Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T07:47:25.152Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Relationship Between Community Resilience and Quality of Life of Disaster-Affected People: Reinforcement Effects of the Perception of Government Relief Services in South Korea

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 October 2023

Hyung-Joo Park Open the ORCID record for Hyung-Joo Park [Opens in a new window] ,
Yerim Shin Open the ORCID record for Yerim Shin [Opens in a new window]  and
Soo-Bi Lee Open the ORCID record for Soo-Bi Lee [Opens in a new window]
Hyung-Joo Park
Affiliation:
Department of Social Welfare, Jeonbuk National University, Jeonju, Republic of Korea
Yerim Shin
Affiliation:
Department of Social Welfare, Jeonbuk National University, Jeonju, Republic of Korea
Soo-Bi Lee*
Affiliation:
Division of Social Welfare and Child Studies, Daejin University, Pocheon, Gyeonggi Province, Republic of Korea
*
Corresponding author: Soo-Bi Lee; Email: sb88@daejin.ac.kr.
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective:

The occurrence of various forms of disasters has increased worldwide. In South Korea, community resilience is particularly emphasized, especially in response to large-scale disasters in regional and group units. This study investigated the association between community resilience and the quality of life of disaster-affected people, and identified the moderating effects of perception of government relief services.

Methods:

Data from the third long-term survey on the change of life of disaster-affected people conducted in 2018 by the National Disaster Management Research Institute were used. The study selected 1046 participants ages ≥ 19 years from among the disaster-affected people. Statistical analyses were performed using Model 1 of the PROCESS Macro 4.0 in the SPSS program.

Results:

Community resilience positively affected disaster-affected people’s quality of life. The perception of government relief services significantly strengthened the association between community resilience and quality of life.

Conclusions:

The study highlights the importance of enhancing community resilience to improve disaster-affected people’s quality of life and emphasizes the role of perception of government relief services in reinforcing this relationship. Several practical and political measures that focus on improving community resilience and perception of government relief services are suggested to enhance disaster-affected people’s quality of life.

Keywords

community resiliencedisaster-affected peoplemoderating effectperception of government relief servicesquality of life
Type
Original Research
Information
Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness , Volume 17 , 2023 , e521
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Society for Disaster Medicine and Public Health

The occurrence of various forms of disasters has rapidly increased worldwide in recent years. In South Korea, there have been continuous large-scale disasters resulting in loss of life and property, including the Ferry Disaster (April 16, 2014), earthquakes in Gyeongju-si (September 12, 2016) and Pohang-si (November 15, 2017), large forest fires in Uljin-si and Samcheok-si (March 4, 2022), and Itaewon Halloween disaster (October 29, 2022). In the past decade, the property damage caused by natural disasters in South Korea averaged 350 billion KRW per year, with a recovery cost of 820 billion KRW. For social disastersFootnote a , occurrences have increased approximately 8.3-fold compared to 10 years ago. 1

A disaster situation causes psychological and emotional damage, as well as damage to the life, body, and property of individuals and communities during and after the disaster. At an individual level, disaster-affected people may experience emotions such as sorrow, loss, rage, and guilt following the disaster. 2 They may also face difficulties in social relationships, sleep disorders, anxiety, depression, or alcoholism. Reference Neria, Gross and Litz3–Reference Hussain, Weisaeth and Heir5 The continued presence of painful emotions can lead to post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in disaster-affected people. These psychological symptoms negatively affect disaster-affected people’s quality of life. Reference Cho6,Reference Lee, Na and Sim7 For example, earthquake-affected people in Turkey had markedly lower quality of life compared to those without an earthquake experience. Reference Ceyhan and Ceyhan8 Furthermore, more than half of the hurricane-affected people had low scores on quality of life indicators even 2 years after the disaster. Reference Abramson, Stehling-Ariza, Garfield and Redlener9 Disaster-affected people struggle to return to normal daily life due to poor health, PTSD, depression, and other factors, which ultimately decrease their quality of life. Therefore, it is important to not only treat symptoms after a disaster but also consider the overall well-being of disaster-affected people in daily lives, which is reflected in their quality of life. Reference Donovan, Mattson and Cisler10–Reference Craze12 Quality of life is an important measure of disaster-affected people’s genuine recovery.

