Understanding activated network resilience: A comparative analysis of co‐located and co‐cluster disaster response networks

Abstract

Building on the resilience literature, this study analyzes the response networks that were activated for four disasters during 2015-2016 (Cyclone Pam, the 2015 Nepal earthquake, Cyclone Winston, the 2016 Ecuador earthquake). The analysis shows that different interrelated resilient capacities are manifested in the activation of response networks. In particular, in exhibiting redundancy and robustness, disasterspecific network structures are discerned. In both cyclones, response networks resemble a predefined cluster design, whereas in the earthquake disasters, networks are more fluid. Moreover, organizations' varied levels of prior response experiences help build the network's capacities of redundancy and resourcefulness. Implications are discussed in ways to advance contributions to research on resilience and disaster response networks. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jccm

The COVID-19 response system and collective social service provision. Strategic network dimensions and proximity considerations

“…Resource sharing is at the heart of stakeholder collaboration during and in the aftermath of an unexpected disaster or disease outbreak (Jiang and Ritchie 2017 ). Response networks can be developed by members operating within the same affected area, but also be built by distant actors covering similar or complementary function domains (Lai and Hsu 2019 ). Through local networks, organizations learn and access resources easily, because closer geographical relations foster frequent and more reliable forms of collaboration and assistance for disaster resilience (Cheshire 2015 ).…”

“…Usually, it can be expected that organizations that work together in regular situations due to their similar tasks, vision or geographical location will be more prone to interact even a disruptive context (Hossain and Kuti 2010 ; Butts et al 2012 ; Comfort and Haase 2006 ; Kapucu 2005 ). Lai and Hsu ( 2019 ) analyzed the response networks that were activated for four disasters during 2015–2016. Their results show divergencies on the role of the proximity dimensions measured through co-location (geographical proximity), sectorial (cognitive proximity), or prior experience similarity (social proximity).…”

Evolution of Collaborative Governance in the 2015, 2016, and 2018 Myanmar Flood Disaster Responses: A Longitudinal Approach to a Network Analysis

“…Some local organizations tend to dissolve or terminate ties with other organizations after their disaster relief operations are complete. After engaging in complex collaborative processes that involve a considerable number of public and nongovernmental actors for disaster response, the actors within a network are also likely to shift blame to one another for any observed failures during the emergency response phases and discontinue their engagement in collaborative activities related to future multiple disasters (Hood 2011;Lim et al 2016;Lai and Hsu 2019). Therefore, organizations seek to build stronger relationships and to sustain their networks by sharing information, knowledge, and resources for the community's overall benefit (Provan and Milward 2001).…”

Cultural interventions through children's literature and arts-based practices in times of disaster: A case study of reading mediators' response to the Mexican earthquakes (September 2017)

“…New forms of participatory governance can enable citizens to contribute effectively to the post-disaster recovery process. To capture the important contributions that citizens make in an emergency situation, more flexible and diffuse intervention models have been proposed [ 3 , 10 , 11 ]. Such models of intervention take into account the critical role played by community members in the recovery process, as well as the increasingly important role of digital technologies [ [2] , [3] , [4] ].…”