one each in China, Scotland, the Netherlands, Iran, the Philippines, Japan, Chile, Peru, Ghana, the Congo, Liberia, Fiji and Canada. Additionally, there was also one cross-national study.

Characteristics of the included studies.

Study Country/Region Study areas Disaster type Data collection Methodology Analysis
Abunyewah et al. (2023) Ghana Old Fadama, an informal settlement Flood Structured questionnaire survey Quantitative methodology Structural equation model
Panday et al. (2021) Nepal Three remote Nepali communities of Sindhupalchok and Gorkha Districts Earthquake Participatory video, semi-structured key informant interviews and focus group discussions Case study Thematic analysis
Cai (2017) Philippines Three disadvantaged communities Climate hazards visual narratives, observations, and semi-structured interviews Mixed-method qualitative analysis Narrative analysis
Robertson et al. (2021) Scotland, United Kingdom A range of community projects across Scotland Extreme weather-related events, accidents, terror attacks, shortages of power/heat/water, political events and loss of jobs Workshops utilized the snowball sampling technique Case study Thematic analysis
Liu et al. (2022) China Three typical communities in Nankai district, Tianjin Flood Face-to-face interviews and structured questionnaires Quantitative Methodology Structural equation model
Karami and Keshavarz (2023) Iran Eight villages in Zanjan province COVID-19 Face-to-face interviews Quantitative Methodology Structural equation model
Elliott et al. (2023) United States Breweries along the North and South Carolina coast Hurricane Observation, interviews and Autoethnography Mixed methods Content analysis with autoethnographic natural experiment
Prayitno et al. (2022) Indonesia Pujon Kidul Village three hamlets COVID-19 Literature, agency studies, questionnaires, interviews, and observations Quantitative Methodology Confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modeling analysis
Rayamajhee and Bohara (2021) Nepal Sindhupalchowk, Basbari Earthquake Face-to-face interviews Quantitative Methodology Structural equation modeling analysis
Feinberg et al. (2023) Netherlands KasKantine in Amsterdam environmental, socio-economical, or sanitary crisis semi-structured interviews; online questionnaire Agent-based simulation model and case study Computer simulation
Posio (2019) Japan Yamamoto Earthquake and tsunami Unstructured interviews, informal discussions, observations, and participation Ethnographic fieldwork Thematic analysis
Tippens (2020) Congo Various Congolese neighborhoods and three different neighborhoods in Nairobi Political Violence Participant observation method and semi-structured interviews Ethnographic research methods Thematic analysis
Alonge et al. (2019) Liberia Communities in Bomi, Margibi and Montserrado Ebola virus disease epidemic Key informant interviews and a national stakeholders meeting Qualitative study Thematic analysis
Nakamura and Kanemasu (2020) Fiji Four remote communities in Fiji: Delakado, Namacu, Rakiraki, and Bukama Tropical Cyclone Semi-structured interview Case study Narrative analysis
Wu and Chen (2023) Taiwan, China Cinsbu, an Atayal community landslide-related hazards Focus groups and in-depth Interviews Case study -
Cox and Perry (2011) Canadia Two rural communities affected in British Columbia Wildfire Researcher participant observations, local news media accounts and solicited (i.e., interviews) A critical, multi-sited ethnographic approach Grounded theory and critical discourse analysis
Cuthbertson et al. (2023) Australia A small agricultural community Bushfires Semi-structured interviews and closed questions Mixed methods Thematic analysis and quantitative analysis
Moreno et al. (2019) Chile El Morro, a small fishing community Earthquake Semi-structured interviews, observation, informal conversations, documentary reviews, and social media Case study Thematic analysis
Partelow (2021) Indonesia The island of Gili Trawangan Earthquake Qualitative interview, survey, and participant field observations Mixed research methods Content analysis and descriptive analysis
Straub et al. (2020) United States Oklahoma communities Tornados, wildfires, hail, extreme winds, tropical storms, ice storms, blizzards, floods, and even earthquakes Depth interviews Qualitative research methods Thematic analysis
Zeballos-Velarde et al. (2023) Peru Community around the Colca Valley Volcano Participatory workshops, focus groups and Structured questionnaire Mixed method Content analysis, multiple linear regression analysis and cluster analysis
Madsen and O’Mullan (2016) Australia A small community in rural Queensland Flood Photovoice, survey and community oral history Qualitative study Thematic analysis
Mutch (2023) New Zealand; Samoa, Japan, Nepal and Vanuatu Community schools in Asia-Pacific countries Earthquakes, tsunami, Cyclone, COVID-19 pandemic Open-ended interviews or activities, semi-structured audio or video interviews Longitudinal qualitative study Thematic analysis
Yang and Wu (2020) Taiwan, China Meizhou Community, a flood-prone, rural, and aging community Flood Long-term fieldwork, interviews, and participatory observation Case study --
3.2 Types of community disaster

Multiple different types of disasters were researched across the included studies. Twenty-four studies were included in this study, 19 of which focused on natural disasters, including climatic disasters, landslide-related disasters, cyclones, bushfires, earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, tornados, ice storms, and so on. Earthquakes were the most frequently studied disaster, followed by floods. Additionally, four articles in the included literature examined biological disasters, such as COVID-19 and the Ebola virus, while two articles examined man-made disasters, such as political violence and terrorist attacks.

 3.3 Types of social capital

As numerous scholars have noted, social capital can manifest in various forms and dimensions, each with distinct effects on community resilience (Matsukawa and Tatsuki, 2018; Nakagawa and Shaw, 2004). For this discussion, the study employs the widely accepted typology of bonding, bridging and linking social capital as outlined by Woolcock (2001) and the classification of structural, cognitive and relational social capital as outlined by Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1998) to statistically analyze the social capital involved in the included literature studies.

Table 2 demonstrates that over half of the articles analyzed in the included literature focused on the process of bonding, bridging, and linking social capital with community disaster resilience. The data presented in Table 2 and the reviewed literature indicate that bonding, bridging and linking social capital positively influence community disaster resilience. Governments, businesses and NGOs are all involved in the process of promoting disaster resilience in communities. It is worth noting that bonding social capital is the most common form of social capital at work during disasters, occurring 15 times and accounting for 62.5% of the total. This indicates that individuals depend on their close social networks, such as family and friends, to cope with and alleviate disaster-related impacts. Furthermore, over one-third of the articles in the included literature analyzed the processes by which structural, cognitive and relational social capital positively influence community disaster resilience. Overall, the included literature provides empirical research evidence that different dimensions of social capital positively impact community resilience processes.