At a community level, the aftermath of a disaster can lead to “corrosive community” or “community disintegration,” which occurs when there is conflict in clarifying responsibilities or a split caused by social confusion and rage. Reference Picou, Marshall and Disaster13,14 These factors can delay the recovery of daily life or hinder affected people’s recovery. Reference Lee, Nam and Jeong15 Considering the increasing trend of disaster occurrence in specific regions (villages) or groups in South Korea, the concept of “community resilience” becomes crucial in post-disaster management and recovery. Reference Oh16

Resilience refers to the ability to recover from stress and resist risk factors during a crisis. Reference Klein, Nicholls and Thomalla17,Reference Rutter18 This concept is applied to individuals’ ability to internally manage a disaster and restore their healthy state Reference Vulnerability19 for disaster management. Reference Cho6,Reference Kim and Kim20,Reference Mayunga21 Expanding on this scope, community resilience is highlighted as vital in post-disaster recovery. A study showed that a resilient community had a lower vulnerability to disasters compared to a non-resilient community. Reference Cutter, Barnes and Berry22 The second World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction (WCDRR) emphasized the importance of building community resilience to enhance recovery capacity in a disaster situation. The Sendai Framework, recommended at the third WCDRR, prioritized reinforcing community-based support of resilience as the core of disaster risk reduction. In South Korea, the importance of community resilience in disaster studies is increasing, driving further research. Studies in South Korea have confirmed that the recovery capacity of a community is a critical factor in the restoration of daily life, and community resilience can also reduce the impact of PTSD and increase disaster-affected people’s social adaptation. Reference Kim and Oh23–Reference Lee and Ahn25 Moreover, research seeks to apply community resilience in practice, for example, through policies Reference Lee and Lee26 promoting community restoration and the implementation and outcomes of community recovery programs in disaster-affected areas. Reference Kim, Jung and Kim27 The results of these studies further support the positive effects of increased community recovery capacity on disaster-affected people’s quality of life.

In sum, disaster-affected people experience harmful consequences both at the individual and community levels, affecting their quality of life. The extent of these effects varies, depending on follow-up measures such as recovery from damage and relief services. It is the government’s responsibility to provide relief services after a disaster. These services are closely linked to the cohesion and solidarity of the affected community and region. Reference Klein, Nicholls and Thomalla17 In the absence of appropriate relief services, trust among individuals, communities, and the government may decrease, and conflicts may arise. Therefore, government relief services play a crucial role in the recovery of individuals, reinforcement of solidarity within society, and overall social stability. The government provides a wide range of disaster relief services at both the individual and community levels, ranging from physical, psychological, and emotional health programs to economic support for the return to daily life. Emergency relief resources such as water, food, and temporary housing are also provided.

However, there have been problems observed in South Korea with regard to disaster relief and recovery in the case of the earthquake in Pohang-si. Reference Han28 Temporary or unsystematic services, as well as low satisfaction and conflicts due to the selection and support of the relief cases, have been reported. 29 It is important not only to focus on the provision of relief services, but also to examine the perception and satisfaction of those receiving the services, as well as the fairness of these services. Evaluating relief services from the perspective of service recipients can maximize survivors’ resilience. Reference Sheu30 Additionally, public satisfaction increases when there are improvements in the quality and fairness of resource distribution, as well as continuous communication regarding government-provided services after a disaster. Reference Mata, Cullano and Tiu31

The negative perception of disaster management can cause public anxiety and decrease quality of life. Reference Go and Kim32 Studies report that citizens’ subjective happiness is influenced by their perception of the outcome of public services. Reference Lee and Lee33 This suggests that the recovery of quality of life varies, depending on disaster-affected people’s perception of government services in worst-case scenarios. Therefore, it is important to determine the perception of government relief services along with community resilience to improve disaster-affected people’s quality of life. To this end, it is essential to examine how service users’ satisfaction with and subjective perception of government relief services affect the quality of life and recovery of disaster-affected people. Reference Yoo, Lee, Rho and Kim34–Reference Lee and Min36

Previous discussions on disaster-affected people’s recovery have been limited to narrow dimensions such as PTSD and depression. Reference Cho6,Reference Lee and Byun37 Furthermore, most studies have focused on resilience on an individual level. Reference Lee and Byun37 However, it is important to consider the interaction between individuals and their environment. Reference Richmond38–Reference Gordon and Hearn40 Therefore, a more diverse range of perspectives should be applied when examining the variables, taking into account the multidimensional system of mutual interactions between individuals, events, and environmental factors. Reference Harvey41

Instead of focusing solely on resilience and psycho-emotional aspects at an individual level, it is important to adopt broader perspectives when examining disaster-affected people’s quality of life. This study aimed to investigate the association between disaster-affected people’s community resilience and quality of life and identify the moderating effects of the perception of government relief services on this association. Subsequently, based on the findings, the study conducted multidimensional discussions focused on the practical and political implications to enhance the quality of life of disaster-affected people in the process of recovery.

Based on the above, the hypotheses for this study are as follows:

  • Hypothesis 1: Community resilience enhances the quality of life of disaster affected people.

  • Hypothesis 2: Community resilience and the quality of life of disaster-affected people are reinforced as the perception of government relief services becomes more positive.

