Introduction

The forest fires that occurred in the Mediterranean coastal region in July 2021 were recorded as the biggest fires in the history of Türkiye. The wildfire disaster not only destroyed forested areas in the region, but also spread to district/village centers, causing loss of lives and properties (Kaya Kılıç & Uğur, 2023). In the Ministry of Environment and Urbanization’s Report on Fire Disaster Damage Assessment in Antalya Province (2021), it was reported that 60.734 hectares of forest areas were burned throughout Antalya. It was determined that a total of 1151 buildings were heavily damaged in 33 neighborhoods of Manavgat district, which was mostly affected by the fire, and that 563 houses among them became unusable.

Disasters, of which fires are a type, are life events that can cause unpredictable loss of individual and social resources (Hobfoll, 2002; Delorme et al., 2004; Pérez-Sales et al., 2005; Adeagbo et al., 2016). At the individual level, disasters lead to the loss of homes, possessions, jobs and loved ones; at the societal level, they cause losses such as the interruption of services and social networks (Norris et al., 2002b; Goldmann & Galea, 2014; Morgado, 2020). Despair, hopelessness, social withdrawal, sleep disturbances, and anger are among the common health problems experienced after disaster (Ehrenreich, 2001). Furthermore, studies have shown that one of the most significant effects of natural disasters, is the development of mental health disorders (Kuo et al., 2003; Neria et al., 2008; Kristensen et al., 2009; Laugharne et al., 2011; Agyapong et al., 2018). Beyond being a mental health disorder in itself, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), one of the most common stress rhesponses to disasters (Fredman et al., 2010; Sattler et al., 2018; Cohen et al., 2019; Synder et al., 2020; Saeed & Gargano, 2022), also contributes to health problems such as anxiety, depression, suicidal tendencies, poor quality of life, short- and long-term disabilities (Sareen et al., 2007; Panagioti et al., 2012; Stein et al., 2013), reinforcing feelings of hopelessness by damaging individuals’ self-esteem (Kar et al., 2004; Jenkins & Meltzer, 2012; Omori, 2012; Özdemir et al., 2015; Makwana, 2019). There is a negative relationship between hope, which is an important part of coping with mental health issues and mediates emotional well-being by providing individuals with the motivation needed to overcome their problems and disasters. Ironically, while hope plays a significant role in coping with the adverse psychological effects of disasters, disasters also contribute to hopelessness, which is seen as a state of being energyless, unable to cope with difficulties, and/or accepting that this option is not available (Carr, 2004).

Theoretical Background and Research Questions

The impact of wildfire disasters on individuals is directly related to resource loss. According to Conservation of Resources (COR) theory (Hobfoll, 1989, 2001), resource losses are the main factor in predicting the psychological impact of stressful events. Individuals, whose primary goal is survival, need to have access to various resources to achieve this goal. These resources are defined as objects (such as homes and personal belongings), conditions (such as employment and marriage), personal characteristics (such as self-esteem), and energy (such as willingness and time for activities) (Hobfoll, 1989; Sattler et al., 2018). Disasters like wildfires are often large-scale and beyond individuals’ control, leading to significant resource loss. Studies conducted after disasters have found that resource loss is the primary determinant of psychological distress. Resource losses leave the disaster survivors vulnerable, reinforce a cycle of long-term loss, and disrupt the recovery process (King et al., 1999; Norris & Kaniasty, 1996). Resource losses are also associated with PTSD, general psychological distress, and feelings of intrusiveness (Ironson et al., 1997; Benight et al., 1999; Delorme et al., 2004; Suar et al., 2016). In light of this fact, it can be stated that individuals’ post-disaster resources and/or their perception of resources, both positive and negative, diversify their disaster experiences.

When examining the impact of resource loss following a disaster, it is important to understand how resource loss affects individuals independently of other known risk factors. In this regard, important risk factors have been identified and already reported for survivors. One important risk factor is related to the degree of individuals’ exposure to stressors (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Hobfoll, 1998). Other significant risk factors are related to individuals’ socio-demographic characteristics (Brewin et al., 2000; Wong-Parodi, 2022). Gender, education level, and income play a significant role in individuals’ access to resources and services, their ability to meet their demands, and their knowledge/skills in coping with problems (Dohrenwend & Dohrenwend, 1981; Hobfoll, 1998). In this context, these variables influence how individuals are positioned in the face of disasters, their resilience, or vulnerability. Indeed, studies have shown that female gender, low education level, and low income are associated with high levels of fear, anxiety/risk perception, and likelihood of poverty, as well as low coping capacity (Eriksen et al., 2010; Shavit et al., 2013; Faas et al., 2014; Gaillard et al., 2017; Marlina et al., 2021), and they have been linked to mental health problems such as acute stress, anxiety, depression, and PTSD (Kessler et al., 1995; Breslau et al., 1997; Fullerton et al., 2004; Comer & Kendall, 2007; Bonanno et al., 2010; Furr et al., 2010; Masten & Osofsky, 2010; North et al., 2012).

