Rural Natural Disaster Stress: A Survey of Community Resource Use and Effect

ABSTRACT

Objective

This study identified rural community experiences and preferences related to available resources and their effects on stress following tornadoes and floods.

Methods

The Rural Natural Disaster Stress and Recovery survey was distributed from December 2021 to February 2022 in rural disaster-affected communities. Within the analysis sample (N = 159) of self-selected participants representing both agricultural and non-agricultural occupations, 125 responded to the Resource Use and Effect survey component that evaluated the effects of 22 resources on post-disaster stress. Additional qualitative questions provided further data.

Results

The most frequently used resources post-disaster were found to be talking about the event (98.3%), friends and neighbors (97.6%) and family (97.6%). Using a derived Impact per Use score, groups from the neighboring community and personal faith activities most often reduced stress. Resources that increased stress were identified as FEMA or other government organizations; repairing, replacing, or rebuilding property; and following news or social media. Participants reported help from their community (35.8%) or things they did for themselves (31.2%) most effectively decreased disaster stress. Family, friends, faith, neighbors, and community were top choices to decrease stress in a future disaster.

Conclusion

Rural residents identified available resources for reducing disaster stress, but some common post-disaster activities were found to increase stress. Rural emergency management should adapt response and recovery plans and activities to leverage readily accessible people, groups, and activities to mitigate negative mental and emotional health effects.

KEYWORDS:

• Disasters
• recovery
• resources
• rural
• stress

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge Dr. Jesse Bell for his contribution in project consultation and review and Ms. Linda Emanuel for her assistance in reviewing and distributing the survey instrument.

Disclosure statement

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

Author roles

KG – Conceptualization, Data Curation, Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Visualization, Writing Original Draft, Writing Review and Editing

ED – Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Data Gathering, Project Administration, Resources, Writing Review and Editing

SM – Conceptualization, Writing Review and Editing

CW – Conceptualization, Analysis, Supervision, Writing Review and Editing

Supplementary material

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed online at https://doi.org/10.1080/1059924X.2024.2388862

Additional information

Funding

Funding for this research was provided by the Central States Center for Agricultural Safety and Health at the University of Nebraska Medical Center through a national Institutes of Occupational Safety and Health, Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing grant [U54 OH010162].