Methods

Data Procedure and Participants

This study utilized the raw data from the National Disaster Management Research Institute of South Korea (NDMI) on the change of life of disaster-affected people (2018) to develop safety services for disaster-affected people. The NDMI has been conducting studies on disaster-affected people annually since 2015. For this investigation, the most recent data from the 2018 study were used. The panel in that study consisted of systematically sampled disaster-affected people, taking into consideration specific time and region where disasters occurred. The public data were obtained from the institution after submitting the study plan. 42

The participants in this study were adults ages ≥ 19 years, who had experienced a disaster in 2017 and responded to the 2018 survey of disaster-affected people. This decision was based on the fact that community resilience and government relief services, the main variables in this study, were first examined in the 2018 survey, and disaster-affected people’s quality of life could vary over time due to various factors. Reference Jang, Lee and Park43 The study period was October to December 2018. The participants completed the questionnaire using a tablet PC in a computer-aided personal interview. A total of 1046 participants who responded to all items of the main variables, including age and gender, were analyzed. According to the conventional method, the minimum ratio between the number of independent variables and sample size should be 1:10 to ensure statistical validity when determining an appropriate sample size. Reference Miller and Kunce44 In this study, 9 variables were analyzed, which required a minimum sample size of n = 90. The actual sample size in this study was n = 1046, satisfying the criteria.

Ethical Standards

This study was approved by the relevant institutional review board, and the study procedures were undertaken in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki [JBNU 2022-11-004].

Instruments

Dependent variable

The Korean version Reference Min, Kim, Suh and Kim45 of the World Health Organization Quality of Life (WHO–QOL) assessment tool was used in this study to measure quality of life. Modifications were made to the tool to align with the study’s purposes. The WHO–QOL tool allows for a comprehensive evaluation of physical health, psychological health, independence, social relationships, the environment, and spirituality. The tool comprises 7 questions, some being: How satisfied are you with your health?/How satisfied are you with your overall interpersonal relationship?/How often do you experience negative emotions like gloominess, hopelessness, anxiety, and depression? Participants were asked to rate each question on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from “Strongly disagree = 1” to “Strongly agree = 5.” The total scores ranged from 7 to 35, with higher scores indicating higher levels of quality of life. The reliability of the WHO–QOL tool in this study was Cronbach’s α = 0.776.

Independent variable

To assess community resilience, the Korean version by the NDMI Reference Nam46 of the Conjoint Community Resiliency Assessment Measure 10 (CCRAM10) by Cohen et al. Reference Cohen, Leykin and Lahad47 was used. The 10 questions of the CCRAM10, which comprise items related to leadership, group efficiency, risk management, place attachment, and social trust, include the following: The municipal authority (regional council) of my town functions well./There is mutual assistance and concern for others in my town./The relations between various groups in my town are good./I can depend on people in my town to come to my assistance during a crisis. Each question was rated on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from “Strongly disagree = 1” to “Strongly agree = 5.” The range of total scores was 10 to 50, with higher scores indicating higher levels of community resilience. The reliability of the CCRAM10 in this study was Cronbach’s α = 0.936.

Moderating variable: Perception of government relief services

The study used 14 subitems from the NDMI to measure the perception of government relief services; these subitems are related to the adequacy, satisfaction, and appropriateness of the allocation of government relief services. Reference Nam46 Of the 14 questions included in this study, some examples were as follows: Do you think the post-disaster support for psychological counseling on the national level was adequate?/Do you feel generally satisfied with the current relief services?/Do you think the allocation of financial aid and assistance to disaster-affected people was fair? Each question was rated on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from “Strongly disagree = 1” to “Strongly agree = 5.” Two of the questions were reverse coded for rating purposes. Higher scores indicate higher levels of perception of government relief services. The reliability of the NDMI index in this study was Cronbach’s α = 0.889.

Control variables

The control variables in this study were those reported to impact disaster-affected people’s quality of life. As studies have shown that demographic characteristics affect disaster-affected people’s quality of life, Reference Cho6,Reference Kim and Kim20 age, gender, education, income, marital status, and household type were used as control variables in this study. Their subcategories included male (1) and female (0) for gender; 19–39 (1), 40–59 (2), and ≥ 60 (3) for age (in years); pre-elementary school (1), elementary school (2), middle school (3), high school (4), and college or university, or above (5) for education; < 200 (1), 200–399 (2), 400–599 (3), 600–799 (4), and ≥ 800 (5) for monthly income (in million KRW); has a spouse (1) and no spouse (0: unmarried, separated, divorced, or bereaved) for marital status; and single-person (1) and multi-person (0) for household type.

Statistical Analysis

The PROCESS Macro v.4.0 of SPSS v.25 was used for the statistical analysis. First, a frequency analysis like the number of cases and percentage was performed to analyze participants’ demographic characteristics. Second, descriptive statistics were obtained, and a correlation analysis was performed to identify the characteristics of the main variables and to check for multicollinearity across variables. Third, Model 1 of the PROCESS Macro, as suggested by Hayes, Reference Partial48 was employed to determine the moderating effects of the perception of government relief services on the association between community resilience and quality of life of disaster-affected people. The dependent and moderating variables as the interaction terms were applied to the analysis after mean centering. Finally, a graph was drawn to present the moderating effects of the perception of government relief services. Figure 1 presents the study model.