Another risk factor related to the sociodemographic characteristics of individuals is young age. Elders are more vulnerable to the sudden physical effects of natural disasters compared to younger individuals; they experience higher rates of injury and mortality (Ticehurst et al., 1996; Liu et al., 2006; Cherniack, 2008; Jia et al., 2010). On the other hand, when it comes to the psychological and mental health problems after disasters, the elderly is more advantaged than the younger population (Goenjian et al., 1994; Cherniack, 2008; Rafiey et al., 2016). Unlike younger individuals who are at higher risk of acute stress disorder after a disaster (Fullerton, 2004; North et al., 2012), elders, whose resilience to stress increases due to many stressors they encounter throughout their long lives, can protect themselves from the stress (inoculation theory) and focus on more positive emotions in the face of a disaster (maturity theory) (Norris & Murrell, 1988; Thompson et al., 1993; Norris, 2002a; Wang et al., 2012). So, it can be noted that there is a significant relationship between past traumas and age with PTSD (Kessler, 1995; Breslau et al., 1997; North et al., 2012).

A negative social environment is also a risk factor related to an individual’s social characteristics in terms of post-disaster responses (Picou et al., 2004). Disasters, even if not life-threatening, disrupt the routine of daily life, leading to tension in family and community relationships and increasing social inequality. They play an active role in the emergence of mental health problems such as depression, hopelessness, PTSD, and anxiety among residents of the disaster area (Fothergill & Peek, 2004; Adams & Boscarino, 2005, 2006; Nyamadzawo et al., 2013). Moreover, prolonged disruptions in daily routines, such as extended living in tents/prefabricated housing due to shelter loss, further traumatize family members and can make it harder for them to cope with the trauma they have experienced (Miller et al., 2012).

Lastly, an individual’s social networks are also among the socio-demographic risk factors. Damage to social support networks can lead to post-disaster isolation and affect the visibility/continuity of stress response syndromes (McFarlane, 2004). Individuals whose social support networks are damaged by disasters are forced to cope with their trauma alone. This situation reinforces the feelings of helplessness and hopelessness experienced after a disaster (Norris et al., 2002b; Sattler et al., 2018; Morgado, 2020), increasing the likelihood of PTSD (Adams & Boscarino, 2005, 2006; Zhang et al., 2012). On the other hand, perceived social support is positively related to the post-disaster recovery process. After a disaster, the strong bonds individuals maintain with close family members, one of their most important social support networks, mediate recovery processes. These bonds reduce the risk of experiencing psychological distress post-trauma by providing emotional and material support, particularly exerting a protective effect against PTSD (Norris & Kaniasty, 1996; Norris et al., 2005; Wickrama & Kaspar, 2007; Chemtomb et al., 2010). Marital status is also a significant variable regarding the effects of disasters within the context of social ties. Studies shed light on the fact that the likelihood of acute stress disorder is much higher (more than double) among unmarried individuals compared to married ones (Fullerton et al., 2004). Furthermore, research indicates that the severity of PTSD experienced post-disaster is associated with marital status, with being unmarried constituting a higher risk factor (Özdemir et al., 2015).

Globally, the number of forest fires has been rising recently (Lindenmayer & Taylor, 2020). Forest fires are terrible, painful catastrophes that destroy thousands of hectares of land, kill animals, and ruin the natural world. In addition to those who are directly affected, fires also have a collective trauma effect on everyone who witnesses the devastation and losses via the media, including print, broadcast and social media. Collective trauma is the psychological reactions that affect the entire society after a traumatic event (Hirschberger, 2018). There is a need for studies that will reveal the individual and collective effects and psychosocial consequences of fires. It is considered that the results obtained from the study will provide information to mental health professionals working in the field of crisis intervention and are important in this regard. To this end, this study aimed to investigate the relationship between post-traumatic stress, hopelessness and the perception of adequacy of resources in people who experienced the fire disaster.It can be noted that there exists an extensive literature on the psychological effects of disasters. The relationship between post-disaster hopelessness and PTSD has also been reflected in the existing literature. However, studies specifically focusing on wildfire disasters are relatively limited. Furthermore, no studies have been found that explain the relationship between the perception of adequacy of resources post-disaster and hopelessness. In this context, our study will make an original contribution to the literature by reflecting on this existing relationship.

In accordance with the aim of the study, answers were sought to the following main research questions:

  1. 1.

    What are the levels of post-traumatic stress, hopelessness, and perception of adequacy of resources in people who have experienced the fire disaster?

  2. 2.

    Are the sociodemographic characteristics of people (age, gender, socio-economic status, education level, marital status, social support networks, ) who have experienced a fire disaster related to post-traumatic stress, hopelessness, and perception of adequacy of resources?

  3. 3.

    Is there a relationship between the levels of post-traumatic stress, hopelessness, and perception of adequacy of resources in people who have experienced a fire disaster?

Methods

Study Design

This is a descriptive correlational study designed to determine the relationship between the post-traumatic stress, hopelessness and the adequacy of resources in people who experienced the fire disaster in Manavgat district of Antalya province.

Participants

In our study, we employed a purposive sampling method to select participants. This approach allowed us to intentionally target individuals who were most severely affected by a specific event. The collaborative effort involved social worker, the head, and officials from the social Services in the Manavgat Municipality.

To identify the participants, we considered all households registered in the Manavgat district. Within these households, we meticulously recorded the losses experienced by individuals. These losses encompassed various aspects, including residential properties, livestock, and agricultural equipment. The detailed records maintained by the municipality significantly influenced our participant selection process. Ultimately, we focused on individuals who had suffered considerably greater losses compared to others. The fundamental criterion for defining ‘most affected’ was based on the extent of loss experienced by each individual.

The fire started in Manavgat district of Antalya province on July 28, 2021 and spread to many settlements. 33 neighborhoods were affected by the fire in Manavgat. 11 neighborhoods that were determined to be most affected by the fire were included in the study. All adult individuals who lived in these neighborhoods and were directly exposed to the fire disaster and whose means of livelihood and living spaces were largely damaged constituted the population of the study.

The data of the study were collected making home visits. Selected households were identified through preliminary research field visits. The researchers visited the homes of individuals affected by the fire, administering questionnaires to those who volunteered to participate in the study and met the inclusion criteria. In this research, individuals affected by the fire who voluntarily participated were included without any sampling calculation. The first stage involved household visits, where fire-affected residents were identified and invited to participate. All households in the region affected by the fire were reached. If there was no response in one household, the next household was contacted.

The criteria for inclusion in the study were determined as having living space (home) and/or means of livelihood (agricultural lands, poultry) damaged in the fire, being aged 18 and over, and willingness to participate in the study. The data of the study were collected from 01 March 2022 to 31 May 2022.

Measures

The Information form prepared by the authors, the Impact of Events Scale, the Beck Hopelessness Scale and the Perception of Adequacy of Resource Scale were used as the data collection tools in the study.

Information Form

An information form was prepared by the researchers to collect the sociodemographic data of the participants. This information form includes questions about age, gender, educational status, marital status, income level, the nature of property lost in fire, and housing.

Impact of Events Scale

The Impact of Events Scale (IES) was prepared by Weiss (2007) based on the American Psychiatric Association’s criteria for PTSD. The scale, in which the severity of the symptoms of the people in the last 7 days is scored, consists of a total of 22 questions and 3 sub-dimensions. The first dimension is re-experiencing (questions 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 14, 16, and 20), the second dimension is avoiding (questions 5, 7, 8 11, 12, 13, 17, and 22), and the final dimensions is overstimulation (questions 4, 10, 15, 18, 19, and 21). It is scored on a 5-point Likert scale (0 = None, 4 = Very much). The lowest and highest scores on the scale are 0 and 88, respectively. It is indicated that the diagnosis of PTSD is supported in people with a score of 33 or above. High scores indicate that people experience high levels of post-traumatic stress. The Cronbach Alpha internal consistency coefficient of the scale varies between 0.87 and 0.94, and the Cronbach Alpha internal consistency coefficient was found to be 0.94 in the Turkish adaptation study (Çorapçıoğlu et al., 2006) and 0.94 in this study. In this study, the impact of events was called post-traumatic stress, as used in the literature (Fredman et al., 2010; Sattler et al., 2018).

