13 - Disaster Recovery in Rural Communities

Summary

Disaster recovery is challenging in any geographic region. However, rural communities differ in several key ways from urban ones, which can make rural disaster recovery uniquely difficult. This chapter walks through the cycle of a rural community’s theoretical experience with natural disaster by breaking the cycle down into two phases: disaster preparedness before disaster strikes and disaster response/recovery afterward. The chapter first examines several factors contributing to under-preparedness. First, rural land use planning has historically been less regulated and more haphazard that urban land use planning. This means that rural communities may face issues with disorganization, sprawl, and physical dangers that are less common in the average city, in addition to being less likely than urban communities to have high-quality Hazard Mitigation Plans. More limited planning also contributes to less-diversified and more vulnerable economies that are less resilient in the face of stresses. Second, the related problem of limited rural floodplain management exacerbates these issues. And third, rural environmental injustice receives relatively limited attention, but is an important factor in placing low-income and minority communities in rural regions at a higher risk of vulnerability to natural disasters. The chapter then turns to two issues illustrating rural communities’ disadvantages in disaster recovery. First, approaches to disaster recovery often fail to serve rural needs effectively. In general, “[h]istory and current experience have shown that [FEMA] aid, subsidized insurance, local long-term rebuilding programs, and even charitable giving” tend to flow to those who already have more resources. Rural residents and communities have less capacity and support even to navigate application processes for relief. They also have more limited access to necessary amenities like homeless shelters in the aftermath of disasters. Second, the idea that all rural residents vote against environmental regulations that would offer better protections serves to mask rural regions’ most vulnerable populations. For example, some commentary after hurricanes in the South declares these natural disasters to reflect “hurricane karma,” or punishment for regional voting patterns. Such a stance is problematic in a variety of ways, and serves to obfuscate the needs of high-risk groups in regions represented by conservative legislators. The following discussion addresses each of these challenges in the preparedness phase and recovery phase in turn. The chapter concludes with thoughts for potential reforms.