Social capital: improving community capacity to respond to urban heat

ABSTRACT

Urban heat is a growing problem, especially for vulnerable populations who are disproportionately exposed to higher temperatures. Adaptive capacity and, especially, social capital increases recovery from disasters and enhances adaptation. Social capital is declining nationwide and the Sunbelt States, with highest national temperatures, have the lowest levels of social capital. Social capital is situational and reflects a position within the formal and informal aspects of any issue, and frameworks developed for some purposes may not be relevant for others. Few have fully explored social capital's relation to heat vulnerability. There is a need to understand social capital in the context of urban heat to determine if it is present, used, enhanced or is a latent capacity. This research explores indicators and related questions for effective social capital for urban heat. This research was conducted in one of the hottest United States cities, metropolitan Phoenix, Arizona and, while the geographic and cultural context may be different, the findings have applicability to other warming urban centres. Using social capital as a lens to explore heat vulnerability and better metrics for urban heat social capital can inform policies that deepen networks and increase trust, minimise poor public health outcomes, and facilitate more effective community engagement. Effective social capital for extreme heat can provide a roadmap for decision-makers in working towards climate adaptation at the community scale by increasing their understanding of when and how to assist communities in building their capacity.

KEYWORDS:

• Extreme heat
• social capital
• adaptive capacity
• adaptation
• community engagement
• resilience

Introduction

Extreme urban heat is a leading cause of weather-related illness in the United States and, given projections of increasing urban heat intensity, expected to be a growing problem (CDC 2019, Reidmiller et al. 2017). Not all populations are affected equally by heat. Vulnerable populations have been identified using various combinations of measures for sensitivity, exposure and adaptive capacity at the household level (Cutter, Boruff, and Shirley 2003; Harlan et al. 2006; Reid et al. 2009; Chuang et al. 2015; Bélanger et al. 2015) and its influence on urban heat morbidity and mortality. Lower socioeconomic groups, those with pre-existing health conditions, minorities, the elderly and those with limited access to cooling benefits are especially vulnerable to urban heat (Harlan et al. 2006). Social capital, the connections among individuals including networks and norms and reciprocity (Putnam 2001), also affect exposure and sensitivity to extreme heat. Pre-existing heat vulnerability research, while evolving, does not heavily weigh the benefits of social capital in providing protection on an individual or household level, nor the collective capacity of communities working towards long-term heat mitigation and adaptation. This paper explores the specific elements of one form of adaptive capacity, social capital, how it is used in adapting to or mitigating urban heat and offers a framework for measuring effective social capital for urban heat. Effective social capital for extreme heat can provide a roadmap for decision-makers in working towards climate adaptation at the community scale by increasing their understanding of when and how to assist communities in building their capacity. This research was conducted in one of the hottest United States cities, metropolitan Phoenix, Arizona, and, while the geographic and cultural context may be different, the findings have applicability to other warming urban centres.

Vulnerability measurements for urban heat

Few have fully explored social capital and its relation to heat vulnerability. Social capital is derived from three schools of thought: Bourdieu, Coleman and Putnam. Social capital is defined by Bourdieu (1984) as the actual or potential resources of a network of relationships of mutual acquaintance or recognition and is a theory based on social stratification. Social capital is one of four types of capital, the others being economic, cultural and symbolic. Coleman (1990) considers social capital an outcome of social processes and interactions whose social structures of relationships could develop into resources for individual uses. Putnam (1993) defines social capital as the features of social life, the networks, norms and trust, that allow participants to act together more effectively to pursue common goals. Social capital generates benefits at the neighbourhood scale as networks of civic engagement reinforce and encourage reciprocity and trust, facilitate communication and dissemination of information, amplify reputations and assist in collective action resolutions. Social capital can be used to research adaptive capacity and actions within communities of place (residents) and communities of practice (organisations) (Pelling and High 2005).

Previous research has attempted to quantify social capital in relation to heat vulnerability. Harlan et al. (2006) developed an outdoor human thermal comfort index which found positive correlations between heat stress exposure and low-income/minority communities and assessed the strength of neighbourhood social ties through four questions pertaining to relationships with neighbours: how well one knows their neighbours, visits informally, invites them over, or help one's neighbours. Due to less trust and networks among neighbours (bonding social capital) and less meaningful contact with decision makers (bridging social capital), residents are unable to work collectively and advocate for heat mitigation and adaptation strategies (Harlan et al. 2015). Reid et al. (2009) included public health data, air conditioning prevalence and social isolation, along with the social/environmental components of the Social Vulnerability Index (SoVi) index (Cutter, Boruff, and Shirley 2003) to create a heat vulnerability index (HVI).

Wilhelmi and Hayden (2010) included social capital as an aspect of heat adaptive capacity. Adaptive capacity in this framework consisted of household level knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP), household resources, social capital, and community resources and risk reduction programmes. Proxies for strong social capital were knowing neighbours, talking with neighbours often or daily, feeling comfortable asking for assistance from neighbours, and calling a neighbour or someone in the neighbourhood in emergency situations. The respondents in this research did not join formal organisations and were unaware of community heat-related programmes (Hayden, Brenkert-Smith, and Wilhelmi 2011).

Using coastal disaster as the disrupter, Andrew, Bacot, and Craw (2020) found that neighbourhood level organisations affect preparedness, response and recovery through three pathways: increasing intra neighbourhood collective action, encouraging cross-community collaboration, and by building community resilience.