Figure 1. The research model.

Results

General Characteristics of Participants

Table 1 outlines participants’ general characteristics. In total, 57.9% of the participants were female and 42.1% were male. Regarding age, 49.9% were ≥ 60 years, 34.9% were within 40–59 years, and 15.2% were within 19–39 years. Furthermore, 36.7% were high school graduates, and more than half of participants earned < 4 million KRW. Finally, 68.8% had a spouse, and 88.3% lived in multi-person households.

Table 1. Participants’ general characteristics

Descriptive Statistics of Main Variables and Correlations

Table 2 presents the descriptive statistics of the main variables and correlations. First, the mean scores (standard deviation) of community resilience, perception of government relief services, and quality of life were 3.05 (0.67), 2.74 (0.60), and 2.99 (0.57), respectively. Second, no problem was found in normality, as skewness and kurtosis did not exceed the absolute values at 3 (0.341) and 8 (0.251), respectively. Reference Kline49 Finally, the correlation coefficients across the main variables were less than 0.8, which indicated the lack of multicollinearity. Furthermore, the variance inflation factor ranged between 1.075 and 1.925, and the Durbin–Watson value was 1.406, close to 2, which confirmed the suitability for regression analysis.

Table 2. Descriptive statistics of main variables and correlations (N = 1046)

*P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001; SD, standard deviation.

Reinforcement Effects of the Perception of Government Relief Services on the Association Between Community Resilience and Quality of Life

Table 3 presents the results of examining the reinforcement effects of the perception of government relief services on the association between community resilience and quality of life. The explanatory power of the model in this study was 26.7% (F = 41.948, P < 0.000), whereas the variation of explanatory power (ΔR2 = 0.0356) with the addition of the interaction terms, including community resilience and perception of government relief services, was also significant (F = 50.356, P < 0.000). Community resilience as the independent variable showed positive effects on disaster-affected people’s quality of life (B = 0.190, P < 0.001). Hence, an increase in disaster-affected people’s community resilience indicated an increase in quality of life. Likewise, perception of government relief services showed positive effects on quality of life of disaster-affected people (B = 0.065, P < 0.05). This could be interpreted as the positive perception of government relief services, leading to enhanced quality of life. Finally, the effect of the interactions between community resilience and perception of government relief services on quality of life of disaster-affected people was significant (B = 0.208, P < 0.001), verifying the moderating effects of the perception of government relief services on the association between community resilience and quality of life. Thus, disaster-affected people’s positive perception of government relief services reinforced the effects of community resilience on their quality of life. Regarding the control variables, age (B = −0.071, P < 0.05), income (B = 0.104, P < 0.001), and education (B = 0.096, P < 0.001) showed significant effects on disaster-affected people’s quality of life. The younger disaster-affected people with a higher monthly income and higher education level displayed a higher level of quality of life.

Table 3. Factors influencing the quality of life of disaster victims (N = 1046)

B, coefficients; SE, standard error; *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001.

Figure 2 shows the moderating effects of the perception of government relief services on the effect of community resilience on quality of life. The graph in Figure 2 indicates the effect of community resilience on quality of life for 3 cases: the moderating effects of the perception of government relief services being 1 standard deviation (SD) lower than the mean (the lower group), equal to the mean (mean centering score = 0, the middle group), and 1 SD higher than the mean (the upper group). When the level of perception of government relief services was categorized into upper, middle, and lower ranges, all groups exhibited an improvement in quality of life as community resilience increased, albeit with varying degrees of increase. The slope of the middle group was steeper than that of the lower group, and the slope of the upper group was steeper than that of the middle group. This suggests that there was a quicker increase in the impact of community resilience on the quality of life for disaster-affected people when there was an improved perception of government relief services. The change was negligible, as there was a slight and gradual improvement in the favorable perception of government relief services, which was already at a low level.

Figure 2. Moderating effects of the perception of government relief services on the association between community resilience and quality of life of disaster-affected people.

Discussion

This study verified the association between community resilience and quality of life of disaster-affected people in South Korea and the relevant moderating effects of the perception of government relief services. The main findings and discussion are provided in the following.

First, community resilience was significantly correlated with the quality of life of disaster-affected people. This aligns with studies reporting the direct or indirect effect of community resilience of disaster-affected people on recovery. Reference Cinderby, Haq, Cambridge and Lock50–Reference Jeon and Jeong52 According to Kim and Oh, Reference Kim and Oh23 community resilience had significantly greater effects on the alleviation of PTSD than individual resilience. This confirmed that, in addition to resilience on the individual level, that on the community level is critical to enhancing quality of life—promoting complete recovery from the negative effects of a disaster experience, ranging from physical damage to psychological and emotional consequences such as fear and anxiety.

