Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Examining of the actor collaboration networks around hazard mitigation: a hurricane harvey study

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Natural Hazards Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The objective of this study is to examine the properties of actor collaboration networks and to analyze how they influence the coordination of hazard mitigation in resilience planning in Harris County, Texas. Effective resilience planning can only be achieved through the collective actions of various actors and the network structures unfold the collaboration among the actors. Understanding the structural properties of actor collaboration networks for hazard mitigation may hold the key to understanding and improving the resilience planning process. To this end, after Hurricane Harvey, we administered a stakeholder survey to actors in various urban sectors involved in hazard mitigation (e.g., flood control, transportation, and emergency response). The survey aimed to capture actor collaboration networks for hazard mitigation in Harris County, Texas prior to Harvey. The collaboration represents that the survey respondents worked with the actors in the survey roster for hazard mitigation. We asked the respondents the frequency of the collaboration in the survey (e.g., yearly, monthly, weekly and daily). We examined three network structural properties to study actor positions in the network: degree centrality, boundary spanners, and core-periphery structure, because degree centrality could indicate what actors had more collaborations; boundary spanners could reveal what actors were in strategic positions to connect otherwise separate actors; and core-periphery structure could identify what actors formed the core of actor collaboration network for hazard mitigation and whether the core was composed of actors from diverse sectors. The results showed: (1) governmental actors from different sectors had high degree centrality and betweenness centrality, which indicated that governmental actors had a more influential role in coordination and information dissemination in hazard mitigation planning and implementation; and (2) fewer flood control and non-governmental actors were at the core of the actor collaboration networks, which reduced the extent of hazard mitigation coordination. The results identify potential influential actors (such as City of Houston, Harris County, and Houston–Galveston Area Council) in coordination of hazard mitigation and yield recommendations for increased actor network cohesion for better coordination of hazard mitigation across diverse sectors in resilience planning.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We translated the cores to undirected networks when we calculated core densities. Due to the nature of the survey instrument, another direction would not be possible to identify. It would highly undervalue the core densities (half), if the cores were kept as directed networks when calculated the core density.

References

  • Abbasi A (2014) Link formation pattern during emergency response network dynamics. Nat Hazards 71(3):1957–1969

    Google Scholar 

  • Aral S, Van Alstyne M (2011) The diversity-bandwidth trade-off. Am J Soc 117:90–171

    Google Scholar 

  • Bastos M, McRoberts N, Piccardi C, Lubell M, Levy M (2017) Core-periphery or decentralized? Topological shifts of specialized information on Twitter. Soc Netw 52:282–293

    Google Scholar 

  • Berke P (2019) Why is Houston so vulnerable to flooding? Retrieved from: https://hazards.colorado.edu/news/research-counts/part-i-why-is-houston-so-vulnerable-to-flooding.

  • Berke P, Newman G, Lee J, Combs T, Kolosna C, Salvesen D (2015) Evaluation of networks of plans and vulnerability to hazards and climate change: a resilience scorecard. J Am Plan Assoc 81(4):287–302

    Google Scholar 

  • Berke PR, Malecha ML, Yu S, Lee J, Masterson JH (2019) Plan integration for resilience scorecard: evaluating networks of plans in six US coastal cities. J Environ Plan Manage 62(5):901–920

    Google Scholar 

  • Berz G, Kron W, Loster T, Rauch E, Schimetschek J, Schmieder J, Siebert A, Smolka A, Wirtz A (2001) World map of natural hazards - a global view of the distribution and intensity of significant exposures. Nat Hazards 23(2–3):443–465

    Google Scholar 

  • Bodin Ö (2017) Collaborative environmental governance: achieving collective action in social-ecological systems. Science, 357(6352).

  • Borgatti SP (1995) Centrality and AIDS. Connections 18(1):112–114

    Google Scholar 

  • Borgatti SP (2005) Centrality and network flow. Soc Netw 27(1):55–71

    Google Scholar 

  • Borgatti SP (2009). 2-Mode concepts in social network analysis. In: Encyclopedia of complexity and system science, vol 6, pp 8279-8291

  • Borgatti SP, Everett MG (2000) Models of core/periphery structures. Soc Netw 21(4):375–395

    Google Scholar 

  • Bourgeois M, Friedkin NE (2001) The distant core: Social solidarity, social distance and interpersonal ties in core-periphery structures. Soc Netw 23(4):245–260

    Google Scholar 

  • Burby RJ (2003) Making plans that matter: Citizen involvement and government action. J Am Plan Assoc 69(1):33–49

    Google Scholar 

  • Creswick N, Westbrook JI (2010) Social network analysis of medication advice-seeking interactions among staff in an Australian hospital. Int J Med Inf 79(6):e116–e125

    Google Scholar 

  • Cucuringu M, Rombach P, Lee SH, Porter MA (2016) Detection of core-periphery structure in networks using spectral methods and geodesic paths. Eur J Appl Math 27(6):846–887

    Google Scholar 

  • Da Silva MR, Ma H, Zeng AP (2008) Centrality, network capacity, and modularity as parameters to analyze the core-periphery structure in metabolic networks. Proc IEEE 96(8):1411–1420

    Google Scholar 

  • Dong S, Li Q, Farahmand H, Mostafavi A, Berke P, Vedlitz A (2020) Institutional connectedness in resilience planning and management of interdependent infrastructure systems. J Manage Eng. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.00008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doreian P (1985) Structural equivalence in a psychology journal network. J Am Soc Inf Sci 36(6):411–417

    Google Scholar 

  • Doreian P, Conti N (2012) Social context, spatial structure and social network structure. Soc Netw 34(1):32–46

    Google Scholar 

  • Dyckman CS (2018) Planning without the planners: South Carolina’s Section 319 local watershed planning process. Environ Sci Policy 89:126–141

    Google Scholar 

  • Fan C, Zhang C, Mostafavi A (2018) Meta-network framework for analyzing disaster management system-of-systems. In: 2018 13th system of systems engineering conference, SoSE 2018, pp372–378

  • Farahmand H, Dong S, Mostafavi A, Berke PR, Woodruff SC, Hannibal B, Vedlitz A (2020) Institutional congruence for resilience management in interdependent infrastructure systems. Int J Disast Risk Reduct 46:101515

    Google Scholar 

  • Feiock RC (2013) The institutional collective action framework. Policy Stud J 41(3):397–425

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman LC (1978) Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification. Soc Netw 1(3):215–239

    Google Scholar 

  • Gajewski S, Bell H, Lein L, Angel RJ (2011) Complexity and instability: The response of nongovernmental organizations to the recovery of Hurricane Katrina survivors in a host community. Nonprofit Volunt Sector Quart 40(2):389–403

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons DE (2004) Network structure and innovation ambiguity effects on diffusion in dynamic organizational fields. Acad Manag J 47(6):938–951

    Google Scholar 

  • Godschalk DR (2003) Urban hazard mitigation: creating resilient cities. Nat Hazards Rev 4(3):136–143

    Google Scholar 

  • Granovetter M (1983) The strength of weak ties: a network theory revisited. Soc Theory 1:201

    Google Scholar 

  • Hannibal B, Ono H (2017) Relationships of collapse: Network brokerage, opportunism and fraud in financial markets. Int J Soc Econ 44(12):2097–2111

    Google Scholar 

  • Hawe P, Ghali L (2008) Use of social network analysis to map the social relationships of staff and teachers at school. Health Educ Res 23(1):62–69

    Google Scholar 

  • Holme P (2005) Core-periphery organization of complex networks. Phys Rev E: Statist Nonlinear Soft Matter Phys 72(4):46111

    Google Scholar 

  • Hughes TP, Baird AH, Bellwood DR, Card M, Connolly SR, Folke C, Grosberg R, Hoegh-Guldberg O, Jackson JBC, Kleypas J, Lough JM, Marshall P, Nyström M, Palumbi SR, Pandolfi JM, Rosen B, Roughgarden J (2003) Climate change, human impacts, and the resilience of coral reefs. Science