Using a capitals framework, Mason et al. (2018) examined the relationship between extreme summer heat and winter weather, and various forms of capital (human, financial, physical and social) to prepare for or recover from shocks. Expanding beyond socio-economic contributors to public health vulnerability, this Knoxville-based study measured social cohesion as a proxy for social capital and found that social cohesion is a possible protective factor from the health impacts of both summer heat and winter cold and suggests that building social cohesion could be a focal point for social workers. This could include developing neighbourhood emergency preparedness plans and checking on isolated or elderly neighbours. The Long Live the Elderly (LLE) programme, started in Rome in 2004 after the European heat wave, targeted residents over age 75 and focused on increasing social capital at the individual and community levels. Compared to areas that did not have the LLE programme, showed a 13% reduction in heat mortality during the summer and a reduction in the months following the heat waves (Liotta et al. 2018).

Extreme heat affects social relations, reducing social visits, participation in outside activities, and mobility, especially for those using public transit. Organisations that work with heat-vulnerable populations should acknowledge the value of addressing social connections to decrease both the emergency and chronic effects of extreme heat while also improving long-term quality of life and well-being (Bolitho and Miller 2017).

Existing social capital indicators developed for other purposes

As recognised by researchers who have made initial attempts to include social capital measures in heat vulnerability assessments, social capital is more complex and is beyond metrics like knowing and relying on neighbours and belonging to organisations. Political science literature details robust frameworks for measuring social capital. This section details relevant social capital theory, highlighting three frameworks, and describes measurement challenges.

Concern for weakening civic engagement has spurred a growing body of political science literature on general aspects of social capital to determine the strengths of associational life. While there are many definitions in the literature, this paper defines social capital as the norms of reciprocity and trust among individuals as well as shared social networks (Putnam 2001). Under this definition, social capital is measured on two different scales – the household or individual level which includes individual relationships as well as associational life, and community social capital comprised of the total of all members’ relationships.

There are two components to social capital theory: the types of interpersonal relationships, and trust and reciprocity. Bonding social capital occurs within homogeneous groups such as religious or ethnic groups. Higher levels of bonding capital generate higher levels of trust and shared norms. Bridging social capital describes relationships of exchange between people with shared interests but different social identities. These individuals are loosely connected through involvement in civic, political, education, sports and special interest organisations. These ties display greater demographic diversity than bonding social capital and can provide new information and resources to assist individuals in advancing in society. Linking social capital includes vertical relationships across boundaries (such as community groups and social classes) and connects everyday citizens with those in positions of power (Putnam 2001).

Urban communities have stronger bridging capital and weaker bonding capital than rural areas, and men have more bridging and linking social capital whereas women have stronger bonding social capital (Woolcock and Narayan 2000; Woolcock and Narayan 2000). According to Putnam (1993), social capital makes life easier in communities. The networks of engagement reinforce and encourage reciprocity and trust, facilitate communication and dissemination of information, amplify reputations, and assist in collective actions. Households use individual mitigation strategies in situations where there is a weak civil society and centralised decision-making (Pelling 1998). While increasing collective social capacity would be in the public interest and long-term individual advantage, individuals are not always motivated to participate in collective action (Pelling and High 2005).

Social capital can explain how individuals and communities can shape hazard mitigation and adaptation strategies (Pelling and High 2005). Social capital enhances adaptation and ensures better recovery from disasters (Pelling and High 2005; Kwok et al. 2019) and strong social ties are usually protective behaviours (Harlan et al. 2006). Bonding social capital facilitates the flow of disaster information and preparation, and immediate aid and recovery assistance and, thus, reduces requests for formal assistance. During disasters, individuals withdraw from the larger society and turn to close-knit groups, strengthening bonding capital. Social capital networks provide access to resources in disaster situations such as childcare, emotional, and psychological support, relevant information, and financial resources (Aldrich and Meyer 2015). Low-income and immigrant networks have a well-connected network of family and friends (Hansen et al. 2014) and the community grapevine is invaluable for spreading information especially for those whom English is not their first language.

The Harvard University National Social Capital Benchmark Community Survey (2000, 2006) measured a decline in social capital in the United States compared to civic involvement in the 1950s, 1970s and 1990s. According to the Social Capital Project, an effort of the Joint Economic Committee of the United States, social capital continues to decline overall in the United States especially as the highly engaged, “Greatest Generation” of those born before 1930, have died off. What has emerged is a divide in community engagement by social class (Sander and Putnam 2009). Youth community engagement among white, upper middle-class families have strengthened while youth engagement among working class or lower-class backgrounds have declined. Related to this, trust in other people remained steady among more affluent youth but declined among those less privileged. This class divide is noted by other social capital studies and extends beyond youth engagement. Polarisation has escalated to demonising those who do not think similarly, which further erodes social capital (Murray 2012; Dunkleman 2014). This culminates in an upper middle class that has much influence on “the course of the nation”, but little exposure to the lives of ordinary Americans. They make decisions about what is good or appropriate for other people based on limited experiences and atypical lives (Murray 2012).

Social scientists have not agreed upon how to accurately measure social capital (Aldrich and Meyer 2015), especially at the neighbourhood level (Kwok et al. 2019). One technique is derived from attitudinal and cognitive aspects of social capital such as trust. Here, survey questions delve into general measurements of trust such as “most people can be trusted” or “most people are honest” and is measured relationally to other groups (Putnam 2001). Another method is through behavioural manifestations of social capital in daily life and explores memberships in homeowner, volunteer, or other local organisations, or whether doors are locked.