Second, the perception of government relief services moderated the association between community resilience and quality of life of disaster-affected people. A more positive perception of government relief services reinforced the positive correlation between disaster-affected people’s community resilience and quality of life. This indicates the importance of disaster-affected people’s perception of the central or regional government’s responsibilities and duties toward disaster relief services and provision thereof. Increased positive perception of the outcome of public services provided by the regional government increased local residents’ subjective happiness Reference Lee and Kim53–Reference Oh and Bae55 and satisfaction with life varied according to the region threatened by situations such as a war as well as coping resources and resilience. Reference Kimhi and Shamai56

To improve the quality of life for disaster-affected people, a communication platform is needed to strengthen the social network and enhance community resilience. However, community resilience does not increase through short-term effects alone. Thus, a collaborative system involving both public and private sectors should be established to support local organizational projects and resources. For example, organizing community events, festivals, and local club activities can encourage community residents to enhance cohesion, perception, and trust.

Furthermore, specialized support is necessary for disaster damage and community organization after a disaster, to reduce conflicts among community members and neighboring communities, as well as improve communication. An example of such support is the Community Support Center in Kobe-city, Japan. The center actively provides support, intervention, and collaboration as part of post-disaster community reconstruction projects. This includes forming communities to promote interactions among residents and activities to address social structural issues. 57 Similarly, in South Korea, the liaison system to oversee various activities and projects for community resilience for local residents of a disaster area should be reinforced, especially considering the recent increase in disasters in regional units and scales. Community welfare centers, which have the potential to solve problems in the community, Reference Kang and Moon58 and regional organizational projects for community advancement could be more actively utilized in disaster relief efforts. Additionally, the establishment of welfare networks could also play a significant role in addressing disaster damage.

Official relief services should consider the multidimensional perspectives of disaster-affected people as service users. In South Korea, the Ministry of Public Safety and Security was established after the Ferry Disaster (April 16, 2014) to manage national disasters. This highlights the short-term nature of government-level political interests and institutions in relation to disasters. 59 Hence, disaster damage services primarily focus on addressing the psychological and emotional difficulties of the affected people on an individual level, with a service provider-centered approach. Reference Yoo, Lee, Rho and Kim34,Reference Yoo and Lee35,Reference Ko54,60,61 In order to develop and implement relevant policies, it is important to adequately consider the opinions and needs of disaster-affected people, as well as thoroughly analyze the regional characteristics of the disaster area, the characteristics of the disaster itself, and the affected communities. To achieve this, it is necessary to establish mutual trust between all relevant stakeholders in disaster management through effective and timely communication. Additionally, continuous monitoring is needed to proactively respond to disaster-affected people’s needs for relief services in a user-oriented way.

This study also found that quality of life improved as education and income levels increased, supporting previous studies. Reference Wu, Chou and Chou62–Reference Park and Bae64 This suggests that individuals’ socioeconomic status, including education and income, is a significant predictor of quality of life. Therefore, future interventions should recognize that individuals with lower socioeconomic status are more vulnerable and prioritize their recovery from a disaster experience.

Policy Implications

This study is significant because it extended the research on disaster-affected people’s recovery beyond psychological and emotional aspects like resilience on an individual level and PTSD. Instead, it investigated the quality of life of disaster-affected people, thereby providing empirical evidence for the importance of community resilience among those who have faced a disaster together. Additionally, the study explored the concept of disaster relief services and examined the moderating effects they had on the recovery of disaster-affected people. Specifically, it looked at the perceptions of disaster-affected people regarding government relief services in order to derive more efficient and realistic practical and political implications.

Limitations

This study has several limitations. First, as it was cross-sectional, it could not examine time-dependent changes in the quality of life of disaster-affected people based on community resilience and perception of government relief services over a period of time. In addition, the scope of disaster exposure could not be perfectly controlled for, as the data included individuals exposed to a disaster at different time points. Nevertheless, a cross-sectional analysis of secondary data was conducted. Second, the study’s analyses could not consider all potentially influencing factors of community resilience and quality of life, such as the individual level and pattern of damage and the duration of residence of a given region. Third, in this study, analysis was not conducted by disaster types, and there was a high proportion of the older adult age group in the sample. More comprehensive discussions can be conducted in future follow-up studies if the disasters and age groups are classified and the differences are examined.

Conclusions

The occurrence of various forms of disasters has increased worldwide, particularly in South Korea. These disasters deteriorate people’s lives, affect their physical and psychological health, and lead to property damage for affected people. They also pose challenges to post-disaster life. For disaster-affected people’s recovery, the concepts of resilience and government responsibilities and duties—relief services—have been emphasized. This study examined the protective effect of community resilience on disaster-affected people’s quality of life and identified the moderating effects of their perception of government relief services. The results emphasized the need to develop collaborative support systems, both public and private, to enhance the recovery and quality of life for individuals and communities. Additionally, a multidimensional approach to disaster relief services should be considered, taking into account the perspectives of the affected people.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported with data obtained from the Establishment of Relief Services for Disaster Affected People, National Disaster Management Research Institute, Republic of Korea.

