Long-Term Disaster Resilience: A Research Gap

Abstract

Introduction:This research identified a gap in understanding the lived experience of long-term disaster resilience (LTDR). Increasing disasters could influence more people. Therefore, understanding LTDR becomes imperative. Little research documents men and women’s reflections following disasters. Current research highlights survivors’ mental health, particularly clinical diagnoses like PTSD. Research remains limited on the social impacts long after disasters.Aim:Research aimed to identify a gendered perspective of the lived experience about what contributes to LTDR three years after Ash Wednesday in 1983, the Victorian floods in 1993 and 2010-11, and the 2009 Black Saturday fires.Methods:A comprehensive, systematized search was conducted of peer-reviewed, grey, and secondary literature for a narrative review and thematic analysis.Results:106 references were identified. After removing duplicates and papers not fitting the inclusion criteria, two papers met the criteria. However, two borderline papers were included due to the closeness of the timeframe and brevity of research available.Discussion:Most research is related to the immediate aftermath or short-term resilience. Papers provided no specific attributes to enhance the lived experience of LTDR as it related to gender. However, factors that could enhance the lived experience of LTDR were drawn from six themes in sociological studies. Presumptive interpretations were made about what factors may provide insight into the social and contextual issues of LTDR. The literature dearth identified the need for long-term disaster resilience research. The most striking conclusion drawn from themes tells how people perceived the way a disaster and the ensuing period affected their personal relationships and circumstances. Overall, positive experiences strengthened their resilience while negative experiences hindered their resilience. While the review resulted in a disappointing outcome, the dearth of LTDR research lacked any reference to gender but confirmed research opportunities for innovative research that could influence policy and practice.