A landmark survey of social capital is the Harvard University National Social Capital Benchmark Community Survey (2000, 2006). It measured participation in community/organisational life, engagement in public affairs, community volunteerism, informal sociability and social trust. This study was developed to better understand social change in America and declining civic participation. The decline in institutional trust, less volunteering for large, national organisations, and women entering the workforce, according to this study, contributed to a decline in social capital. Survey questions included voting behaviour, parade attendance, political involvement, donating blood frequency, and trust for different ethnic groups, factors which may not have an impact on adaptive capacity for urban heat.

The World Bank provides a social capital assessment tool (SOCAT) to measure structural social capital, cognitive social capital and collective actions. It is used to assess development opportunities and includes community profiling and asset mapping, measurements of collective action and solidarity, community governance and decision making, relationships between organisations and the community, and institutional networks and organisational density (Grootaert et al. 20144).

The Joint Economic Committee of the United States embarked on a three-year research effort, the Social Capital Project, to illuminate the quality, importance and changing nature of social relationships. It measures “associational life” at the state and county scale. The family unit figures prominently in this framework and includes family unity, family interaction, social support, community and institutional health, collective efficacy and philanthropic health. Social capital was measured to be the lowest primarily in Southern states – the regions with the highest and longest periods of extreme temperatures. This study noted that less time is spent with neighbours and co-workers outside the job, there is less racial segregation but more class segregation, and found lower membership and confidence in organised religion. The time spent with friends, time volunteering, and trust in friends and local government remained the same from the 1970s to the 2010s.

Effective social capital for urban heat

Social capital is situational and reflects a position within the formal and informal aspects of any issue (Pelling and High 2005). Since social capital will change depending on the issue, it becomes difficult to make comparative evaluations using social capital frameworks developed for other purposes. Urban heat is a contextual, local issue, and county, state, or national aggregated indicators for social capital may provide a general direction but a social capital indicator tool for urban heat must be tied to local settings to be meaningful. There have been limited attempts to add ethnographic knowledge of “behavioural norms, social networks, and risk perceptions that are equally relevant to understanding urban vulnerability” to vulnerability frameworks due to lack of data (Wolf 2010).

Coping with increasing urban heat has two dimensions which relate to differing types of social capital: the short-term emergency management of extreme heat events and the long-term mitigation and adaptation in urban neighbourhoods. In the highest need communities, there is often limited shading along streets, few “third places” with cooling infrastructure such as parks and water features such as pools or splash pads, and housing with inadequate insulation and older air conditioning units. Long-term mitigation and adaptation strategies for urban heat would correct some of those inequities. Strong ties and close-knit social networks have proven helpful in emergency situations, yet the weak ties of bridging and bonding relationships are instrumental in working towards transformations in a community. A community needs both strong and weak ties to holistically tackle urban heat.

Therefore, what are the social capital indicators that are important in coping with extreme heat at the individual, household and community scales? And second, how could this be measured? There is a need to better understand the indicators for social capital in the context of increasing urban heat to determine if it is present, is used, is enhanced or is a latent capacity. While climate action at the city scale has increased dramatically since 1990, neighbourhood climate activity has been significantly lower, hampering bottom up, local action (Joshi, Agrawal, and Lie 2022; Bulkeley 2021). The community is the appropriate scale for many urban heat interventions; small enough for culturally contextual interventions and policies, yet large enough to create impact at the city scale (Oliver and Pearl 2018). Practitioners have underutilised social networks in community outreach, maybe due to “few agreed upon metrics” (Aldrich and Meyer 2015). Better metrics for urban-heat social capital can inform policies that deepen networks and increase trust, minimise poor public health outcomes, facilitate more effective community engagement, and provide avenues for greater thermal comfort for the most vulnerable populations living with the effects of inequalities.

Methods

We developed a social capital instrument for adapting to and mitigating heat using different methods and data sources. Data were derived from urban heat-specific interviews, community engagement workshops and a stakeholder meeting to better understand the social capital deployed when coping with urban heat. Included in this three-part research were different population groups involved in and affected by urban heat: communities of place (residents) as well as communities of practice (organisations). The urban heat social capital indicators resulting from this analysis were compared to existing frameworks to uncover similarities and new questions for further exploration.

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) compiled metrics for measuring social capital and the OECD Social Question Databank, assembled from 50 international and national surveys, allows users to compare different question types and response formulations. Questions are organised by “social capital theme” (Grooteart et al. 2014) including trust and cooperative norms (social norms and shared values), personal relationships (the structure of personal networks and how they are established and maintained), social network support (resources available to individuals through personal social networks), civic engagement (activities that contribute to community and civic life).

For effective social capital indicators for urban heat, we tested the OECD framework to validate if these state and county level frameworks apply to the neighbourhood scale and whether general social capital surveys can be adapted to specific climate related issues such as urban heat. Of the 39 categories listed by the OECD, we determined that 19 categories were relevant to urban heat (see the Appendix).

Extended interviews

Extended interviews were conducted with 23 residents of metropolitan Phoenix to better understand adaptive capacity at the individual, household and community scale. Participants were recruited using the snowball sampling method developed by Charles Kadushin (1968) and the initial set of interviewees were selected from a previous community engagement process in highly heat vulnerable neighbourhoods in metropolitan Phoenix. These key informants helped to expand the list of potential contacts and ensured a broad sample from these vulnerable communities as well as more affluent respondents. The resultant nonprobability sample allows us to understand the mental processes and decision-making rationales for coping with the long extreme heat season. Using the data saturation technique, the cumulative number of new concepts after each additional interview determined the final number of interviews. A total of 23 one-hour interviews were held in the location of the interviewees’ choosing (usually public coffee shops) and this sample size was deemed large “enough to uncover and understand core themes” (Bernard, Wutich, and Ryan 2016, p.41).

