The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) has developed a framework document (Information Paper: Measuring Social Capital, an Australian Framework and Indicators) detailing
mechanisms for measuring social capital in the “Australian community” (Edwards, 2004). Trewin (2006) has drawn together statistical information available from various ABS sources that match a relatively small number of the indicators described by Edwards (2004), which reflects the relative novelty and difficulty inherent in measuring social capital in a meaningful fashion. This information can also be used only as a proxy for describing the strength of locational communities in Australia. Nevertheless, a brief outline of some aspects relevant to social capital in Tasmania and New South Wales is given below, concentrating particularly on trust, reciprocity and community support. The results are summarised in table 2.2.
Trust is a fundamental aspect of a well-functioning community (Forrest & Kearns, 2001; McMillan & Chavis, 1986; Portes, 1998; Putnam, 2000), because individuals in a community hope that the other members conform to accepted social values and norms (Möllering, 2001; Siegrist & Cvetkovich, 2000; Slovic, 1999; Van Swol & Sniezek, 2005). The importance of trust has also been established in the context of risk communication, and particularly in the public’s acceptance and implementation of risk mitigating behaviour (Paton, 2007b, 2008b;
Paton, et al., 2008b; Prior & Paton, 2008; Siegrist & Cvetkovich, 2000; Van Swol & Sniezek, 2005). In order to gauge the level of trust in Australian states, Trewin (2006) uses an indicator of trust: people’s feelings of safety while home alone. The assumption here is that people enjoying good relations with their neighbours are likely to report feeling safer at home alone. Although this indicator of trust may be a relatively good proxy for general estimations of trust in social capital, it may be a less effective means of estimating trust in the context of bushfire risk management and mitigation.
Based on results from the 2002 General Social Survey (conducted by the ABS) Trewin (2006) found that Tasmanian and New South Wales residents were equally as likely to feel unsafe in their homes after dark. He also notes that 10 per cent of individuals born overseas were likely to report feeling unsafe at home alone after dark.
Table 2.2. Indicators of social capital in Tasmania and New South Wales (adapted from Trewin, 2006).
Year NSW Tas. Aust.
Had contact with family and friends living outside the
household in the previous week (%) 2001 94.8 96.5 95.4
Primary carer for person with a disability % 2003 2.3 3.1 2.4
Cared for a person with a disability % 2003 11.4 14.8 13.0
Had undertaken voluntary work in the last 12 months % 2002 33.4 37.0 34.4
Participated in social activities in the previous three
Months (%) 2002 90.8 91.1 92.2
Made a donation in previous 12 months % 2000 69.0 75.6 74.2
Person and/or partner provide support to other
relatives living outside the household (%) 2002 27.8 25.9 26.9
Could ask for small favours from persons living
outside the household (%) 2002 92.4 95.3 93.3
Could ask for support in time of crisis from persons
living outside the household (%) 2002 93.2 96.0 94.0
Felt unsafe at home alone during the day % 2002 3.0 2.2 3.0
Felt unsafe at home alone after dark % 2002 7.4 7.4 8.4
Reciprocity is another key determinant of social capital within communities (Forrest & Kearns, 2001; McMillan & Chavis, 1986; Morrison, 2003; Simmel & Wolff, 1964), which describes the mutual give and take relationships that are evident in a healthy, functioning community.
Trewin (2006, p. 26) surmises that, “where reciprocity is the norm, people are more likely to be able to ask others for small favours, and expect people's support in a crisis”. As such he uses two measures to examine reciprocity, one’s ability to ask small favours of others and the ability to ask for support in times of crisis (data for both measures was obtained from the 2002 General Social Survey). Both measures are clearly relevant in a community bushfire
preparedness scenario, for example, where householders are likely to seek assistance in making preparations and in defending their home in the case of direct bushfire threat (Paton, et al., 2008a; Paton, et al., 2006a).
Results from Trewin’s (2006) analyses of the General Social Survey data suggest New South Wales residents are least likely to ask their neighbours for small favours and least likely to get support in times of crisis. By contrast, Tasmanian residents were most likely to feel they could ask for small favours, and for support in a crisis. The results also suggested that people living in the major Australian cities were less likely to feel they were able to ask for small favours but there is no distinction between Sydney and Hobart as to whether both are considered “major cities”.
Another important factor examined by Trewin (2006), which may be applicable in a community bushfire preparedness context, is the level of community support (particularly volunteering work and caring) existing within a locational community. Community support is likely to reflect the level of reciprocity in a community, with individuals seeking ways to “give back to the community”, and Trewin (2006) notes that most respondents (47%) to the General Social Survey who indicated they took part in voluntary work did so to help others or their community. New South Wales residents were the least likely to participate in any form of formal volunteer work, while Tasmanians were the second most likely to volunteer (after South Australian residents). While these results are indicative of participation rates, higher proportions of older residents in both Tasmania and South Australia are likely to push up the numbers of people formally volunteering (at least in an old-age caring sector).
While these indicators point to some measurable differences in the social capital (and possibly the nature of community in these places) in Tasmania and New South Wales, they are by no means conclusive. However, the nature and characteristics of Hobart and Sydney, and the clear differences between the cities, is likely to result in the type, quality and
characteristics of those communities existing within (and about) both locations. For example, differences in choices regarding living in peri-urban areas (financial or lifestyle), quality of life, job-life balance, commuting times and many other factors will undoubtedly result in
differences in bushfire preparedness between the locations.