Author contribution

H-JP and YS designed the research and performed the analysis. SBL wrote the manuscript. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors declare they have no conflicts of interest.

Footnotes

Hyung-Joo Park and Yerim Shin contributed equally as first authors.

a Social accidents: Incidents that cause damage beyond the scale prescribed by Presidential Decree. These incidents can be caused by a fire; collapse; explosion; traffic accidents; chemical, biological, and radioactive accidents; environmental pollution incidents; and so on. (Framework Act on the Management of Disasters and Safety. https://www.law.go.kr/LSW/eng/engLsSc.do?menuId=2&section=lawNm&query=disaster&x=0&y=0#liBgcolor1)

References

Ministry of the Interior and Safety. Interior and safety statistical yearbook. Author; 2021.Google Scholar
What Is Disaster Mental Health Services? National Center for Disaster Trauma. Published 2020. Accessed October 5, 2022. https://nct.go.kr/distMental/understand/understand01.do Google Scholar
Neria, Y, Gross, R, Litz, B, et al. Prevalence and psychological correlates of complicated grief among bereaved adults 2.5-3.5 years after September 11th attacks. J Trauma Stress. 2007;20(3):251-262. doi: 10.1002/jts.20223 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hashemian, F, Khoshnood, K, Desai, MM, et al. Anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic stress in Iranian survivors of chemical warfare. JAMA. 2006;296(5):560-566. doi: 10.1001/jama.296.5.560 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hussain, A, Weisaeth, L, Heir, T. Psychiatric disorders and functional impairment among disaster victims after exposure to a natural disaster: a population-based study. J Affect Disord. 2011;128(1-2):135-141.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cho, MS. Factors associated with quality of life among disaster victims: an analysis of the 3rd nationwide panel survey of disaster victims. J Korean Acad Community Health Nurs. 2019;30(2):217-225. doi: 10.12799/jkachn.2019.30.2.217 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, DY, Na, J, Sim, M. Psychological reactions and physical trauma by types of disasters: view from man-made disaster. J Korean Neuropsychiatr Assoc. 2015;54(3):261-268. doi: 10.4306/jknpa.2015.54.3.261 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ceyhan, E, Ceyhan, AA. Earthquake survivors’ quality of life and academic achievement six years after the earthquakes in Marmara, Turkey. Disasters. 2007;31(4):516-529.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Abramson, D, Stehling-Ariza, T, Garfield, R, Redlener, I. Prevalence and predictors of mental health distress post-Katrina: findings from the Gulf Coast Child and Family Health Study. Disaster Med Public Health Prep. 2008;2(2):77-86.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Donovan, D, Mattson, ME, Cisler, RA, et al. Quality of life as an outcome measure in alcoholism treatment research. J Stud Alcohol Suppl. 2005;15(15):119-139, discussion 92. doi: 10.15288/jsas.2005.s15.119 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beyondblue. National recovery-oriented mental health practice framework. Beyondblue; 2012.Google Scholar
Craze, L. 2nd Consultation draft national recovery oriented mental health practice framework. Mental Health Standing Committee; 2012.Google Scholar
Picou, JS, Marshall, BK, Disaster, Gill DA., litigation, and the corrosive community. Soc Forces. 2004;82(4):1493-1522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
The Korea Institute of Public Administration (KIPA). Conflict management during disaster. KIPA; 2013:3-4.Google Scholar
Lee, YU, Nam, DY, Jeong, HM, et al. A case study on local-based community recovery program in disaster affected areas. J Korean Soc Safe. 2020;35(5):106-114. doi: 10.14346/JKOSOS.2020.35.5.106 Google Scholar
Oh, H. An examination of disaster collective trauma and community resilience. Korean J Couns Psychother. 2016;28(3):943-969. https://www.kci.go.kr/kciportal/ci/sereArticleSearch/ciSereArtiView.kci?sereArticleSearchBean.artiId=ART002137001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, RJT, Nicholls, RJ, Thomalla, F. Resilience to natural hazards: how useful is this concept? Environ Hazards. 2003;5(1):35-45. doi: 10.1016/j.hazards.2004.02.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rutter, M. Implications of resilience concepts for scientific understanding. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2006;1094:1-12. doi: 10.1196/annals.1376.002 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vulnerability, Timmerman P., resilience and the collapse of society. Institute of Environmental Studies, University of Toronto; 1981.Google Scholar
Kim, H, Kim, M. The impact of disaster victim’s social support on quality of life: mediating effect of resilience. J Humanit Soc Sci. 2019;10(4):841-854. doi: 10.22143/HSS21.10.4.59 Google Scholar
Mayunga, JS. Understanding and applying the concept of community disaster resilience: a capital-based approach. Summer Academy for Social Vulnerability and Resilience Building; 2007:1-16.Google Scholar