Statistics on the type of social capital of the studies included in the literature.

Types of social capital Content Frequency Percent (%)
Bonding Close ties between people going through similar situations – e.g., family, close friends 15 62.50
Bridging Looser ties to similar people – e.g., online 13 54.17
Linking The ability of groups to access resources from beyond their immediate community 13 54.17
Structural Social structure, density of social networks and membership, and participation in groups and associations 8 33.33
Cognitive Shared understandings, perception of trustworthiness, reciprocity, and support 9 37.50
Relational Nature and quality of relationships 9 37.50
3.4 How is social capital operationalized for community disaster resilience?

This section synthesizes the causal pathways through which social capital may positively influence community disaster resilience outcomes. Based on the included literature, we extracted the information in Table 3. Through the changes induced by social capital in community action, this study identifies the salient mechanisms and outcomes by which social capital facilitates community disaster resilience. Based on the indicators of community disaster resilience presented in Table 3, social capital facilitates community disaster resilience, encompassing the preparedness phase, response phase, and recovery phase, yet excluding the mitigation phase.

Identification of salient mechanisms and outcomes of the included studies.

Study Changes induced by social capital in community action Indicators of community disaster resilience Potential moderating variables
Abunyewah et al. (2023) Flood preparedness Adapt and return to functional communal life; use resources to facilitate resilience Socio-demographic characteristics such as gender, age, etc.
Panday et al. (2021) Saving lives, sharing food, building temporary shelters, providing emotional support, mutual aid, building houses Individuals and communities to access the resources needed for relief and recovery after a major disaster Socio-cultural status of the study populations, geographic accessibility, livelihood, migration and gender
Cai (2017) Dialogues within the community, emergency rescuing, house rebuilding, providing material aid and support services, learning across participatory communities, group discussions, and information delivery Preparation, response, adaptation, and recovery Economic income
Robertson et al. (2021) Social ties and connections, shared memory, shared responsibility, collective thinking, adapt and cultural change, communications, social support, training and exercises The continuous process of adaptation and development/maintenance of the key features would mean greater resilience in the face of an extreme event -
Liu et al. (2022) General trust Disaster response ability (individual ability, neighbor ability, community ability) Age, gender, family status, education status and years of living in the community
Karami and Keshavarz (2023) Physical isolation, intimate relationships, information diversity, and social support Capability to overcome the COVID-19 pandemic Demographic information
Elliott et al. (2023) Provide informal space, share information, and provide emotional support Disaster recovery -
Prayitno et al. (2022) Community collective action Community resilience, knowledge of COVID-19, community security, availability of health protocol facilities in the village, and community perceptions of assistance and contributions -
Rayamajhee and Bohara (2021) Trust, post-earthquake collective action collective action, reconstruction and recovery Socioeconomic, ethnic, and cultural backgrounds
Feinberg et al. (2023) Volunteer involvement, perceived trust, and social cohesion, adaptability Mitigate the effects of future environmental, socio-economical, and sanitary crises -
Posio (2019) Enforce a sense of community, place Reconstruction and community-building -
Tippens (2020) Sense of belonging, preparing traditional food, hosting community meetings, emotional support, informational support, substantive support Community capacity to address political violence and their ability to access socioculturally meaningful resources -
Alonge et al. (2019) Bonds and sense of kinship, trusted communication channels, and trust among various health system stakeholders Address health shocks like EVD outbreaks -
Nakamura and Kanemasu (2020) Community support, collective action, providing food and building materials, rebuilding damaged houses, nursing the wounded back to health, traditional knowledge Adaptive capacity, disaster response and recovery Socio-cultural resources
Wu and Chen (2023) Establishing a disaster management organization, food preparation, delivery of community risk maps, mutual assistance, social learning, traditional knowledge Hazard preparedness, disaster Response, and short-term recovery -
Cox and Perry (2011) Facilitate the sharing of information, maintain additional support, restoring a sense of belonging and community Recovery and reconstruction -
Cuthbertson et al. (2023) Provide local knowledge, enhance disaster risk awareness, preparedness, local risk communication, and community participation Anticipate, absorb, adapt, or recover timely from a shock with minimal perturbation to basic functions and with the possibility of improving Social demographic
Moreno et al. (2019) Sharing knowledge and experience, collective memory of past disasters, a sense of community, keeping the sense of union, the culture of disaster preparedness Cope with and recover from disasters Types of social capital
Partelow (2021) Collective experiences, actions and activities, social preparedness, sense of shared values, sense of group participation, sense of collective responsibility Disaster recovery capability Types of social capital, types of disaster
Straub et al. (2020) Create informal networks, forming a spirit of mutual assistance and expectations of reciprocity Disaster prevention, capacity to withstand disasters Urban or rural affiliation
Zeballos-Velarde et al. (2023) Ancestral techniques and traditions, perception of risk, coexistence with risk Recovery activities Perception of risk, age and the time lived in the place
Madsen and O’Mullan (2016) Social connectedness, optimistic acceptance, learning tolerance and patience, learning from the past for the future, volunteer spirit Communities learning to adapt and transform -
Mutch (2023) Bring different people together, build relationships and networks, provide a safe space, provide physical facilities, provide specialist health and psycho-social services, lobby for funding and resources Preparedness, response, recovery, reconstruction and revitalization -
Yang and Wu (2020) Enhancing community cohesion, setting up warning systems, emergency drills, donating emergency equipment, regular drills, international cooperation and communication, disaster preparedness drills, site visits and social learning Disaster preparedness -

Note: (-): unclear or unable to ascertain.

Moreover, Table 3 presents the desired outcomes for the role of social capital in each of the included studies, which can be categorized into five types. Further detailed information on the links between social capital and community disaster resilience can be found in Figure 3.

The mechanisms between social capital and community disaster resilience.

In general, the specific mechanisms through which social capital positively affects community resilience can be categorized as follows: (1) Social learning, (2) Collective action, (3) Disaster preparedness, (4) Information communication, and (5) Ethical or civic responsibility.