  • Kapucu N (2005) Interorganizational coordination in dynamic context: networks in emergency response management. Connections 26(2):33–48

    Google Scholar 

  • Kapucu N, Van Wart M (2006) The evolving role of the public sector in managing catastrophic disasters: Lessons learned. Administration and Society

  • Kotani H, Yokomatsu M (2016) Natural disasters and dynamics of ‘a paradise built in hell’: a social network approach. Nat Hazards 84(1):309–333

    Google Scholar 

  • Larsen AG, Ellersgaard CH (2017) Identifying power elites—k-cores in heterogeneous affiliation networks. Soc Netw 50:55–69

    Google Scholar 

  • Lazega E, Burt RS (1995) Structural holes: the social structure of competition. Revue Française de Sociologie. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Li Q, Dong S, Mostafavi A (2019) Modeling of inter-organizational coordination dynamics in resilience planning of infrastructure systems: a multilayer network simulation framework. PLoS ONE 14(11)

  • Li Q, Dong S, Mostafavi A (2020) Metanetwork framework for analysis of actor-plan-task-infrastructure networks in resilience planning and management. Nat Hazards Rev 21(2)

  • Long JC, Cunningham FC, Braithwaite J (2013) Bridges, brokers and boundary spanners in collaborative networks: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res 13(1).

  • Lyles LW, Berke P, Smith G (2014) Do planners matter? Examining factors driving incorporation of land use approaches into hazard mitigation plans. J Environ Plan Manage 57(5):792–811

    Google Scholar 

  • Malecha ML, Brand AD, Berke PR (2018) Spatially evaluating a network of plans and flood vulnerability using a plan integration for resilience scorecard: a case study in Feijenoord District, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Land Use Policy 78:147–157

    Google Scholar 

  • Masterson JH, Peacock WG, Van Zandt SS, Grover H, Schwarz LF, Cooper JT (2014) Planning for community resilience: a handbook for reducing vulnerability to disasters. Island Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Matyas CJ, Silva JA (2013) Extreme weather and economic well-being in rural Mozambique. Nat Hazards 66(1):31–49

    Google Scholar 

  • METRO (1969) Regional population growth.” Statistical bulletin (Metropolitan Life Insurance Company)

  • Milallos M (2013) Building Resilience, social capital in post-disaster recovery: Daniel Aldrich (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2012). Journal of Contemporary Asia, University of Chicago Press.

  • National Research Council (2012) Disaster resilience: A national imperative. The National Academies Press.

  • Newman M (2018). Networks. Oxford University Press.

  • NOAA & NHC (2018) Costliest U.S. tropical cyclones tables updated. NOAA Technical Memorandum NWS NHC-6, 3

  • Opdyke A, Lepropre F, Javernick-Will A, Koschmann M (2017) Inter-organizational resource coordination in post-disaster infrastructure recovery. Construct Manage Econ 35(8–9):514–530

    Google Scholar 

  • Opsahl T, Agneessens F, Skvoretz J (2010) Node centrality in weighted networks: generalizing degree and shortest paths. Soc Netw 32(3):245–251

    Google Scholar 

  • Phelps C, Heidl R, Wadhwa A (2012) Knowledge, networks, and knowledge networks: a review and research agenda. J Manage 38(4):1115–1166

    Google Scholar 

  • Rajput AA, Li Q, Zhang C, Mostafavi A (2020) Temporal network analysis of inter-organizational communications on social media during disasters: a study of Hurricane Harvey in Houston. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 46(Under Review)

  • Rombach MP, Porter MA, Fowler JH, Mucha PJ (2014) Core-periphery structure in networks. SIAM J Appl Math 74(1):167–190

    Google Scholar 

  • Rossa FD, Dercole F, Piccardi C (2013) Profiling core-periphery network structure by random walkers. Sci Rep 3:1–5

    Google Scholar 

  • Sadri AM, Ukkusuri SV, Lee S, Clawson R, Aldrich D, Nelson MS, Seipel J, Kelly D (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(3):1377–1406