These three-part interviews consisted of a broad, open-ended question – “tell me about the issue of urban heat” – to provide unsolicited perceptions of risks, beliefs, social relationships and coping behaviours. The second portion contained open-ended questions about challenges currently faced (which may or may not have to do with urban heat), financial or behavioural changes made when it is extremely hot, and social relationships and organisations that might help in heat-related situations. The last part took a deep dive into the interviewees’ social relationships, informal and formal networks, and perception of community cohesion and used questions from the OECD database.

Community engagement workshops

The Nature's Cooling Systems project consisted of a series of nine community workshops held during the summer and fall of 2018 to collaboratively develop community-specific heat action plans in three underserved metropolitan Phoenix neighbourhoods (Guardaro et al. 2020). Led by The Nature Conservancy along with Arizona State University, the Maricopa County Department of Health, and the Arizona Conservation Alliance, a community engagement methodology was adapted from Semenza, March, and Bontempo (2007) to enhance bridging, bonding, and linking social capital during the workshop process, demonstration projects, and production of three neighbourhood heat action plans. Community-based organisations played a key role in bringing residents and other relevant organisations into the process. The workshops also included city management, other community-based organisations, non-profits, landscape architects, designers, and regional transit officials. The initial workshops allowed for the building of bonding social capital, and, with the escalating participation of experts and decision-makers in the second and third workshops, developed bridging and linking social capital. Each three-hour workshop, held on Saturday mornings during the summer, was attended by 12–40 people at a local community centre. Participants were provided lunch, snacks and a gift card as compensation for their time.

The first workshop began with community members, along with experts, sharing local stories of how they manage heat and what it is like to live in a desert environment. These stories were seen as an important way of generating an understanding of the intervention possibilities in each neighbourhood. Next, participants mapped out cool and hot spots within their community, to build an asset map. Lastly, workshop participants discussed concerns, intervention points and potential solutions. The workshops ended with a vote on final priorities. This workshop, conducted in three socioeconomic similar neighbourhoods, revealed differing assets, cultural contexts and priorities.

The second workshop began with a review of project goals and collected heat stories. Expanding upon major concerns from the first workshop, experts and residents had honest conversations about what has transpired in their neighbourhoods, what is possible, and discussed the tensions of differing timeline expectations. Smaller groups met next to further develop ideas using the asset maps from the first workshop and the session ended with a debrief from small groups and another round of voting on priorities.

The third workshop reviewed concepts from the previous workshops with advisors who provided expert advice on technical issues and points where residents further refine ideas and feasibility. Residents were asked to define their “concept of cool” while designers simultaneously generated sketches. Potential demonstration projects were discussed to further encourage participation post-workshop and during the heat action writing process. This workshop process resulted in the Greater Phoenix Heat Action Planning Guide, complete with three neighbourhood heat action plans (https://hdl.handle.net/2286/R.A.220853).

Stakeholder meeting

A ninety-minute stakeholder meeting was held eight months after the last workshop to reflect on the Nature's Cooling Systems process and to discuss how the heat action plans will be integrated into other community and municipal efforts. This community of 18 practitioners from the Nature's Cooling Systems project consisted of core team members from The Nature Conservancy, Arizona State University, three community-based organisations, Maricopa County Health Department, and the Centre for Whole Communities. Each stakeholder shared their “thorns and roses” stories about the Nature's Cooling Systems process, their level of participation, whether they felt heard, and the biggest takeaways of what worked and what should have been changed were shared. During this session, social capital was explored to understand how relationships were made and strengthened across communities. The communities of practice groups played a vital role in serving as connectors for residents and leaders in the three neighbourhoods and were instrumental in explaining various processes for effective community engagement. They were the key to building bridging and linking social capital. The session concluded with the transition of leadership to community-based organisations to lead the execution of heat action planning and how others could best advise and assist.

Triangulation across data sources (interviews, workshop proceedings, and a stakeholder meeting) was utilised to reduce biases and increase reliability and validity of this research. This validity procedure is used by researchers to uncover agreement and alignment from different sources of information to develop themes from the research data (Creswell and Miller 2000). Triangulation increases the breadth of the research and allows for a more complete understanding of the data (Jonsen and Jehn 2009).

The interviews, workshops, and stakeholder meeting were recorded and transcribed. Using deductive coding methods, where a codebook is used as a reference throughout the coding process, the transcriptions were coded for broad social capital themes used by the OECD (Fereday and Muir-Cochrane 2006). Common descriptions emerged from across these data and were used to develop parameters for effective social capital for urban heat including indicators and related survey questions.

Using different social capital frameworks, these urban heat social capital indicators were compared to existing questions and categories. Where possible, existing indicators and questions from tested assessments, such as the Harvard Community Benchmark Social Capital Survey, the World Bank Social Capital Assessment Tool (SOCAT), and the Social Capital Project were used to provide an opportunity for future comparisons.

Results

The following sections detail the evidence of social capital used by study participants to cope with and adapt to urban heat. Effective social capital for urban heat includes a combination of trust and reciprocity, personal relationships, and community engagement in both formal and informal organisations. Strong ties, in the form of bonding relationships, were tapped for assistance in reducing exposure, especially during emergency situations. The bridging and linking relationships, weak ties, were developed during the engagement process, both for organisers and for the residents.