In the context of disaster risk management, providers of social capital include community residents, community organizations, governments, businesses, and NGOs, among others, as shown in Figure 4. The rationale for the impact of social capital on the development of community disaster resilience depends on how they mutually assist each other and enhance understanding of the risk by resource sharing and communication, and how they bolster the ability to respond effectively to disaster. Owing to its many benefits, social capital has been recognized as an enabler of community disaster resilience by enhancing disaster preparedness and collective action capacity, leading to information communication and social learning, and promoting moral and civic responsibility. Based on the above analyses, combined with the three aspects of the hypothesized causal chain in Figure 2, this study constructed a speculative logic model of this process (Figure 4).

The logic model for the effects of social capital on community disaster resilience.

 3.5 Other possible moderators of the social capital process

As shown in Figure 4 and Table 3, some possible moderators can facilitate or hinder the role of social capital in the risk management process, which may moderate the impact of social capital on community disaster resilience. These moderators can be categorized into four aspects. (1) Socio-demographic characteristics of the study populations. Gender, race, age, livelihood, social identity and geographic accessibility. Some studies show that the socio-demographic characteristics of the research population may affect social capital outcomes (Abunyewah et al., 2023; Panday et al., 2021; Tippens, 2020). Women rely primarily on informal bonding capital, whereas men make greater use of formal networks of bridges and linking, which creates differences in disaster resilience (Tippens, 2020). (2) Socio-cultural characteristics. Differences in socio-cultural can lead to different identities among community members, and these differences shape different disaster risk perceptions and behavioral responses, thus moderating the role of social capital in influencing community disaster resilience. For instance, the indigenous Fijian community, primarily a descent group, exhibits a strong sense of identity and social cohesion. In contrast, the Indo-Fijian community, which does not share the same descent-based structure, has been found to possess weaker bonding and bridging social capital. This disparity results in the Indo-Fijian communities being less resilient in the face of disasters when compared to indigenous Fijian villages (Nakamura and Kanemasu, 2020). (3) Types of disaster. Disasters are frequent occurrences, yet they are always context-specific events, and the role of social capital in community resilience differs in disaster situations (Partelow, 2021). For example, studies indicated that social capital harms social distancing, thereby increasing the likelihood of disease transmission and reducing community disaster resilience during COVID-19 (Borgonovi et al., 2021). Conversely, social capital enhances community interactions and thus increases community resilience during floods (Cai, 2017). (4) Types of social capital. Different forms of social capital serve different functions in terms of intra-community solidarity, inter-community cooperation and interactions with government and institutions, thereby influencing the impact of social capital on community disaster resilience (Partelow, 2021). For example, in rescue operations, bonding social capital takes precedence over bridging and linking social capital, characterized by strong family ties and friendships that foster a sense of community and resilience (Hawkins and Maurer, 2010; Moreno et al., 2019).

 4 Discussion

This study employed a systematic literature review and thematic synthesis to explore how social capital facilitates community disaster resilience. A logical framework is constructed and the significant impact of social capital on increasing community disaster resilience is demonstrated, both directly and indirectly. Regarding disaster resilience, the included literature suggests that social capital contributes significantly to community disaster resilience in the preparedness, response, and recovery phases, but evidence is lacking in the mitigation phase. Incorporating social capital in the mitigation phase can facilitate more effective preparation for hazard events and enhance community resilience, which should be accorded greater attention in the future (Kumari and Frazier, 2021).

4.1 Key findings: how does social capital facilitate community disaster resilience?

As Van der Knaap et al. and Molina et al. discussed, the systematic review approach focuses on identifying the underlying mechanisms in the change process, with findings of higher internal validity (Molina et al., 2017; van der Knaap et al., 2008). This paper is concerned solely with original empirical studies with an explicit goal of community disaster resilience improvement, while studies that do little to improve community disaster resilience outcomes are not our focus. Based on this, this study identified five crucial mechanisms that are capable of functioning within the framework of causal relationships between social capital and community disaster resilience improvement. Our findings on mechanisms are also consistent with the findings of previous studies that have demonstrated social capital has a positive significant impact on disaster risk management, which is mainly realized through the processes of risk perception (understanding of risk), risk communication and risk response (Behera, 2023; Bin Waseem et al., 2024; Hanson-Easey et al., 2018; Hudson et al., 2020; Morsut et al., 2022b). Although our five categories may not exhaustively encompass all possibilities, they provide a framework for understanding the role and functionality of social capital in the improvement process of community disaster resilience. In the following section, we will discuss these five mechanisms in greater detail based on the literature that has been included.

4.1.1 Social learning

Social learning is a process in which individuals and groups exchange or jointly develop knowledge (including skills and experiences) through human interaction (De Jaegher et al., 2010). Social capital promotes social learning for community residents and provides insights into how stakeholders view risk management (Craig and Storr, 2023; Wu and Chen, 2023). Community disaster resilience can be enhanced by the actions of many community residents, which are not derived from scientific knowledge but often from personal experience and experiential risk perception (Zeballos-Velarde et al., 2023). Social networks and connectedness provide an environment for individuals and groups to learn (Madsen and O’Mullan, 2016). A robust literature examines how social capital facilitates social learning at individual- and group-level. For example, neighbors share resilience-related knowledge aiming for potential change-making (Cai, 2017). Elders will pass on their knowledge of disaster preparedness to community members to cope with disasters (Nakamura and Kanemasu, 2020). Then, people recognize that resilience is related to learning, which can help communities better prepare for future events (Feinberg et al., 2023; Madsen and O’Mullan, 2016; Sharpe, 2021). Social learning is a core element of the capacity to adapt, and community stakeholders can utilize social capital to learn lessons that enhance risk awareness and help them cope with disasters ((Madsen and O’Mullan, 2016). More specifically, the memories of past crises can be kept by bonding social capital, while risk awareness can be spread by bridging social capital (Moreno et al., 2019; Morsut et al., 2022b). Several studies have shown that community disaster resilience depends on traditional and local knowledge availability (Cuthbertson et al., 2023; Moreno et al., 2019; Nakamura and Kanemasu, 2020; Wu and Chen, 2023). An Australian case study indicated that community social capital was perceived to provide knowledge that enhances individual risk awareness and improves disaster resilience (Cuthbertson et al., 2023).