Cutter, SL, Barnes, L, Berry, M, et al. A place-based model for understanding community resilience to natural disasters. Glob Environ Change. 2008;18(4):598-606. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.07.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, YR, Oh, SM. The effect of community resilience on post-traumatic stress disorders (PTSD) in disaster victims. Crisis Emerg Manag. 2020;16(4):73-90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, M, Kim, H. The effect of disaster victim’s community resilience on social adaptation. Soc Welf Policy Pract. 2021;7(2):149-181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, NB, Ahn, HN. A meta-analysis study of predictors of disaster victims post-traumatic stress response based on ecological model. Korean J Psychol Gen. 2016;35(4):525-562. doi: 10.22257/kjp.2016.12.35.4.525 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, JK, Lee, HK. A study on the conflict and community recovery among Pohang earthquake victims. Korean Assoc Qual Inq. 2020;6(1):305-345.Google Scholar
Kim, D, Jung, CG, Kim, HS. Effect analysis of community resilience program for disaster areas and its policy implications: the case of Ansan after the April 16 Sewol ferry disaster. GRI Rev. 2020;22(2):253-274.Google Scholar
Han, D. Disaster relief system in Korea: problems and tasks. Crisisonomy. 2006;2:36-51.Google Scholar
Safe Korea Report. I Still Can’t Sleep Without Tranquilizer… the Fear Left an Aftershock. Seoul.co.kr Website. Updated January 28, 2019. Accessed October 5, 2022. https://www.seoul.co.kr/news/newsView.php?id=20190129018004&wlog_tag3=naver Google Scholar
Sheu, JB. Post-disaster relief–service centralized logistics distribution with survivor resilience maximization. Transp Res B Methodol. 2014;68:288-314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mata, P, Cullano, RA, Tiu, AM, et al. Public satisfaction with the government’s disaster response during Typhoon Odette (Rai). Int J Disaster Risk Reduct. 2023;84:103483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Go, DY, Kim, DY. The effect on quality of life of perception of local disaster management level: focused on moderating effect of region and education. GRI Rev. 2017;19(3):393-417. https://www.kci.go.kr/kciportal/ci/sereArticleSearch/ciSereArtiView.kci?sereArticleSearchBean.artiId=ART002308591 Google Scholar
Lee, H, Lee, M. Do public services make people happy? A study of the relationship between perceived performance and happiness. Korean Public Adm Rev. 2014;48(4):293-315.Google Scholar
Yoo, HJ, Lee, JE, Rho, JC, Kim, GH. Improving the disaster management service in the demander-centered approach. J Korea Contents Assoc. 2008;8(5):224-236. https://www.kci.go.kr/kciportal/ci/sereArticleSearch/ciSereArtiView.kci?sereArticleSearchBean.artiId=ART001249399 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yoo, HJ, Lee, JE. Analyzing the disaster management service in the perspective of disaster victims as a demander: an approach based on grounded theory. J Korea Contents Assoc. 2009;9(5):265-276. https://www.dbpia.co.kr/journal/articleDetail?nodeId=NODE01193620 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, DK, Min, YK. A study on the effects of the human environment vulnerability of disaster on perception of social risk: centers on the omnibus survey of disaster and safety perception. Korean Assoc Policy Stud. 2016;26(1):33-59. https://kiss.kstudy.com/thesis/thesis-view.asp?key=3421998 Google Scholar
Lee, G, Byun, B. The effect of quality of life of disaster victims on resilience: focusing on the moderating effect of social support. J Environ Policy Adm. 2022;30(1):255-280. doi: 10.15301/jepa.2022.30.1.255 Google Scholar
Richmond, ME. Social diagnosis. Russell Sage Foundation; 1917.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richmond, ME. What is social case work? Russell Sage Foundation; 1922.Google Scholar
Gordon, WE. Basic constructs for an integrative and generative conception of social work. In: Hearn, G, ed. The general systems approach: contributions toward an holistic conception of social work. Council on Social Work Education; 1969:5-11.Google Scholar
Harvey, MR. An ecological view of psychological trauma and trauma recovery. J Trauma Stress. 1996;9(1):3-23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guidelines on the Utilization of Disaster Victims Long Term Survey Data ('20.4.). National Disaster Management Research Institute National Disaster Management Research Institute. Accessed June 25, 2023. https://www.ndmi.go.kr/home/sub.do?menukey=6011&mode=view&no=1199298&page=1&searchIs=Y&searchKeyword=%EC%B6%94%EC%A0%81&searchKeywordType=1&searchRecord=10 Google Scholar
Jang, U, Lee, Y, Park, S. A study on the changes of psychological health after disaster among victims. Journal of The Korean Society of Hazard Mitigation Conference. 2017(1):1-1.Google Scholar
