If the Lord Is Willing and the Creek Don't Rise: Religious Attendance and Disaster Recovery in the Deep South*

Abstract

Objective. This article examines the association between religious attendance and disaster recovery in Mississippi and Alabama. Methods. We use ordinary least squares regression to determine the effect of sociodemographic variables, social network size, and religious attendance on one's selfdescribed level of disaster recovery. Results. We find a robust association between frequent religious attendance and a greater level of recovery. Somewhat surprisingly, we also find a strong relationship between religious nonattendance and a greater level of recovery. However, these results differ by race. For whites (but not for blacks), nonattendance is associated with a greater degree of recovery, while for blacks (but not for whites), frequent attendance is correlated with a greater degree of recovery. For both whites and blacks, the size of one's social network does not affect disaster recovery. Conclusion. While according to previous research, religious attendance is associated with benefits based upon social networks and community engagement, we find that those who are strongly connected to their religious organizations recover more, but it is not directly connected to one's social network size.People who regularly attend assemblies of religious organizations have greater community engagement and are less likely to be socially isolated (Hovey et al., 2004). These benefits, suggests the social science research evidence thus far, are not related to religious belief, but instead are associated with regular attendance at religious organizations (Shor and Roelfs, 2013). 1 Furthermore, community engagement often confers other benefits on individuals, including psychological benefits (Cavendish, 2000), health benefits (Moren-Cross and Lin, 2006), and more resilience to trauma and disaster (Nakagawa and Shaw, 2004). Specifically, studies have found a connection between the level of community engagement (including the size of one's social network) and the ability to recover from natural and man-made disasters and that this effect differs between whites and African Americans. The current article examines this relationship to see whether social networks, religious attendance, and

Utilising qualitative data for social network analysis in disaster research: opportunities, challenges, and an illustration

“…Qualitative inquiry allows for a rich description of life experiences developed from the situated voice of participants (Clandinin and Connelly, 2000). An example can be found in Bott's (1955) study of the conjugal roles performed by husbands and wives. The study was based on multiple field visits to families in the London area (United Kingdom), during which interviews were conducted with the husband and wife as well as other individuals who were acquaintances of the families.…”

“… How does personal network structure influence disaster risk perception (see, for example, Jones et al, 2013)? What sources of information are consulted during evacuation decision‐making (see, for example, Lee et al, 2021)? How does social network size and composition influence social support in disaster recovery? And how are vulnerability conditions associated with individuals' and households' access to social support (see, for example, Sadri, Ukkusuri, and Gladwin, 2017; Bright et al, 2019; Lee et al, 2020)?…”

Addressing the Social Vulnerability of Mississippi Gulf Coast Vietnamese Community through the Development of Community Health Advisors

“…While social vulnerability has been identified as the product of social inequalities, those social factors that influence or shape the susceptibility of various groups to harm also govern their ability to respond. Social vulnerability includes place inequalities, characteristics of communities and the built environment such as level of urbanization, growth rates, and economic vitality [1]. The major factors that influence social vulnerability are lack of access to resources including information, knowledge, and technology; limited access to political power and representation; social capital including social networks and connections; beliefs and customs; building stock and age; frail and physically limited individuals; and type and density of infrastructure and lifelines [2][3][4][5].…”