Disaster and stress
A disaster is defined as a severe interruption of community functioning or society that can cause widespread loss of materials, humans, economic, and the environment. It is beyond the control of human beings in utilizing the available resources. World Health Organization (WHO) defined a disaster as an unexpected ecological phenomenon of a vast magnitude that requires external assistance. Disasters can be either human-made or natural; for example, tropical cyclones, earthquakes, torrential floods, landslides, and tsunamis are classified under natural disasters. Furthermore, human-made disasters are caused by human actions, which include political unrest, military conflicts, terrorism, and industrialized accidents.
On the other hand, stress is a reaction of a body due to changes that require some adjustment to cope with it. The body reaction due to these changes will affect the emotional, physical, and mental or cognitive functioning. Stress can be experienced from the thoughts, body, and environment.
Disaster and stress are related in that disasters can cause stress to the people affected—the aftermath of emergencies affecting the populations that leads to stressful situations. Due to the impact of disasters, it leads to post-traumatic stress, depression, and anxiety among the affected communities. It is, therefore, there is a clear relationship between disaster or catastrophe and stress because disasters affect the way of life of people, making them psychologically and emotionally disturbed, leading to stress. Disasters are not planned or expected by the victims leaving them in a state of shock. The affected persons tend to deny the losses and not accepting reality after the disaster struck. Remaining in the state of denial due to disasters make them vulnerable to stress because victims feel insecure. For instance, a tragedy like a landslide or earthquakes destroying their homes and business leads insecurity of the people affected; therefore, they will be mentally affected negatively, disrupting the family set up due to lack of coping skills.
Individual stress affects a single person, while collective stress affects the entire community or society. Community stress can be caused by disasters that affect the whole village or location; hence, causing stress to many people in that community. On the other hand, personal stress and anxiety can be triggered by disasters that destroy a person such as a landslide that destroyed the property of one person. It is essential to understand the relationship between catastrophe and stress affecting an individual or community. It is critical to know how to deal with them either as an individual or as a community. Also, it helps to understand the causes and the possible mitigation measures.
The Stallings thesis on disaster believes that the community should be allowed to think outside the box when dealing with disaster response, mitigation, and recovery process. Furthermore, the community should be passive in the policymaking process for them to be fully involved and be aware in case disasters struck. Stallings relate and link the operational world have no limits but only artificial boundaries that delink communities during actual events. Stalling proposes that policymakers should understand the application theory of the community and complexities related to the view. However, Stallings’s research requires more analysis and interpretation to all stakeholders to understand the definition and how to deal with disasters when they arise in the community.
Buckle took issue with Stallings’s research because no one has defined disaster in their study that the majority agree. Furthermore, the method used for analysis by Stallings have changed over time and are becoming more complex. Stallings models are complex because he interacts with disaster too broader by linking it to politics, Social, environmental, and economical. These factors are too vast and complex and should be narrowed because the model does not give unsafe situations and dynamics.
Denis Smith responded to Stallings’s research on disaster by agreeing with most of his comments and opinions. However, Smith differed on the relationship between a crisis and disaster because they are semantic and can influence research. Secondly, the complex issues addressed by Stallings are significant issues that need clarifications and further explanation to ease understanding. Thirdly, Smith believes that Stallings did not link the triggers and consequences of disasters appropriately and how they are escalated. Buckle argues that Stallings’s research is not valid because disasters are more of events and not processes. For instance, environmental degradation, earthquakes, landslides, drought, cyclones, and financial institutions collapse are events and not processes. The disasters are limited to procedures because they are unplanned for and happens unannounced.
Quarantelli believes that a definition of disaster definition should be separated from statements like causes, situations, conditions, and consequences. Therefore, researchers should come to a consensus despite the challenges that have been apparent among researchers in the field. Researchers and scholars should agree on grey areas to be addressed because disasters are severe and have long-lasting effects. It is critical to have a consensus in disaster research because disasters have been persistent in many countries and communities. However, Perry thinks that disasters should be reviewed and analyzed using social scientific concept based on a particular phenomenon and theory-based thinking as proposed by Stallings. Besides, Perry is concerned about the effects of disasters and how to help victims can be helped to deal with the results of stress after disasters hitting hard.
The criticism that is valid against Stalling is that one should not rush to the scene of the disaster immediately to get some data and information from the victims. Trying to interview victims immediately after the accident may lead to distorted information and discrepancy because they are still traumatized and stressed from the events of the disaster. Even though Quarantelli supports Stallings’s research on the tragedy, he criticized him for providing disaster management guidelines. Quarantelli believed that in any study, the researcher should offer solutions, which Stallings research failed to address.
Stallings’s work will be necessary for future research because it will provide the base with facts found out in the process of data analysis. Disaster description by Stallings, especially on community and organization before and after a disaster, can be used for comparison in the future. Furthermore, other researchers can use different methods, techniques, and studies to determine the patterns of accidents to come up with generalizations that can support research uniformity and facts. Stallings research is open for criticisms and adding more information because disasters are evolving with time, which means more information based on research is required.
Most scholars and researchers in the field of social science agree that disasters should be regarded as a social phenomenon and observed over some time and come up with mitigations on how to deal with unplanned disruptions. Researchers will use Stallings’ work to improve on areas that have not been researched well, criticized, or inadequately supported by evidence and facts. Research on disaster should focus on how hazards interact with vulnerabilities posed weak social structure. Disasters are not individual-based but socially communal and institutional that are actively implemented through well-planned procedures and practices. The value of research is critical because it helps to minimize the impact of the adverse effects of disasters. Disasters affect the economy, and therefore, a thorough investigation must be carried out to provide probable solutions and mitigations.