Evidence of effective social capital for urban heat

Three narratives emerged from the extended interview data: heat is an inconvenience, heat is a manageable problem, and heat is catastrophic (Guardaro et al. 2022). Those in the “heat is an inconvenience” group, live a largely air-conditioned existence, are rarely exposed to extreme heat for extended periods of time and have the ability to pay for any urgent or long-term needs in adapting to urban heat. Those in the “heat is a manageable problem” group have exposure to the extreme heat but manage it in a way to ensure thermal comfort and health utilising family and friend networks during emergencies. High exposure levels and high indoor temperatures are part of living with extreme heat for those in the “heat is a catastrophe” group. Their lives are greatly impacted by extreme heat and their schedules and activities are changed compared to cooler months. There is a heavy reliance on social networks to cope with extreme heat, confirming (Watkins et al. 2021) that highly vulnerable respondents were more likely to reach out to religious or community organisations if they were too hot in their homes.

Trust and reciprocity

Trust and reciprocity include attitudes and beliefs about the values and expectations of family, friends, and the larger society, feelings of belonging or discrimination, cooperative behaviour norms, and trust in different institutions such as the government or police. Interview data highlights the deep bonds and reciprocity thriving in neighbourhoods.

I have no problem calling them, and them coming to my rescue at any given time. And if they can't, then of course they call out to others, and it's like a chain reaction literally. I learned that, that I can really count on them … I contacted one person, they contacted another to help me get there. And I was like, wow. I know these people will move mountains for my family and for any family, to get where they need to go. I’ve seen it happen.

Experience of discrimination

Workshop residents of underserved communities understood that other areas within the city have more amenities and that, to some extent, the rules are not equally applied and/or are not enforced in their communities. Low-income, minority neighbourhoods in metropolitan Phoenix are the result of a history of discrimination against Latinos and other minority groups that have resulted in a vast disparity of infrastructure investments and amenities compared to non-minority neighbourhoods (Harlan et al. 2006).

But the areas south of Main Street are still not really being paid attention to. I mean, my neighbourhood, I live two blocks from Main Street, and there's a drastic difference between that and the neighbourhood two blocks north of Main Street, I mean drastic. And I know we’re talking about heat here, but that lack of investment in all infrastructure is apparent and very apparent when it comes to heat.

Attitudes and beliefs

Trust in government and police, in the context of urban heat issues, was found to be important for long-term adaption. During the Nature's Cooling Systems workshop process, participants discussed their reluctance to become involved in city projects because they did not want to go to Town Hall and instead wanted municipal leaders to come to their neighbourhoods, using their language, during appropriate hours for the working residents, to better understand their culture and needs. Further, workshop participants revealed that they were reluctant to contact the police about illegal activity in their neighbourhoods for fear that they would be accused of the crime. There was a general sentiment that “people who look like me” get harassed; this was also true for interviewees from minority populations and the formerly homeless. Instead, informal community networks provide assistance instead of relying on institutions. Municipal decision makers need to tap into these hyper-local networks to build trust and establish relationships based on mutual desires to make these neighbourhoods more thermally comfortable.

Interviewees reported that friends and family connections are important in coping with urban heat. When it is very hot, those with a strong network went to someone else's cooler house or swam in their pool. Trips outside of the urban area with friends and family were common. For those that must use public transit, friends and family provided rides in the extremely hot weather.

More for people we know who don't have (the) luxury of a car so to get places, there will be people who check in to ask if they need rides. If someone is absent or unavailable through calls and text messages, then there will probably be a string of people trying to figure out where is so and so if it's been a while.

Cooperative norms

There was a strong sense of community identity and attachment to neighbourhoods during the workshops and stakeholder meeting. Some interviewees expressed the importance of working with what you have to make their community a better place, rather than wishing they lived in another place. People believed that people like themselves can make a difference. Many discussed how it just takes one motivated resident to initiate change where others can assist. Those people who serve as “connecters” to others, provide help in emergency situations or with other less-pressing issues and are highly important to the survival of the community. They bridged relationships between different groups and services. Respondents in the interviews and the workshops felt that understanding who was a connector resulted in fast-tracking solutions as they have knowledge of how to get things done effectively. One connector boasted “almost all of our calls get attended to”.

When speaking about home projects to improve thermal comfort such as installing new air conditioning, repairing older units, or installing more thermally efficient windows, the interviewees spoke of their network of friends and family that helped by providing a “family discount”, or, more importantly during high heat days, immediate assistance. Cooperative norms revolve around assistance from family or friends.

Identity and belonging

Among the Latino interview participants, family was very important in coping with extreme heat. They watched out for their extended families and helped when needed. One workshop participant stated the first thing he bought when he got his first job was an air conditioner for his parents. Extended families gather together often whether it is to celebrate or in times of crisis. This face-to-face frequent interaction strengthened their bonds and reinforced their obligations to each other.

There are six siblings here in Mesa. The other six are in Mexico. All families have issues, some problems. When it comes to family time, crisis, or just to celebrate, we are always there. We’re always in touch over the phone. We try to see each other at least once a month, even though we live close. I think we see them more than that.

Personal relationships

Based on interview, workshop and stakeholder meeting data, the foundation for effective social capital for urban heat rests on personal relationships. The size of social networks and the perceived support from those contacts, along with regular social contact provides additional coping capabilities in extreme heat conditions. Personal relationships include both face-to-face and non-face-to-face social contact, contact with people from different socioeconomic groups, network size, places or activities where personal relationships are established and number of people to count on. The interviews revealed relationships and networks that have frequent contact.

So, we have, as a whole we spend time with a lot of people, but then we also have a smaller community within that community, I guess you could think of it like as a small group, or we call it a missional community that we get together on a regular basis and really just try to live life with. So, we have a lot of shared experiences together. So that community essentially kind of functions like a family. So, we share meals together, if we have birthdays or other celebrations, we share that, we watch each other's kids, we have each other over for different events or just to have play dates during the day. I mean, we help out. There's kind of a general sense that we’re going to be there for each other.

The sources for personal relationships varied as some respondents had extended family living nearby, some lived with extended family, and others made close networks that are similar to family. The members of these groups have a “shared life” with deep connections and can rely on these deep, personal relationships, especially during emergency situations. Faith-based organisations provided an opportunity to build community outside of the family unit, especially those religious institutions that met once a week beyond worship services. Some interviewees remarked that they do not have many friends “outside of my house and people I hang out with at church meetings”.

, Interview respondents who had a high number of relationships relied on face-to-face social contact rather than social media. More than half of the interviewees had face-to-face social contact with 25 or more people over the course of a month, outside of school or work contacts. This was important for effective social capital for urban heat as it became an early warning system if someone fails to show up or an extra safety measure if someone appeared to be ill from the heat. Text messaging groups that kept distant relatives and school chums connected were not perceived to be necessarily helpful in building effective social capital for urban heat.

A handful of interviewees and workshop participants knew their neighbours well and the vast majority of those who knew their neighbours lived in their current house for a long period. The rest knew their neighbour well enough to wave and nod, but never mentioned a neighbour as someone they could rely on or who relied on them.

Social isolation

The antithesis of strong support, social isolation, has been posited as an important determinant of extreme heat vulnerability (Klinenberg 2002). The vast majority of participants in the Nature's Cooling Systems workshops and interviewees lived with other people, so the issue of social isolation arose only in speaking about others in their community, usually the elderly. Respondents differentiated between living alone, being reclusive and being socially isolated. Interviewees that experienced homelessness felt they were socially isolated.

Civic engagement

Trust and reciprocity, along with personal relationships, build strong ties and bonding social capital. In order to extend these assets beyond the household level, community actions are necessary to provide for a cooler, safer environment. Effective social capital for urban heat includes different aspects of civic engagement from participation in community activities to being actively involved in groups or clubs of any type as well as religious participation. The interviews revealed the presence and participation in more informal groups rather than large, established national institutions.

I guess there's a lot of people that I rely on when it comes to my community life because we help each other out a lot of on little projects that we’re working on. I always have little side community projects that I ask someone for help to research something. There's probably a group of 10–15 people that kind of fall into that category of relying on for community stuff.

Civic action and community engagement

Interviewees reported that support within communities occurred through individual, small group and community-based organisations. The workshop participants had some interactions with larger non-profits and local chapters of national organisations. Organic, special interest groups formed to tackle “little side community projects” through both formal and informal channels. The structure of community involvement was fluid; rather than organised committees, community members worked on an issue and then reformulated the group for the next issue.

Engagement in the form of advocating at City Hall or with municipal authorities was low for both the interviewees and participants in the Nature's Cooling Systems workshops for a range of reasons, the most important being that they did not feel welcomed. As a result, municipal authorities should consider establishing trusted relationships with grassroots, community-embedded organisations and meeting with these groups within their own neighbourhoods, during non-working hours and in the predominant language of the community.

Associational involvement

The Nature's Cooling Systems process brought together people who might not have otherwise interacted. The community of practice acknowledged that engaging the community required a lot of effort, but it was worth it when urban heat solutions were collaboratively developed. The stakeholder meeting highlighted how outside organisations offered subject matter expertise, but residents provided the local context and wisdom. Community-based organisations provided knowledge about past efforts, broken promises and future plans. Other, small, local organisations within the community became involved as the process developed.

Discussion

Effective social capital for urban heat (ESCUH) reflects two requirements for increasing thermal comfort. First, during extreme heat emergency days, social networks can provide a needed safety net, especially in neighbourhoods that are impacted by inequalities resulting in hotter environments compared to surrounding, wealthier neighbourhoods. Second, to shift that dynamic, collective action is needed for upgrades and installation of cooling features that increase long-term mitigation and adaptation.

Effective social capital for urban heat (ESCUH) indicators

Since social capital cannot be measured directly, it must be inferred from contributing factors or manifestations and indicators linked to social capital theory. There are factors that impact social interactions and facilitate increasing social capital, for example, having a large extended family. The other measurement, manifestations, are outcomes of social capital, such as cooperative community actions undertaken.

Understanding the mechanisms through which social capital is used can refine existing measures or lead to the discovery of new, more appropriate measures (Carrillo Álvarez and Riera Romaní 2017). At the household or individual level, social capital may influence coping with extreme heat by:

• Ensuring minimal thermal comfort is achieved and health is not compromised through frequent face-to-face contact. Non-face-to-face contact allows for assistance from a wider network of social contacts.

• The strength of bonds between contacts and sense of obligation that serve as a safety net and opportunity for reciprocal care for extreme urban heat.

• Pooling of resources to assist in providing for thermal comfort and increased capacity to find heat relief outside the urban area.

• Social engagement and social participation in organisations that increase access to local services

At the community level, mechanisms contribute to long-term adaptation and mitigation, and require some level of social cohesion for collective efficacy. They include the:

• Presence of local, embedded organisations and efficacy of past civic actions that indicate social capital capacity and high levels of social capital inherent in the community.

• Feeling of belonging and identity with the community and the belief that change can happen, which serve as motivation for positive change for those most affected.

• Levels of exclusion and discrimination which result in feelings of alienation and further drive actions to the household level at the expense of collective action.

The indicators for effective social capital for urban heat are detailed in Table 1. These indicators are influenced by both weak and strong ties and the intense obligations between certain groups.

Weak and strong ties

Strong and weak ties (Table 2) are complementary components of urban heat social capital. Strong bonding ties within families can come at the expense of linking and bonding social capital at the community level. Social networks increase an individual's ability to adapt to increasing heatwaves; they do not translate into community-level actions (Zografos, Anguelovski, and Grigorova 2016). ESCUH indicators for urban heat would measure both.

Table 1. Indicators for effective social capital for urban heat (ESCUH).

Variable category	Description	Indicator
Trust and cooperative norms	Attitudes and beliefs	Importance of family and friends Support from local government
	Cooperative norms	Collective action within the community
	Experience of discrimination	Experience of discrimination and exclusion
	Identity and belonging	Commitment to community
	Trust in institutions	Trust in local government Trust in local police Willingness to attend public meetings
Personal relationships	Family	Presence and size of nearby extended family
	Social contact	Daily contact face-to-face plus non-face-to-face Contact with others outside the home
	Sources of personal relationships	Overlapping networks
Social network Support	Network size	Size of social network
	Perceived support	Support from family Support from friends Support offered to others
Civic engagement	Community engagement	Engagement for community issues
	Associational involvement	Presence of organisations in community Active involvement in local organisations
	Religious Participation	Presence of faith-based organisations Small-group faith-based involvement

Table 2. Strong and weak tie measurements for understanding household and community social capital strength.

	Strong ties	Weak ties
Trust and Cooperation	Importance of family and friends Commitment to community	Support from local government Collective action within community Experience of discrimination and exclusion Trust in local government Trust in local police Willingness to attend public meetings
Personal Relationships	Presence and size of nearby family Daily contact face-to-face and non-face-to-face	Contact with others outside the home Overlapping networks Support offered to others
Social Network Support	Support from family Support from friends	Size of social network
Civic Engagement	Active involvement in organisations Small-group faith-based involvement	Engagement for community issues Presence of organisations in community Presence of faith-based organisations

Attitudes and beliefs about friends and family as well as cooperative norms within the family unit explain the strength and depth of the relationships; personal relationships and social network support indicators highlight the breadth of an individual's network. These indicators will illuminate strong ties within tightknit family and social networks that enable recovery during disaster events and build/maintain resilience at the household scale. At the neighbourhood/community scale, attitudes and beliefs about the local area and government and society, as well as community engagement display the potential to develop mitigation and adaptation plans within a community.

Intense obligations

All strong ties are not equal, which has been overlooked in previous urban heat vulnerability research. Cultural obligation norms and shared religious commitment revealed relationships that are “something more”. This may explain why Latino neighbourhoods fared better in the Chicago heat wave compared to similar socioeconomic communities (Klinenberg 2002). These deep commitments, especially to elder members, may also explain why the elderly in these communities were not as vulnerable.

In the Latino community, family is defined not just as a nuclear family living together with blood or marriage relations, it is defined along the line of relationships. These “fictive kin” are equally important as marital or biological family (Gill-Hopple and Brage-Hudson 2012) which allows for inclusion of new members as kin and reinforces reciprocal interdependence. Familism, where the needs of the family are more important than any one family member, a Latino value, results in more frequent contact compared to Anglo families (López 1999; Grebler, Moore, and Guzman 1970; Keefe, Padilla, and Carlos 1979). Because of these multigenerational kin, second generation Latino families have broader social networks (Vega 1990; López 1999).

Cultural differences in the level and intensity of obligations between family members became apparent among study participants. During the interviews, some spoke of making family from a collection of nearby friends, others had extended family networks with intricate family bonds emanating from the Latin American concept of compadrazgo, or co-parenting. Usually part of a Catholic baptism, the child and parents of the child become linked with a sponsor for the child. The biological family is the first linkage, the sponsor and child the second linkage, and the third link is between the sponsor and the parents. In Latin American culture, the compadre-comadre become the “fictive kin” and co-parents of the child (Mintz and Wolf 1950). This practice has increased vertical or bridging relationships between different classes of people, as the compadre or comadre is a person with prestige who is financially responsible, has “influence”, and is the social link between different socio-economic groups.

The community where compadrazgo is practiced is more interdependent and secure (Mintz and Wolf 1950). Insecurity and scarcity of available resources are moderated by the extended kin system. The social, emotional, and financial support from these complex family relationships may explain why Latinos use fewer formal services compared to others in similar socioeconomic positions (López 1999). This mechanism of compadrazgo may be influential in limiting exposure and securing thermal comfort for more vulnerable family/ritual kin members. Again, all strong ties are not equal and deep familial commitments may be protective against the health dangers of extreme heat.

Future implications

Measuring effective social capital for urban heat will help to further explain adaptive capacity and isolation issues in coping with heat. It will also allow for a transfer to other resilience issues, and provide an effective pathway for community engagement, especially in under-served neighbourhoods.

In general, climate adaptation discussions have involved government officials, universities and environmental non-governmental organisations. Vulnerable residents are rarely engaged in this process (Phadke, Manning, and Burlager 2015). The neighbourhoods that need the most help are often the most difficult to reach and this reinforces a cycle where they do not get the help they need. Community resilience is strengthened by residents’ ability to act collectively in the face of climate adversities (Moser and Boykoff 2013; Phadke, Manning, and Burlager 2015). Adaptation can be enhanced by the presence of social capital and social networks (Adger 2003).

Municipal decision makers and planners need to learn how best to encourage grassroots efforts and increase their capacity to develop and manage locally contextual extreme heat adaptation efforts. Understanding the levels of personal or household social capital in relation to community engagement/social capital, can determine whether it would be more advantageous to tap community leaders, community-based organisations, or to utilise outside experts as advisors when starting projects.

In order to implement urban heat interventions, understanding the social capital within a community will help facilitate appropriate pathways and identify relevant, trusted organisations (Table 3). Individuals with high social capital act as connectors and can be tapped to develop community social capital and enhance other residents’ adaptive capacity. ESCUH, comprising both household and community social capital, is a necessary component for building resilience and self-defining resilience for whom, what, when, where and why (Meerow and Newell 2016). Depending upon the levels of household/individual and community social capital within a neighbourhood, a range of heat adaptation and mitigation pathways can be deployed using outside agencies, community-based organisations, and residents with high social capital. Given the heavy reliance on social networks to cope with extreme heat amongst the most vulnerable, policy makers should work more closely with trusted community and religious organisations to deliver heat relief services, augmenting services existing through municipal channels.

Table 3. Framework for effective social capital indicators for urban heat.

	High personal/HH social capital	Low personal/HH social capital
High community engagement + social capital	Transfer knowledge to other communities	Increase individual resilience through community-based organisations
Low community engagement + social capital	Increase capacity of neighbourhood-based networks through organising and leadership training	Outside intervention to build capacity

Social isolation is particularly dangerous and is highly correlated with extreme heat vulnerability and could be viewed as the absence of social capital (Klinenberg 2002). Social insulation, the social networks, systems and behaviours, provide protective factors for extreme heat (Chakalian et al. 2019). Definitions of social isolation, however, differ between disciplines, sometimes far from the literal meaning of being disconnected from other individuals, used by epidemiologists. Isolation, for sociologists, describes the relationships between rather than among communities. The motivation for isolation matters, too. Fear of crime and perceived neighbourhood dangers cause some to isolate themselves from neighbours, which is different from a conscious lack of contact with friends, families and other institutions. Therefore, the question often seen in social capital surveys of “Do you live alone?” needs to be qualified with other social capital measures.

Conclusion

Social capital measured for other uses, such as the decline of community life, can be refined to illuminate the social capital necessary to cope with, and mitigate and adapt to urban heat. Interview data revealed networks based on extended family, faith-based organisations, and organic, special interest groups that were helpful for short-term, emergency management and coping with urban heat and displayed capacity that can possibly be harnessed for long-term heat community mitigation and adaptation strategies. The intense obligations felt through the practice of compradrazgo or co-parenting within Latino families expand, strengthen and deepen social ties, providing an unseen safety net for otherwise vulnerable households. Further inquiry into the nature of social isolation in highly heat vulnerable groups could reveal the motivation for isolation (fear of crime, lack of family and friends, personal choice) and allow for differing solution sets.

The indicators developed for effective social capital for urban heat can inform existing heat-vulnerability frameworks and provide a better understanding of community resilience to urban heat. Traditional approaches to vulnerability mapping shed light on where interventions could be implemented; this ESCUH framework provides perspective on aspects of how community resilience investments could be made. For example, mapping of low tree canopy communities is the first step, and understanding the social context that would support tree canopy cover enhancements and maintenance is the goal of ESCUH. While it is understood that this research needs to be validated by community leaders and other stakeholders across a variety of locations, expanding on the social capital component of adaptive capacity may explain gaps in current vulnerability knowledge. National governments and municipal authorities should consider the social fabric of a community, augmenting quantitatively driven vulnerability indices, to create a more accurate picture of adaptive capacity that includes informal mutual aid networks and strong social ties, both of which are essential for positive outcomes in emergency situations. The framework for ESCUH addresses varying capacities at the household and community levels to work together for long-term solutions. The opportunity to build effective social capital capacity to urban heat transforms the discussion from identifying vulnerabilities to increasing residents’ abilities to address extreme heat at the community scale.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Appendix. OECD adapted effective social capital indicator categories for urban heat

I. Trust and cooperative norms

• Attitudes and beliefs:

  • Community/local – feelings about community or local area (will you want to stay?)

  • Friends/family – values and expectations related to friends and family

  • Government/society – values and expectations related to friends and family

• Cooperative norms – values and expectations related to cooperative behaviour

• Experience of discrimination – experience of discrimination or social exclusion

• Identity and belonging – feeling of belonging or pride in certain group, location, or nationality

• Trust in institutions – trust in different institutions such as govt, media, police

II. Personal relationships

• Network diversity – contact with people from different social groups (ethnicity, income)

• Social contact

  • All – face-to-face plus non-face-to-face

  • Face-to-face

  • Non-face-to-face

• Sources of personal relationships – places/activities where personal relationships are established

III. Social network support

• Network Size – number of friends

• Perceived support/sources of support – someone to count on

• Social isolation – feelings of isolation and loneliness

IV. Civic engagement

• Community Engagement – participation in community activities, events or decision making, not necessarily within the context of an association or organised group

• Associational Involvement – active involvement in associations, groups, or clubs of any type

• Religious Participation – participation in group religious activities

• Voluntary work – respondents’ participation in voluntary work in the context of organised groups