**3. Conclusion: resilience in disasters**

optimism) and problems specific to youth (clinginess, dependence, loss of sleep, aggressive behaviour, separation anxiety) [32]. As Weine points out, it is only comparatively recently that scholars have integrated 'social capital measures into a quantitative study of rehabilitation' [33]. Social capital is defined as the 'networks, norms and social trust that facilitate coordina‐ tion and cooperation for mutual benefit' [11]. Quantitative study of rehabilitation has tended to focus on the restoration of infrastructural facilities and the capital input in so doing as opposed to the human causal linkages that bring such restoration into effect. Relatedly, areas with larger population density recover after disasters more slowly because of the difficulty in providing temporary housing. However, the traditional formula for the recovery rate is provided by Dacy and Kunreuther who argue that 'the speed of recovery following a disaster will be determined primarily by the magnitude of physical damage' [7]. It was thus thought that the amount of damage would determine the rate of recovery, but more recent research has turned instead to community regeneration through the resilience of social capital in post‐ crisis recovery [34]. As Weine also suggests, social ties form a kind of 'informal insurance' of ready‐made support networks—providing information, financial and administrative support and guidance. Politically active communities can present demands and extract resources bet‐ ter. Trustworthy neighbours share information, prevent duping and looting and maintain the relative integrity of community relations [35]. Furthermore, embedded networks raise the costs of 'exit' for individuals—as networks carry latent effects which benefit individuals in a shared community. Such networked neighbourhood (rich in human capital) is more likely to articulate community needs to authorities and work together to overcome obstacles [36]. Thus, it stands to reason, if, following catastrophe efforts and made to strengthen social net‐ works, leading to a better chance of recovery. There is a second reason why social capital is a constituent factor for community resilience and urban renewal and that is because it enables

the mobilisation of information and resources at critical moments [37].

Lien et al. state that survival in post‐disaster zones is most likely if people (trapped by build‐ ing collapses in earthquakes) are rescued within 72 h [38]. Survival tolerance probably dimin‐ ishes after 3 days. The question then becomes what are effective communication practices for post‐disaster zones. As Quintanilla states, 'It is critically important that affected communities know how, when and where aid services can be accessed, what's going on around them and how they can connect with aid providers' [39]. The need for information increases and the availability and clarity of information decreases. In terms of hardware requirements for com‐ munication after natural disasters, in developed societies where information and computer technology (ICT) is prevalent, the environmental constraints for a disaster area may include temporary Internet links, unavailability of servers and limited or no Internet access. However, where broadband computing is available through relief or remaining facilities, communica‐ tion is improved when devices with simple interfaces are used, Wi‐Fi notebook formats are popular and where power generation is also available [40]. New technologies—mobile, SMS, social media—increase the ability to access quality information [41]. Reliability and trust‐ worthiness of information is deemed critical. Information‐sharing networks can quickly dis‐ seminate news, for example, via mobile phone texting or the Twitter service. In this context,

**2.6. Communication factors**

126 International Development

History has shown that while natural disasters are by definition, devastating, survivors can rebuild their lives given the opportunity. In combination with the complex rebuilding of infrastructure in post‐disaster zones, social scientists and human resource practitioners are increasingly advocating that a psychology of resilience is necessary for community rebuild‐ ing. Resilience is defined by Norris as 'A process linking a set of adaptive capacities to a positive trajectory of functioning and adaptation after a disturbance' [48]. Longstaff and Yang observe that resilience is the 'capacity of a system to absorb disturbance, undergo change' yet still functions in the same way [49]. Thus, resilience is the ability of a system to recover from setback with no major change in its form or functioning. Norris also defines five dimen‐ sions along which resilience may be enhanced by 'networked adaptive capacities'. These are, firstly, developing economic resources—reducing inequities; secondly, enhancing social capital through minimising harm through damage mitigation; thirdly, adaption and utilisa‐ tion of pre‐existing organisational networks; fourthly, protecting naturally occurring social supports and, fifthly, community planning [48]. Consequently, central planners engaged in community rehabilitation strategies should look to strengthen these community functions in post‐catastrophe environments. Hence, resilience may refer to adaptive governance 'across spatial scales (local to national) and between sectors (government, community)'; it may refer to knowledge, communication and social learning; maintaining a positive outlook and draw‐ ing on social networks for support [10]. Surviving a natural catastrophe and rebuilding a com‐ munity after it require the investment in human capital which has the quality of being able to be self‐sustaining by exhibiting resilience.
