Social Networks and Disaster Risk Perception in Mexico and Ecuador

  • Eric C. Jones
  • A. J. Faas
  • Arthur Murphy
  • Graham A. Tobin
  • Linda M. Whiteford
  • Christopher McCarty
Chapter
Part of the The Anthropocene: Politik—Economics—Society—Science book series (APESS, volume 23)

Abstract

We examine social aspects of risk perception in seven sites among communities affected by a flood in Mexico (one site), as well by volcanic eruptions in Mexico (one site) and Ecuador (five sites). We conducted over 450 interviews with questions about the danger people feel at the time (after the disaster) about what happened in the past, their current concerns, and their expectations about the future. We explored how aspects of the context in which people live have an effect on the relationship between risk perception and social network factors. Levels of risk perception for past, present, and future aspects of a specific hazard were similar across these two countries and seven sites. However, specific network factors varied from site to site across the countries, thus there was little overlap between sites in the variables that predicted the past, present, or future aspects of risk perception in each site.

Keywords

Comparative research Disaster Resettlement Latin America Social support Recovery Wellbeing 

References

  1. Avenarius, C. (2003). The structure of constraints: Social networks of immigrants from Taiwan. Dissertation, Institut für Völkerkunde Universität Köln.Google Scholar
  2. Avenarius, C., & Johnson, J.C. (2004). Recovery from natural disasters and the ‘lack of weak ties.’ Paper presented at the International Sunbelt Social Network Conference, Portoroz, Slovenia.Google Scholar
  3. Bernard, H.R., Johnsen, E.S., Killworth, P.D., McCarty, C., Shelley, G.A., Robinson, S. (1990). Comparing four different methods for measuring personal social networks. Social Networks, 12(3), 179–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Buskens, V. (1998). The social structure of trust. Social Networks, 20(3), 265–289.Google Scholar
  5. Dyer, C.L., & McGoodwin, J.R. (1999). The culture of response: The political ecology of disaster assistance and its impact on the fishing communities of Florida and Louisiana after Hurricane Andrew. In A. Oliver-Smith & S. Hoffman (Eds.), The angry earth: Disaster in anthropological perspective (pp. 211–231). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Faas, A.J. (2012). Reciprocity and political power in disaster-induced resettlements in Andean Ecuador. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Anthropological Sciences. Las Vegas, NV.Google Scholar
  7. Garcia, J.L.O. (2000). Teziutlan: Historia y tragedia. Puebla, Mexico: Benemérita Universidad Autónoma de Puebla.Google Scholar
  8. Hall, M., Norwood, A., Ursano, R., Fullerton, C. (2003). The psychological impacts of Bioterrorism. Biosecurity & Bioterrorism, 1, 139–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Helleringer, S., & Kohler, H.P. (2005). Social networks, perceptions of risk, and changing attitudes towards HIV/AIDS: New evidence from a longitudinal study using fixed-effects analysis. Population Studies, 59(3), 265–282.Google Scholar
  10. Hobfoll, S.E. (2002). Social and psychological resources and adaptation. Review of General Psychology, 6(4), 307–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kitchovitch, S., & Liò, P. (2010). Risk perception and disease spread on social networks. Procedia Computer Science, 1(1), 2345–2354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. McCarty, C. (2002). Measuring structure in personal networks. Journal of Social Structure, 3(1).Google Scholar
  13. McCarty, C., & Killworth, P. (2007). Impact of methods for reducing respondent burden on personal network structural measures social networks. Social Networks, 29(2), 300–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. McCarty, C., Killworth, P.D., Bernard, H.R., Johnsen E.C., Shelley, G. A. (2000). Comparing two methods for estimating network size. Human Organization, 60(1), 28–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Norris, F.H., Baker, C., Murphy, A.D., Kaniasty, K. (2005). Social support mobilization and deterioration after Mexico’s 1999 flood: Effects of context, gender, and time. American Journal of Community Psychology, 36(1–2), 15–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Reissman, D., Spencer, S., Tanielian, T., Stein, B. (2004). Integrating behavioral aspects into community preparedness and response systems. In Y. Danieli and D. Brom (Eds.), The trauma of terror: Sharing knowledge and shared care (pp. 707–720). Binghamton, NY: Haworth.Google Scholar
  17. Scherer, C.W., & Cho, H. (2003). A social network contagion theory of risk perception. Risk Analysis, 23(2), 261–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Tobin, G.A., & Whiteford, L.M. (2002). Community resilience and volcano hazard: The eruption of Tungurahua and evacuation of the Faldas in Ecuador. Disasters: The Journal of Disaster Studies, Policy & Management, 26(1), 28–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Tobin, G.A., Whiteford, L.M., Jones, E.C., Murphy, A.D. (2011). The role of individual well-being in risk perception and evacuation for chronic vs. acute natural hazards in Mexico. Journal of Applied Geography, 31(2), 700–711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Turner, R.J., & Marino, F. (1994). Social support and social structure: A descriptive epidemiology. Journal of Health & Social Behavior, 35(3), 193–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Unger, D.G., & Powell, D.R. (1980). Supporting families under stress: the role of social networks. Family Relations, 29(4), 566–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eric C. Jones
    • 1
  • A. J. Faas
    • 2
  • Arthur Murphy
    • 3
  • Graham A. Tobin
    • 4
  • Linda M. Whiteford
    • 4
  • Christopher McCarty
    • 5
  1. 1.University of Texas Health Science Centre at HoustonHoustonUSA
  2. 2.San Jose State UniversitySan JoseUSA
  3. 3.University of North Carolina at GreensboroGreensboroUSA
  4. 4.University of South FloridaTampaUSA
  5. 5.University of FloridaGainesvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations