Social Capital and Emergency Management Planning: A Test of Community Context Effects on Formal and Informal Collaboration

Using a sample of U.S. counties, this article explores the relationships between community level resilience, represented by capacity (social capital), information (uses of technology), and motivation (perception of threats to county,) on the one hand, and county levels of emergency management (EM) c...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:American review of public administration 2015-07, Vol.45 (4), p.476-493
Main Authors: Johnson, Bonnie J., Goerdel, Holly T., Lovrich, Nicholas P., Pierce, John C.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Collaboration
Counties
Emergency preparedness
Social capital
Social networks
Studies
Citations: Items that this one cites
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Using a sample of U.S. counties, this article explores the relationships between community level resilience, represented by capacity (social capital), information (uses of technology), and motivation (perception of threats to county,) on the one hand, and county levels of emergency management (EM) collaboration on the other. We hypothesize that the greater relative presence of bridging social capital networks will be associated with greater levels of collaboration in county EM planning, while the greater relative presence of bonding social capital networks will be associated with lower levels of collaboration. Results indicate that first there are two collaborative environments to assess—the formal and informal—and, second, the presence of political networks (seen as predominantly bridging) relative to the presence of religious networks (viewed as predominantly bonding) has a significant and positive effect on informal collaboration levels, but not on formal collaboration levels. These findings provide insight into how community context in the form of network social capital matters for collaborative EM planning efforts. These results add to prior research that focuses primarily on organizational and institutional sources of collaboration and much less on the community level contextual factors at play.
ISSN:0275-0740
1552-3357
DOI:10.1177/0275074013504127