“We can help ourselves”: does community resilience buffer against the negative impact of flooding on mental health?

Abstract

Abstract. Empirical evidence of the relationship between social support and post-disaster mental health provides support for a general beneficial effect of social support (main-effect model; Wheaton, 1985). From a theoretical perspective, a buffering effect of social support on the negative relationship between disaster-related stress and mental health also seems plausible (stress-buffering model; Wheaton, 1985). Previous studies, however, (a) have paid less attention to the buffering effect of social support and (b) have mainly relied on interpersonal support (but not collective-level support such as community resilience) when investigating this issue. This previous work might have underestimated the effect of support on post-disaster mental health. Building on a sample of residents in Germany recently affected by flooding (N=118), we show that community resilience to flooding (but not general interpersonal social support) buffered against the negative effects of flooding on post-disaster mental health. The results support the stress-buffering model and call for a more detailed look at the relationship between support and resilience and post-disaster adjustment, including collective-level variables.

Motivation, Satisfaction, and Risks of Operational Forces and Helpers Regarding the 2021 and 2013 Flood Operations in Germany

“…People affected are analysed regarding their preparedness, household damages [17,18], perception towards flood risk and capacities [19,20], or recovery [21]. There is increasing research about a shift towards governance and a greater role for citizens in flood risk management and flood resilience [22][23][24], especially within the area of risk perception and social vulnerability [24] or community resilience [25,26]. This is also an emerging topic in semi-quantitative studies and modelling [27].…”

Compound inland flood events: different pathways, different impacts and different coping options

“…It should be noted that the financial damage was the most severe for flash floods, while the psychological burden and the perceived recovery were the worst for residents who experienced dike breaches in 2013, who are then followed by the flash flood cases (Table 3). Maybe the better recovery among severe cases in 2016 is owing to the stronger community resilience that was found to buffer psychological burden in Simbach and its surroundings (Masson et al, 2019) as cases from Simbach constitute almost 37 % of this subsample (57 of 153 cases). Therefore, this finding needs more cases studies for a confirmation.…”

Multi‐scalar and multi‐dimensional conceptions of social capital and mental health impacts after disaster: the case of Hurricane Harvey

“…Studies show that more connections to social networks that can help to provide resources after disasters inhibit negative impacts on mental health (Wind, Fordham, and Komproe, 2011;Adeola and Picou, 2014;Flores, Camero, and Bayer, 2014;Matsuyama et al, 2016;Rung et al, 2017;Zahnow, Taylor, and Corcoran, 2019;Parks et al, 2020), even if these groups experience poorer mental health in the immediate disaster recovery period (Weil, Lee, and Shihadeh, 2012). This positive relationship extends to related facets of social capital like social cohesion (Masson et al, 2019) and cognitive social capital such as trust (Wind, Fordham, and Komproe, 2011). Moreover, disaster research reveals that social networks play an important role in mitigating the adverse consequences of disasters for individuals and households, including mental health, food insecurity, and slow recovery (Kaniasty and Norris, 2004;Felix and Afifi, 2015;Clay et al, , 2018.…”