Moreover, Boillat and Berkes identify some factors for improving resilience, one of which is the combination of different types of knowledge for learning (Boillat and Berkes, 2013). Some studies also suggest communities, universities, and other stakeholders can act to enhance resilience through social learning (Cai, 2017). Experts and scholars provide community organizations with disaster prevention technology and updated professional knowledge, which will be disseminated to the community’s residents (Yang and Wu, 2020). Nevertheless, there is a considerable discrepancy between knowledge and action. Some researchers have proposed that the impact of knowledge on resilience enhancement may be constrained and that further research is required to enhance our comprehension of disaster knowledge and learning to improve effective disaster reduction action (Partelow, 2021; Weichselgartner and Pigeon, 2015; White et al., 2001).

 4.1.2 Collective action

In the context of the community risk management process, social capital means the collective efforts to reduce disaster risk, respond to emergencies, and aid in disaster recovery, especially for those who live in disaster areas (Nakagawa and Shaw, 2004; Xiong and Li, 2024). One of the mechanisms by which social capital enhances community disaster resilience is its ability to enable collective action. Social capital is regarded as a social resource accessible to individual members of a community, thereby facilitating collective action (Köhler et al., 2010). Previous studies in Chile, Fiji, Indonesia, Nepal, and Australia reported collective action related to social capital ((Madsen and O’Mullan, 2016; Moreno et al., 2019; Nakamura and Kanemasu, 2020; Panday et al., 2021; Partelow, 2021; Prayitno et al., 2022). Among these studies, some have found that high levels of social capital among community residents can reduce barriers to collective action and facilitate efforts to rescue those affected by an earthquake (Panday et al., 2021). Some studies also indicated that good social capital can make it easier to participate in collective action during a pandemic (Prayitno et al., 2022). Even without government resources and support, communities with a strong sense of trust, cohesion and identity can rely on self-organization collective action to carry out post-disaster reconstruction.

Furthermore, social capital can bridge people together even when they do not trust each other or have different interests while bridging social capital can lead to community disaster resilience (Clarke, 2017; Rusch, 2010). In addition, social capital can enhance the vertical relationship between community residents and organizations and those in positions of authority or higher status, thereby facilitating effective disaster governance (Lee, 2020; Partelow, 2021; Yang and Wu, 2020). A good example can be found in the Meizhou Community, which actively participates in the collective action of disaster preparedness exercises to realize its vision of becoming a disaster-resilient community (Yang and Wu, 2020).

 4.1.3 Disaster preparedness

There are many shreds of evidence showing a positive correlation between disaster preparedness and community disaster resilience, which means that communities with robust disaster preparedness measures are better equipped to cope with, adapt to, and recover from disasters promptly (Ma et al., 2021; Peng et al., 2019). Some studies indicate the most distinctive resilience capacity perceived in the first hours after the disaster was the culture of disaster preparedness (Moreno et al., 2019). To enhance community disaster resilience, researchers investigated the main factors affecting disaster preparedness. Studies from Australia, China, and Japan have shown that social capital can increase preparedness actions or behavior for bushfires (Cuthbertson et al., 2023), flooding (Lo et al., 2015) and earthquakes (Hasegawa et al., 2018). Furthermore, several studies indicate that social capital can improve resilience by enhancing individual disaster preparedness willingness (Gaisie et al., 2021; Wu and Chen, 2023). Specifically, various elements of social capital, such as trust, social networks, cohesion, and social norms, can facilitate preparedness and thus enhance community disaster resilience. In addition, some empirical studies have shown that flood preparedness mediates the relationship between social capital and community resilience (Abunyewah et al., 2023).

 4.1.4 Information communication

Information communication is a fundamental aspect of effective disaster risk management (Phillips, 2013). Risk communication was crucial for operationalizing disaster management plans (Cuthbertson et al., 2023). Timely information and effective communication enable community residents to take necessary preventative and mitigation measures (Hermans et al., 2022; Ogie and Perez, 2020). However, the mere transmission of disaster information is insufficient for disaster risk reduction and management. A high level of trust between message producers and listeners is required to ensure the reliability and validity of messages disseminated during a crisis.

Social capital plays an essential role in influencing the effectiveness of information communication. Only social networks of mutual trust can disseminate timely and accurate disaster relief information. In addition, families and acquaintances serve as the primary source of information, rather than official sources, in addressing challenges related to disaster risk in the context of extreme conditions (Cai, 2017). Social capital is often recognized as a positive influence on disaster resilience, as it enables communities to form strong networks for information sharing that contribute to their resilience (Islam et al., 2018). In other words, social capital can enhance community disaster resilience through better information communication.

On the one hand, many studies have shown that social capital can provide informational support and enhance information communication in disaster risk scenarios (Alonge et al., 2019; Elliott et al., 2023; Rayamajhee and Bohara, 2021; Tippens, 2020). During the COVID-19 pandemic, even face-to-face social relationships are in decline, but social capital can improve online information communication (Karami and Keshavarz, 2023). Other studies further state social capital likely minimizes the social transaction costs and risk of misinformation and miscommunication, which can strengthen trustful exchanges of information (Partelow, 2021; Tasic and Amir, 2016). On the other hand, several studies have shown that information communication can enhance community disaster resilience (Cox and Perry, 2011; Partelow, 2021; Tasic and Amir, 2016).

 4.1.5 Moral or civic responsibility

According to West, moral or civic responsibility refers to non-market values such as mercy, kindness, justice, solidarity, care, volunteer spirit and service (West, 2014). Community disaster resilience is influenced by the values and beliefs that shape the behavioral willingness of society’s members (Karami, 2023; McGuire, 2019). On the one hand, several studies have shown that social capital can strengthen moral or civic responsibility, such as trust, volunteerism spirit, human values, a sense of community, a sense of belonging, a sense of place, reciprocity, and solidarity (Behera, 2023; Elliott et al., 2023; Madsen and O’Mullan, 2016; Moreno et al., 2019; Partelow, 2021; Straub et al., 2020; Tippens, 2020; Wu and Chen, 2023; Yang and Wu, 2020). On the other hand, further research demonstrated that moral or civic responsibility plays a crucial role in promoting community disaster resilience (Liu et al., 2022; Posio, 2019; Robertson et al., 2021; Straub et al., 2020). For example, study findings indicate that general trust serves as a vital support for community disaster resilience (Hu et al., 2023; Liu et al., 2022). More specifically, moral or civic responsibility determines the behavioral willingness of individuals to respond to disasters. It can be observed that trust positively influences the willingness for community activities and emergency actions during times of disaster, thereby contributing to the building of community disaster resilience (Hu et al., 2023; Liu et al., 2022; Peng et al., 2020). Overall, social capital can facilitate community disaster resilience through the promotion and reinforcement of moral or civic responsibility.

