While Dr. Courtney Flint, assistant professor in natural resources and environmental sciences, grew up in urban Arizona, she has strong ties in Montana. Her ancestors were ranchers, and this instilled in her a certain appreciation and respect for rural places.

“Often when we think about American society, we sweep a broad brush and expect people in all different contexts will act the same way,” Flint said. “But I think there are unique qualities in rural areas that are still viable and important to society.”

Flint, along with her research assistant Joanne Rinaldi, conducted a study examining Community Emergency Response Teams in different communities in Illinois. The ultimate goal of the study is to break down the existing online national registry of these teams, which the study found to be incomplete, to ascertain how many are in urban, suburban and rural areas. The research will then assess roles of the teams in different communities.

Beginning in October, preliminary research from Flint and Rinaldi’s study determines rural communities can be more vulnerable to disasters than urban communities, yet in some ways more prepared.

“I can’t say I was surprised by the strong rural commitment to citizen preparedness,” Flint said. “I’ve worked with quite a few rural communities, and they’re self-reliant, resourceful and innovative.”

For example, if rural response team does not have bandages, they will tear up old bed sheets. Farmers will get out and utilize their farming equipment if other emergency equipment is not available, she said.

“If a major disaster happened in Illinois, resources will be concentrated on the populated areas, and rural communities will be last on the list getting aid or resources,” Rinaldi said. “Rural (Community Emergency Response Teams) realize they’ll be on their own, so they’re more prepared and more resourceul to get around the lack of funding that a majority of (response teams) are experiencing.”

A rural response team is isolated and closer to the rapidly changing physical environment, Flint said. Also, they are more vulnerable because they are often made up of volunteers with few, if any, professional first responders such as police officers and firefighters.

“But they have a tradition of being self-reliant, and a tendency to know their neighbors,” Flint said. “They can tap into this when building (response teams); citizens who have trained to be prepared in case of an emergency.”

Both rural and urban response teams are concerned about three broad categories of potential disasters: weather-related events, terrorism and transportation accidents and hazardous material spills. They maintain an all-hazards perspective, thereby preparing for a wide range of potential disasters.

Flint and Rinaldi found that urban communities have a more established emergency response network, with teams mostly supporting first responders or distributing safety information to the public.

The concept of training citizens for disaster response was first developed in California in 1985, and remained a mostly urban phenomenon until Sept. 11, 2001, when the number of teams jumped from about 175 to 2,435.

Flint plans to expand the study to adjacent states in the Midwest and across the country to build a nationwide database of socioeconomic data to sort different types of teams.

In an article written with Dr. Mark Brennan from the University of Florida, they suggest a few policy re-evaluations for response teams and call for changes in the Federal Emergency Management Agency, given the findings of rural community vulnerability.

“Communities are threatened in many different ways and how they respond is very interesting,” Flint said. “We can’t use a one-size-fits-all approach – community needs and disaster responses may take very different forms in rural areas and our federal programs should reflect those differences.”