    Google Scholar 

  • Schilling MA, Phelps CC (2007) Interfirm collaboration networks: The impact of large-scale network structure on firm innovation. Manage Sci 53(7):1113–1126

    Google Scholar 

  • Scholz JT, Berardo R, Kile B (2008) Do networks solve collective action problems? Credibility, search, and collaboration. J Polit 70(2):393–406

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott J, Carrington P, Borgatti SP, Halgin DS (2015) Analyzing affiliation networks. SAGE Handbook Soc Netw Anal 1:417–433

    Google Scholar 

  • Shilcutt K, Asgarian R (2017) The deliberate flooding of west houston. Issue of Houstonia, https://www.houstoniamag.com/news-and-city-life/20.

  • Soldz S, Andersen LL (2012) Expanding subjectivities: introduction to the special issue on ‘new directions in psychodynamic research. J Res Pract 8(2):123–132

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone DH, Brewster DC, Kwolek CJ, LaMuraglia GM, Conrad MF, Chung TK, Cambria RP (2006) Stent-graft versus open-surgical repair of the thoracic aorta: Mid-term results. J Vascular Surg, pp 188–1197

  • Uzzi B (1997) Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: The paradox of embeddedness. Adm Sci Q 42(1):35–67

    Google Scholar 

  • Uzzi B, Spiro J (2005) Collaboration and creativity: The small world problem. Am J Sociol 111(2):447–504

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiki (2019) Disasters in Houston. Retrieved from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Houston.

  • Woodruff SC, Regan P (2019) Quality of national adaptation plans and opportunities for improvement. Mitig Adapt Strat Glob Change 24(1):53–71

    Google Scholar 

  • Zambrano Leal A (2012) Sociedad de control y profesión docente. Las imposturas de un discurso y la exigencia de una nueva realidad. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 95:45–52

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang X, Martin T, Newman MEJ (2015) Identification of core-periphery structure in networks. Phys Rev E: Stat, Nonlin, Soft Matter Phys 91(3):32803

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhu J, Mostafavi A (2016) Metanetwork framework for integrated performance assessment under uncertainty in construction projects. J Comput Civ Eng 31(1):04016042

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge funding support from the National Science Foundation RAPID project # (1760258): ‘RAPID: Assessment of Risks and Vulnerability in Coupled Human-Physical Networks of Houston's Flood Protection, Emergency Response, and Transportation Infrastructure in Harvey.’ CRISP project # (1832662): ‘Anatomy of Coupled Human-Infrastructure Systems Resilience to Urban Flooding: Integrated Assessment of Social, Institutional, and Physical Networks.’ Publication supported in part by an Institutional Grant (NA18OAR4170088) to the Texas Sea Grant College Program from the National Sea Grant Office, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, US Department of Commerce. Any opinions, findings, and conclusion or recommendations expressed in this research are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the view of the funding agencies. Also, the authors would like to acknowledge Nandita Chaudhuri, Carol Goldsmith, Lisa A Halperin, Kirby Goidel, Steven Vanoye, Anthony S Jackson, Matthew Malecha, and Baiherula Abula for their help with data collection.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Zachry Department of Civil Engineering, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, 77840, USA

    Qingchun Li & Ali Mostafavi

  2. the Bush School of Government and Public Service, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, 77843, USA

    Bryce Hannibal

  3. Department of Landscape Architecture and Urban Planning, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, 77840, USA

    Philip Berke & Sierra Woodruff

  4. The Bush School of Government and Public Service, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, 77840, USA

    Arnold Vedlitz

Authors
  1. Qingchun Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Bryce Hannibal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ali Mostafavi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Philip Berke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Sierra Woodruff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Arnold Vedlitz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Qingchun Li.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 42 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Li, Q., Hannibal, B., Mostafavi, A. et al. Examining of the actor collaboration networks around hazard mitigation: a hurricane harvey study. Nat Hazards 103, 3541–3562 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-020-04142-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-020-04142-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation