These findings collec-tively underscore the importance of social support,self-efficacy, and hope as protective factors that canassist earthquake survivors in coping with trauma andimproving their overall mental health outcomes (Yuet al., 2022).

The findings also showed that self-efficacy, socialsupport, and hope partially mediate the relationshipbetween depression, anxiety, stress, and resilience. Theprotective role of social support, self-efficacy, and hopehas been emphasized in various studies focusing onearthquake survivors. Research has shown that socialsupport and self-efficacy are crucial factors that canpositively influence psychosocial outcomes andhealth-related quality of life among survivors (Ailiet al., 2021).

a.42 Areview of studies on disasters' psychologicalimpacts found that although disasters canindeed have serious negative impacts ona minority of the population, most peopledemonstrate resilience, and no more than 30percent of youth typically experience chronicimpacts.43Numerous co

. A disasters impact on childrenvaries based on their prior exposure totraumatic events, socioeconomic factors, age,gender, personality traits, cognitive skills,and relationships with their parents andfamilies

Natural disasters can cause myriademotionally harmful circumstances forchildren. Not only is the event itself stressfuland frightening, but after it passes, stress canbe incurred from the damage to children'shomes and possessions, from migration,and from breakdowns in social networks,neighborhoods, and local economies

One challenge for social workers is how to maximise social capital, whiledistinguishing positive from negative or counter productive social capital.Social work practitioners and researchers need to further explore defi-nitions and operationalisation of social capital to better understand howit affects individuals and communities as a whole. Disaster response train-ing, research and practice commonly focus on individual mental health(trauma) and psycho-social interventions, rather than community develop-ment, to reduce vulnerabilities arising from social inequalities that oftenexacerbate the impact of a disaster (Pyles, 2007; Moyo and Moldovan,2008). Social work's ecological approach that includes macro to micro-levelpractice is ideally suited to interventions that address the power dynamicsof the complex bonding, bridging and linking of networks to recover andrebuild post-disaster (Yanay and Benjamin, 2005; Mathbor, 2007; Pyles,2007; Rowlands and Tan, 2008).

These connec-tions, if used to their maximum benefit, could help individuals, familiesand communities to survive difficult times and move forwards to establishnew communities and connections.

We saw the strength of bondingsocial capital in facilitating the pooling of resources to survive the storm,Social Capital in New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina 1789both mentally and physically. Bonding social capital plays an importantpsychological role in the development of resiliency as well, also seen inour results (Luthans et al., 2006)

he present study is grounded in the assumption thatsocial capital exists in people's lives, and that the important questionsare what kind(s) of social capital exists and how do people use it? Wefound instances in which bonding, bridging and linking social capitalwere instrumental in aiding participants to prepare for, endure andmutually aid one another before and during the storm, in addition torecovery following the floods.

While bonding, bridging and linking social capital were useful in providinghelp to the victims of Hurricane Katrina, not all participants fared well. Atthe bonding level especially, some participants were influenced by friendsand relatives to stay, despite having resources and the ability to flee.Even bridging and linking social capital had drawbacks, especially forlower-income participants. Negative stereotypes affected how andwhether participants received services.

In addition to the bonding social capital in the form of helping those close tothem, participants described a system of bridging and linking social capitalexchanges in which people provided and shared information, resources,supplies and food. In many cases, bridging and linking social capitalbegan to overlap as the socio-economic strata became blurred in theheart of the aftermath of the floods; the distinctions were no longer associally important as in everyday life.

Lin (2001) further delineates interactions as heterophilous (amongstactors who are dissimilar) or homophilous (amongst actors who aresimilar).

Typically, homophilous bonding represents the strongest connec-tion with the least valuable by-product. Heterophilous bridging socialcapital is generated from a weaker connection but produces a more valuableby-product than bonding interactions (Lin, 2001; McPherson et al., 2001).Linking social capital is the result of the weakest relationship but the mostvaluable outcome, as linking provides access and connection to power struc-tures and institutions. Unlike bonding, it is bridging and linking that arecharacterised by exposure to and development of new ideas, values andperspectives (Woolcock, 2001; Szreter and Woolcock, 2004).

These reactions are common in the disaster literature worldwide. Dynes(2006) reported data on disasters showing that social relationships posi-tively impact survival rates.

In a 1980 Italian earthquake, for example,individuals living alone were 2.4 times more likely to die waiting foroutside rescuers than those who lived with at least one other person.Conversely, the breakdown of heterophilous disaster response,especially at the national level, is also well documented