 4.2 Policy and management implications

This paper offers valuable knowledge about social capital’s role in community disaster resilience through a systematic review. The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (SFDRR) 2015–2030 prioritizes enhancing resilience for action to reduce disaster risks. This paper presents a logic model for the effects of social capital on community disaster resilience, constructed from three aspects: risk perception, risk response and risk communication. The model provides a scientific and reliable basis and evidence for improving risk management performance and increasing community disaster resilience.

First, it is crucial to enhance community residents’ risk perception and social learning capacity. Risk perception significantly affects community residents’ understanding of adaptation strategies and their capability to make decisions and actions to prevent disasters (Bin Waseem et al., 2024). Social capital serves as a conduit for social learning and disseminating traditional and local knowledge, enhancing community residents’ awareness and acceptance of risks. Moreover, leveraging social capital can help bridge the “knowledge gap” between government, experts, and the public, ensuring all stakeholders are acquainted with crisis management processes.

Second, it is vital to reinforce offline face-to-face and social media-based disaster risk communication. On the one hand, augmenting the volume of both formal and informal community spaces will facilitate more face-to-face communication among residents, thereby reinforcing community cohesion, which is beneficial for the construction of a solid foundation for community disaster resilience. On the other hand, leveraging social media to augment and diversify online communication strategies enhances the efficiency of risk communication between the government, businesses, and the public, which empowers communities to access online assistance more readily. Furthermore, stimulating the participation of community residents in risk management and post-disaster recovery endeavors can enhance the overall moral and civic responsibility of the community residents. This, in turn, broadens community resources and encourages the growth of volunteerism during times of disaster.

Third, it is imperative to emphasize the capacity for community collective action and disaster preparedness. On the one hand, this demands fostering a sense of unity and collaboration among community members, guaranteeing that they unite and act in concert during disasters. Furthermore, this also necessitates cooperation among the governments, businesses and NGOs (Nakagawa and Shaw, 2004; Xiong and Li, 2024). On the other hand, it is of paramount significance to motivate stakeholders to actively participate in disaster preparedness actions for improving community emergency response and expediting post-disaster recovery.

 4.3 Strengths and limitations of the review

This review concerns the causal links between context, intervention mechanisms and observations. Based on this, this study sheds light on the mechanisms by which social capital promotes community resilience through a systematic synthesis of the evidence collected from empirical studies.

It should be noted that this systematic review is subject to some limitations. Firstly, the difficulties in measuring community disaster resilience arise from the complexity of resilience, with numerous definitions and inherent relationships between community resilience and individual resilience. This may limit the strength of the explanation of this review’s analysis of community disaster resilience. Secondly, the meaning of social capital remains contested due to the multiplicity of definitions and the lack of consensus regarding the most appropriate methodology for measuring it Choi et al. (2014). This limits our ability to synthesize, compare and generalize findings to understand the role of social capital in community disasters in systematic reviews. Thirdly, the scope of this review is constrained by the absence of data from non-English language papers. This limitation necessitates a cautious interpretation of the study findings, as they may not fully represent the global context.

 5 Conclusion

This systematic review has demonstrated the significant impact of social capital on community disaster resilience improvement—both directly and indirectly. It is essential to recognize that social capital can play a crucial role in community disaster resilience through the mechanisms of social learning, collective action, disaster preparedness, information communication, and moral or civic responsibility. The contribution of this paper is that the theory of risk management is expanded in the context of community resilience, and the mechanisms by which social capital contributes to the development of community resilience are explored.

Nevertheless, it is important to note that the conclusions drawn from this review cannot be generalized to all communities. Further research is needed to ascertain the extent to which social capital facilitates community disaster resilience. In addition, although social capital can help build community disaster resilience, the evidence on the role of social capital in community resilience is still limited. Social capital may have a positive influence on community resilience during the mitigation phase. Further research is necessary to strengthen the study of the mechanisms by which social capital in the mitigation phase affects community disaster resilience.

 Data availability statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

 Author contributions

GZ: Data curation, Methodology, Project administration, Visualization, Writing–original draft, Writing–review and editing. XH: Methodology, Supervision, Validation, Writing–review and editing. FZ: Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Methodology, Writing–review and editing. LF: Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Writing–review and editing. YL: Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Writing–review and editing. YZ: Conceptualization, Data curation, Investigation, Resources, Writing–review and editing.

 Funding

The author(s) declare financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. This work was supported by the National Social Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 21&ZD163).

The authors would like to thank all of the three reviewers for their helpful comments on the article.

 Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

 Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

 References Abunyewah M. Erdiaw-Kwasie M. O. Okyere S. A. Thayaparan G. Byrne M. Lassa J. (2023). Influence of personal and collective social capital on flood preparedness and community resilience: evidence from Old Fadama, Ghana. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 94, 103790. 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2023.103790 Adger W. N. (2010). “Social capital, collective action, and adaptation to climate change,” in Der klimawandel: sozialwissenschaftliche perspektiven (Springer), 327–345. Aldrich D. P. Meyer M. A. (2015). Social capital and community resilience. Am. Behav. Sci. 59, 254–269. 10.1177/0002764214550299 Almedom A. M. (2005). Social capital and mental health: an interdisciplinary review of primary evidence. Soc. Sci. and Med. 61 (5), 943–964. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.12.025 Alonge O. Sonkarlay S. Gwaikolo W. Fahim C. Cooper J. L. Peters D. H. (2019). Understanding the role of community resilience in addressing the Ebola virus disease epidemic in Liberia: a qualitative study (community resilience in Liberia). Glob. health action 12, 1662682. 10.1080/16549716.2019.1662682 Ansari S. Munir K. Gregg T. (2012). Impact at the “bottom of the pyramid”: the role of social capital in capability development and community empowerment. J. Manag. Stud. 49 (4), 813–842. 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2012.01042.x Awad A. Ali H. Abujayyab S. K. Karas I. R. Sumunar D. R. S. (2020). Measuring the spatial readiness of ambulance facilities for natural disasters using GIS networks analysis. Int. Archives Photogrammetry, Remote Sens. Spatial Inf. Sci. 44, 81–84. 10.5194/isprs-archives-xliv-4-w3-2020-81-2020 Barnett-Page E. Thomas J. (2009). Methods for the synthesis of qualitative research: a critical review. Bmc Med. Res. Methodol. 9, 59. 10.1186/1471-2288-9-59 Behera J. K. (2023). Role of social capital in disaster risk management: a theoretical perspective in special reference to Odisha, India. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 20 (3), 3385–3394. 10.1007/s13762-021-03735-y Beilmann M. Kööts-Ausmees L. Realo A. (2018). The relationship between social capital and individualism–collectivism in Europe. Soc. Indic. Res. 137, 641–664. 10.1007/s11205-017-1614-4 Bin Waseem H. Mirza M. Rana I. A. (2024). Exploring the role of social capital in flood risk reduction: insights from a systematic review. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 105, 107390. 10.1016/j.eiar.2023.107390 Boillat S. Berkes F. (2013). Perception and interpretation of climate change among Quechua farmers of Bolivia: indigenous knowledge as a resource for adaptive capacity. Ecol. Soc. 18, art21. 10.5751/es-05894-180421 Borgonovi F. Andrieu E. Subramanian S. V. (2021). The evolution of the association between community level social capital and COVID-19 deaths and hospitalizations in the United States. Soc. Sci. and Med. 278, 113948. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.113948 Cai Y. (2017). Bonding, bridging, and linking: photovoice for resilience through social capital. Nat. Hazards 88, 1169–1195. 10.1007/s11069-017-2913-4 Carmen E. Fazey I. Ross H. Bedinger M. Smith F. M. Prager K. (2022). Building community resilience in a context of climate change: the role of social capital. Ambio 51 (6), 1371–1387. 10.1007/s13280-021-01678-9 Chen C. K. Xu L. L. Zhao D. Y. Xu T. Lei P. (2020). A new model for describing the urban resilience considering adaptability, resistance and recovery. Saf. Sci. 128, 104756. 10.1016/j.ssci.2020.104756 Choi M. Mesa-Frias M. Nüesch E. Hargreaves J. Prieto-Merino D. Bowling A. (2014). Social capital, mortality, cardiovascular events and cancer: a systematic review of prospective studies. Int. J. Epidemiol. 43 (6), 1895–1920. 10.1093/ije/dyu212 Clarke S. E. (2017). Local place-based collaborative governance: comparing state-centric and society-centered models. Urban Aff. Rev. 53, 578–602. 10.1177/1078087416637126 Cox R. S. Perry K.-M. E. (2011). Like a fish out of water: reconsidering disaster recovery and the role of place and social capital in community disaster resilience. Am. J. community Psychol. 48, 395–411. 10.1007/s10464-011-9427-0 Craig A. W. Storr V. H. (2023). “Social capital facilitates emergent social learning,” in The review of Austrian economics (Springer). Cuthbertson J. Archer F. Robertson A. Rodriguez-Llanes J. (2023). A socio-health approach to improve local disaster resilience and contain secondary crises: a case study in an agricultural community exposed to bushfires in Australia. Prehospital disaster Med. 38, 3–10. 10.1017/s1049023x22002436 De Jaegher H. Di Paolo E. Gallagher S. (2010). Can social interaction constitute social cognition? Trends cognitive Sci. 14, 441–447. 10.1016/j.tics.2010.06.009 Elliott C. Dudley K. Seaman A. N. Schroeder L. (2023). In the aftermath: craft beer, neolocalism, and community resilience. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 97, 104024. 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2023.104024 Feinberg A. Ghorbani A. Herder P. M. (2023). Commoning toward urban resilience: the role of trust, social cohesion, and involvement in a simulated urban commons setting. J. Urban Aff. 45, 142–167. 10.1080/07352166.2020.1851139 Fone M. Young P. C. (2005). Managing risks in public organisations. Springer. Gaisie E. Han S. S. Kim H. M. (2021). Complexity of resilience capacities: household capitals and resilience outcomes on the disaster cycle in informal settlements. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 60, 102292. 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102292 Goulden M. C. Adger W. N. Allison E. H. Conway D. (2013). Limits to resilience from livelihood diversification and social capital in lake social–ecological systems. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 103, 906–924. 10.1080/00045608.2013.765771 Granovetter M. (2000). “The economic sociology of firms and entrepreneurs.” in Entrepreneurship: A Social Science View. Editor Swedberg R. (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Guo Y. R. Zhang J. Zhang Y. L. Zheng C. H. (2018). Examining the relationship between social capital and community residents' perceived resilience in tourism destinations. J. Sustain. Tour. 26 (6), 973–986. 10.1080/09669582.2018.1428335 Hanson-Easey S. Every D. Hansen A. Bi P. (2018). Risk communication for new and emerging communities: the contingent role of social capital. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 28, 620–628. 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2018.01.012 Hasegawa M. Murakami M. Takebayashi Y. Suzuki S. Ohto H. (2018). Social capital enhanced disaster preparedness and health consultations after the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and nuclear power station accident. Int. J. Environ. Res. public health 15, 516. 10.3390/ijerph15030516 Hawkins R. L. Maurer K. (2010). Bonding, bridging and linking: how social capital operated in New Orleans following hurricane Katrina. Br. J. Soc. Work 40 (6), 1777–1793. 10.1093/bjsw/bcp087 Hermans T. D. Šakić Trogrlić R. van den Homberg M. J. Bailon H. Sarku R. Mosurska A. (2022). Exploring the integration of local and scientific knowledge in early warning systems for disaster risk reduction: a review. Nat. Hazards 114, 1125–1152. 10.1007/s11069-022-05468-8 Hu Y. Huang Y. Zhang H. Fang M. Chen G. (2023). Insights from China: understanding the impact of community resilience and government trust in psychological resilience and anxiety during COVID-19. Front. Public Health 11, 1298269. 10.3389/fpubh.2023.1298269 Hudson P. Hagedoorn L. Bubeck P. (2020). Potential linkages between social capital, flood risk perceptions, and self-efficacy. Int. J. Disaster Risk Sci. 11 (3), 251–262. 10.1007/s13753-020-00259-w Islam M. R. Ingham V. Hicks J. Kelly E. (2018). From coping to adaptation: flooding and the role of local knowledge in Bangladesh. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 28, 531–538. 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2017.12.017 Jeong S. W. Ha S. Lee K. H. (2021). How to measure social capital in an online brand community? A comparison of three social capital scales. J. Bus. Res. 131, 652–663. 10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.07.051 Karami R. (2023). Hierarchy of value orientation and beliefs in climate change influencing the farmers’ extractive or non-extractive behavior on the farm. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 26, 14743–14762. 10.1007/s10668-023-03215-y Karami R. Keshavarz M. (2023). The emergence of online social capital during the COVID-19 outbreak and its impact on individual coping and community resilience in rural areas. Curr. Psychol. 43 (19), 17787–17800. 10.1007/s12144-023-05167-y Köhler T. Janßen C. Plath S.-C. Reese J. P. Lay J. Steinhausen S. (2010). Communication, social capital and workplace health management as determinants of the innovative climate in German banks. Int. J. Public Health 55, 561–570. 10.1007/s00038-010-0195-7 Kumari A. Frazier T. G. (2021). Evaluating social capital in emergency and disaster management and hazards plans. Nat. Hazards 109, 949–973. 10.1007/s11069-021-04863-x Lee J. (2020). Bonding and bridging social capital and their associations with self-evaluated community resilience: a comparative study of East Asia. J. Community and Appl. Soc. Psychol. 30 (1), 31–44. 10.1002/casp.2420 Liu Y. Cao L. Yang D. Anderson B. C. (2022). How social capital influences community resilience management development. Environ. Sci. and Policy 136, 642–651. 10.1016/j.envsci.2022.07.028 Lo A. Y. Xu B. X. Chan F. K. S. Su R. X. (2015). Social capital and community preparation for urban flooding in China. Appl. Geogr. 64, 1–11. 10.1016/j.apgeog.2015.08.003 Ma Z. Guo S. Deng X. Xu D. (2021). Community resilience and resident’s disaster preparedness: evidence from China’s earthquake-stricken areas. Nat. hazards 108, 567–591. 10.1007/s11069-021-04695-9 Madsen W. O’Mullan C. (2016). Perceptions of community resilience after natural disaster in a rural Australian town. J. Community Psychol. 44, 277–292. 10.1002/jcop.21764 Matsukawa A. Tatsuki S. (2018). Crime prevention through community empowerment: an empirical study of social capital in Kyoto, Japan. Int. J. Law, Crime Justice 54, 89–101. 10.1016/j.ijlcj.2018.03.007 McGuire B. F. (2019). Resilience and interdependence: christian and buddhist views of social responsibility following natural disasters. Buddhist-Christian Stud. 39, 115–131. 10.1353/bcs.2019.0010 Molina E. Carella L. Pacheco A. Cruces G. Gasparini L. (2017). Community monitoring interventions to curb corruption and increase access and quality in service delivery: a systematic review. J. Dev. Eff. 9 (4), 462–499. 10.1080/19439342.2017.1378243 Moreno J. Lara A. Torres M. (2019). Community resilience in response to the 2010 tsunami in Chile: the survival of a small-scale fishing community. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 33, 376–384. 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2018.10.024 Morsut C. Kuran C. Kruke B. I. Naevestad T. O. Orru K. Hansson S. (2022a). A critical appraisal of individual social capital in crisis response. Risk Hazards and Crisis Public Policy 13 (2), 176–199. 10.1002/rhc3.12236 Morsut C. Kuran C. Kruke B. I. Orru K. Hansson S. (2022b). Linking resilience, vulnerability, social capital and risk awareness for crisis and disaster research. J. Contingencies Crisis Manag. 30 (2), 137–147. 10.1111/1468-5973.12375 Mutch C. (2023). How schools build community resilience capacity and social capital in disaster preparedness, response and recovery. Int. J. disaster risk Reduct. 92, 103735. 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2023.103735 Nahapiet J. Ghoshal S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Acad. Manag. Rev. 23, 242–266. 10.5465/amr.1998.533225 Nakagawa Y. Shaw R. (2004). Social capital: a missing link to disaster recovery. Int. J. Mass Emergencies and Disasters 22, 5–34. 10.1177/028072700402200101 Nakamura N. Kanemasu Y. (2020). Traditional knowledge, social capital, and community response to a disaster: resilience of remote communities in Fiji after a severe climatic event. Reg. Environ. Change 20, 23–14. 10.1007/s10113-020-01613-w Ogie R. I. Perez P. (2020). Collaborative translation of emergency messages (Co-TEM): an Australian case study. Int. J. disaster risk Reduct. 50, 101920. 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.101920 Okada N. Chabay I. Renn O. (2018). Participatory risk governance for reducing disaster and societal risks: collaborative knowledge production and implementation. Int. J. Disaster Risk Sci. 9 (4), 429–433. 10.1007/s13753-018-0201-x Page M. J. McKenzie J. E. Bossuyt P. M. Boutron I. Hoffmann T. C. Mulrow C. D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Syst. Rev. 10 (1), 89. 10.1186/s13643-021-01626-4 Panday S. Rushton S. Karki J. Balen J. Barnes A. (2021). The role of social capital in disaster resilience in remote communities after the 2015 Nepal earthquake. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 55, 102112. 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102112 Partelow S. (2021). Social capital and community disaster resilience: post-earthquake tourism recovery on Gili Trawangan, Indonesia. Sustain. Sci. 16, 203–220. 10.1007/s11625-020-00854-2 Pelling M. (1998). Participation, social capital and vulnerability to urban flooding in Guyana. J. Int. Dev. 10, 469–486. 10.1002/(sici)1099-1328(199806)10:4<469::aid-jid539>3.0.co;2-4 Peng L. Tan J. Deng W. Liu Y. (2020). Farmers’ participation in community-based disaster management: the role of trust, place attachment and self-efficacy. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 51, 101895. 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.101895 Peng L. Tan J. Lin L. Xu D. (2019). Understanding sustainable disaster mitigation of stakeholder engagement: risk perception, trust in public institutions, and disaster insurance. Sustain. Dev. 27, 885–897. 10.1002/sd.1948 Phillips S. J. (2013). The national library of medicine’s disaster information management research center. Front. public health 1, 70. 10.3389/fpubh.2013.00070 Posio P. (2019). Go out and reconnect: dynamics of social capital and place in post-3.11 community resilience. Asian J. Soc. Sci. 47, 433–458. 10.1163/15685314-04704002 Prayitno G. Hayat A. Efendi A. Auliah A. Dinanti D. (2022). Structural model of community social capital for enhancing rural communities adaptation against the COVID-19 pandemic: empirical evidence from pujon kidul tourism village, malang regency, Indonesia. Sustainability 14 (19), 12949. 10.3390/su141912949 Putnam R. D. (2004). Bowling alone: the collapse and revival of American community. Rayamajhee V. Bohara A. K. (2021). Social capital, trust, and collective action in post-earthquake Nepal. Nat. Hazards 105, 1491–1519. 10.1007/s11069-020-04363-4 Robertson T. Docherty P. Millar F. Ruck A. Engstrom S. (2021). Theory and practice of building community resilience to extreme events. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 59, 102253. 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102253 Rupasingha A. Goetz S. J. Freshwater D. (2006). The production of social capital in US counties. J. socio-economics 35, 83–101. 10.1016/j.socec.2005.11.001 Rusch L. (2010). Rethinking bridging: risk and trust in multiracial community organizing. Urban Aff. Rev. 45, 483–506. 10.1177/1078087409351946 Sadri A. M. Ukkusuri S. V. Lee S. Clawson R. Aldrich D. Nelson M. S. (2018). The role of social capital, personal networks, and emergency responders in post-disaster recovery and resilience: a study of rural communities in Indiana. Nat. hazards 90, 1377–1406. 10.1007/s11069-017-3103-0 Sanyal S. Routray J. K. (2016). Social capital for disaster risk reduction and management with empirical evidences from Sundarbans of India. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 19, 101–111. 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2016.08.010 Seng D. S. C. (2013). Tsunami resilience: multi-level institutional arrangements, architectures and system of governance for disaster risk preparedness in Indonesia. Environ. Sci. and Policy 29, 57–70. 10.1016/j.envsci.2012.12.009 Shah A. A. Khan A. Ullah A. Khan N. A. Alotaibi B. A. (2024). The role of social capital as a key player in disaster risk comprehension and dissemination: lived experience of rural communities in Pakistan. Nat. Hazards 120 (5), 4131–4157. 10.1007/s11069-023-06372-5 Sharpe J. (2021). Learning to trust: relational spaces and transformative learning for disaster risk reduction across citizen led and professional contexts. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 61, 102354. 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102354 Straub A. M. Gray B. J. Ritchie L. A. Gill D. A. (2020). Cultivating disaster resilience in rural Oklahoma: community disenfranchisement and relational aspects of social capital. J. rural Stud. 73, 105–113. 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2019.12.010 Szreter S. Woolcock M. (2004). Health by association? Social capital, social theory, and the political economy of public health. Int. J. Epidemiol. 33, 650–667. 10.1093/ije/dyh013 Tasic J. Amir S. (2016). Informational capital and disaster resilience: the case of Jalin Merapi. Disaster Prev. Manag. 25 (3), 395–411. 10.1108/dpm-07-2015-0163 Thekdi S. Aven T. (2016). An enhanced data-analytic framework for integrating risk management and performance management. Reliab. Eng. and Syst. Saf. 156, 277–287. 10.1016/j.ress.2016.07.010 Tippens J. A. (2020). Urban Congolese refugees’ social capital and community resilience during a period of political violence in Kenya: a qualitative study. J. Immigr. and Refug. Stud. 18, 42–59. 10.1080/15562948.2019.1569744 van der Knaap L. M. Leeuw F. L. Bogaerts S. Nijssen L. T. J. (2008). Combining Campbell standards and the realist evaluation approach: the best of two worlds? Am. J. Eval. 29 (1), 48–57. 10.1177/1098214007313024 Van Staveren M. T. (2009). Risk, innovation & change: Design propositions for implementing risk management in organizations. Enschede: Universiteit of Twente. Warner R. (2020). Governance for resilience: Canada and global disaster risk reduction. Can. Foreign Policy 26 (3), 330–344. 10.1080/11926422.2019.1699129 Weichselgartner J. Pigeon P. (2015). The role of knowledge in disaster risk reduction. Int. J. Disaster Risk Sci. 6, 107–116. 10.1007/s13753-015-0052-7 West C. (2014). “The moral obligations of living in a democratic society,” in The good citizen. Editor Alcoff L. M. Batstone D. B. Mendieta E. (New York: Routledge), 5–12. White G. F. Kates R. W. Burton I. (2001). Knowing better and losing even more: the use of knowledge in hazards management. Glob. Environ. Change Part B Environ. Hazards 3, 81–92. 10.3763/ehaz.2001.0308 WHO (2024). World health organization COVID-19 dashboard. Available at: https://data.who.int/dashboards/covid19/cases?n=o. Witvorapong N. Muttarak R. Pothisiri W. (2015). Social participation and disaster risk reduction behaviors in tsunami prone areas. PLoS one 10, e0130862. 10.1371/journal.pone.0130862 Woolcock M. (2001). The place of social capital in understanding social and economic outcomes. Can. J. policy Res. 2, 11–17. Wu J.-Y. Chen L.-C. (2023). Traditional indigenous ecological knowledge to enhance community-based disaster resilience: taiwan mountain area. Nat. Hazards Rev. 24, 05022014. 10.1061/nhrefo.nheng-1673 Xiong A. Li Y. (2024). The role of social capital in building community disaster resilience –empirical evidences from rural China. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 110, 104623. 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2024.104623 Yang A. H. Wu J. S. H. (2020). Building a disaster-resilient community in taiwan: a social capital analysis of the Meizhou experience. Polit. Gov. 8 (4), 386–394. 10.17645/pag.v8i4.3106 Zakour M. J. Mock N. Kadetz P. (2017). Creating Katrina, rebuilding resilience: lessons from New Orleans on vulnerability and resiliency. Butterworth-Heinemann. Zeballos-Velarde C. Butron-Revilla C. Manchego-Huaquipaco G. Yory C. (2023). The role of ancestral practices as social capital to enhance community disaster resilience. The case of the Colca Valley, Peru. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 92, 103737. 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2023.103737 Zhang Q. Hu J. Song X. Li Z. Yang K. Sha Y. (2021). “How does social learning facilitate urban disaster resilience? A systematic review,” in Environmental hazards and resilience, 180–202.