Miller, DE, Kunce, JT. Prediction and statistical overkill revisited. Meas Eval Guid. 1973;6(3):157-163. doi: 10.1080/00256307.1973.12022590 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Min, SK, Kim, KI, Suh, SY, Kim, DK. Development of Korean version of World Health Organization Quality of Life Scale (WHO-QOL). JKNA. 2000;39(1):78-88.Google Scholar
Nam, DY. User’s guide to the disclosure and utilization of long-term survey on the change of life of disaster victim. Proceedings of the Korea association of social welfare policy spring conference, Seoul, 2019, pp. 261-278. Accessed May 24. https://kiss.kstudy.com/thesis/thesis-view.asp?key=3799852 Google Scholar
Cohen, O, Leykin, D, Lahad, M, et al. The conjoint community resiliency assessment measure as a baseline for profiling and predicting community resilience for emergencies. Technol Forecast Soc Change. 2013;80(9):1732-1741. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2012.12.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Partial, Hayes AF., conditional, and moderated mediation: quantification, inference, and interpretation. Commun Monogr. 2018;85(1):4-40. doi: 10.1080/03637751.2017.1352100 Google Scholar
Kline, T. Psychological testing: a practical approach to design and evaluation. SAGE; 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cinderby, S, Haq, G, Cambridge, H, Lock, K. Building community resilience: can everyone enjoy a good life? Local Environ. 2016;21(10):1252-1270. doi: 10.1080/13549839.2015.1100597 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Park, JM, Bae, SM. Impact of depressive, anxiety, and PTSD symptoms in disaster victims on quality of life: the moderating effect of perceived community resilience. IJDRR. 2022;69:102749. doi: 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102749 Google Scholar
Jeon, GH, Jeong, MG. Analysis on the effect between the community perception and happiness: focusing on the participants of the community business in Chungcheongnam-do. Local Gov Stud. 2017;29(1):137-166. doi: 10.21026/jlgs.2017.29.1.137 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, YG, Kim, DG. A study on the quality of life for urban residents. Korean Policy Sci Rev. 2007;11(4):223-250. https://www.dbpia.co.kr/journal/articleDetail?nodeId=NODE01191101 Google Scholar
Ko, MC. Citizen satisfaction, government performance, and quality of life: focused on bottom-up spillover approach. KPAR. 2013;47(2):1-30.Google Scholar
Oh, H, Bae, M. Analysis of priority of disaster safety policy based on the perception of policy consumers: focused on Chungcheongbuk-do. GRI Rev. 2020;22(3):183-207.Google Scholar
Kimhi, S, Shamai, M. Community resilience and the impact of stress: adult response to Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon. J Community Psychol. 2004;32(4):439-451. doi: 10.1002/jcop.20012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gyeonggi Research Institute. A study on community restoration through community policy after disaster. Gyeonggi Research Institute; 2021:1-103.Google Scholar
Kang, C, Moon, S. An exploratory study on disaster training in social welfare. J Soc Work Res. 2019;10(1):5-37. doi: 10.22836/kaswpr.2019.10.1.5 Google Scholar
National Disaster Management Research Institute. Research of the factors of life change in disaster victims and development of technology for relief services. Author; 2016.Google Scholar
KBS Lost Everything to the Earthquake but… ONLY a Few Million KRW of Support Fund. KBS News Website. Updated November 25, 2017. Accessed October 5, 2022. https://news.kbs.co.kr/news/view.do?ncd=3575572&ref=A Google Scholar
Government at Wit’s End Over Repeated Flooding of Underground Parking Lots… Could There Have Been a Way of Prevention? KGNEWS. Updated September 7, 2022. Accessed October 5, 2022. https://www.kgnews.co.kr/news/article.html?no=717310 Google Scholar
Wu, HC, Chou, P, Chou, FH, et al. Survey of quality of life and related risk factors for a Taiwanese village population 3 years post-earthquake. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2006;40(4):355-361.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cao, X, Chen, L, Tian, L, Jiang, X. Psychological distress and health-related quality of life in relocated and nonrelocated older survivors after the 2008 Sichuan earthquake. Asian Nurs Res. 2015;9(4):271-277. doi: 10.1016/j.anr.2015.04.008 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Park, JM, Bae, SM. Impact of depressive, anxiety, and PTSD symptoms in disaster victims on quality of life: the moderating effect of perceived community resilience. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct. 2022;69:102749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figure 0

Figure 1. The research model.

Figure 1

Table 1. Participants’ general characteristics

Figure 2

Table 2. Descriptive statistics of main variables and correlations (N = 1046)

Figure 3

Table 3. Factors influencing the quality of life of disaster victims (N = 1046)

Figure 4

Figure 2. Moderating effects of the perception of government relief services on the association between community resilience and quality of life of disaster-affected people.