Beck Hopelessness Scale

The scale was developed by Beck et al. (1974). The scale consisting of a total of 20 questions is scored between 0 and 1. While option yes is scored 1 in items 2, 4, 7, 9, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 18 and 20, option no is scored 1 in items 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 13, 15 and 19. The total score obtained is the “hopelessness score” of the individual. It is assumed that higher scores indicate higher hopelessness of individuals. While the scores between 15 and 20 indicate a high level of hopelessness, the scores between 9 and 14 indicate a moderate level of hopelessness, the scores between 4 and 8 indicate a low level of hopelessness, and the scores between 0 and 3 indicate the lack of hopelessness. The Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient of the scale was found to be 0.82 (Durak et al., 1994) and 0.85 in this study.

Perception of Adequacy of Resources Scale

The Perception of Adequacy of Resources Scale (PARS) developed by Rowland et al. (1985) aims to determine individuals’ perception of the adequacy of various resources. The scale consists of a total of 28 items and 7 sub-dimensions including physical environment, health/physical energy, time, financial, interpersonal, knowledge/skills, and social resources. The 7-point Likert scale was prepared in a way to range from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The lowest and the highest scores on the scale are 28 and 196, respectively. While PARS scores range from 28 to 83, moderate PARS scores range from 84 to140 and high PARS range from 140 to196. Low scores indicate individuals’ inadequacy of physical environment, health, energy, time, financial situation, interpersonal, knowledge/skills and social resources. The Cronbach Alpha coefficient calculated for the scale was found to be 0.88 (Çopur et al., 2008) and 0.90 in this study.

Data Analysis

The data of the study were evaluated using the SPSS 23.0 (Statistical Package for Social Science) statistical package program. The data were uploaded to the SPSS program and the total scores of the individuals were calculated. In the analysis of the data, the number and percentage distributions were analyzed, and then the t test, Kruskal-Wallis H analysis, one-way ANOVA test and correlation analysis were used. Kurtosis and skewness values ​​were examined to examine whether the variables met the normality assumption. It was observed that all values ​​were between − 1.5 and + 1.5. This result shows that the data meets the normal distribution assumption. Finally, the analysis was performed as a result of the data set being suitable for multiple regression analysis. The results were evaluated at a confidence interval of 95% and a significance level of p < 0.05.

Ethical Considerations

Ethical approval for the study was obtained from Akdeniz University Social and Human Sciences Scientific Research and Publication Ethics Committee with the decision number 73 dated 16.02.2022. During the data collection, the participants were first informed about the aim of the study. Written consent was obtained from the individuals who agreed to participate in the study, and then the data collection was started.

Results

Demographic Characteristics

A total of 245 individuals consisting of 111 female and 135 male individuals participated in the study. While 49% of the participants were primary school graduates, 190 of them were married, 55 of them were single, and 71 of them were unemployed. 45.3% (n = 111) of the participants were farmers and 80% of them were in the low-income group. According to the nature of the loss, it was found out that the houses of 149 participants were severely damaged and that they lost their means of livelihood. The houses of 48 participants were mildly damaged and they lost their means of livelihood. The houses of 19.6% of the participants were not damaged and they only lost their means of livelihood. While 88 of the participants lived in their own houses, 73 of them lived in prefabricated houses, 54 of them lived in rental houses, and 30 of them lived in their relatives’ houses.

The lowest and highest values, mean and standard deviation values of the sub-dimensions and total scores of the study variables are presented in Table 1. The mean of the reliving sub-dimension was 18.91 (ss = 7.23), the average of the avoiding sub-dimension was 8.82 (ss = 3.99), the mean of the over stimulation sub-dimension was 9.95 (ss = 5.97), and the mean total score of the IES was 39.56 ± 15.71 (Table 1).

Table 1 Lowest-highest values, mean and standard deviation values ​​and total scores related to IES, PARS, Beck hopelessness scale and sub-dimension
Full size table

The mean of the time resource sub-dimension was 18.08 (ss = 6.52), the average of the financial resources sub-dimension was 7.68 (ss = 5.),53 the mean of the physical environment resources sub-dimension was 15.70 (ss = 0.8.49), the mean of the health/physical energy resources sub-dimension was 15.44 (ss = 8.05), the mean of the interpersonal resources sub-dimension was 17.03 (ss = 7.81), the mean of the social resources sub-dimension was 16.66 (ss = 6.27), and the mean score PARS was 104.17 ± 32.15 (Table 1).

The mean of the feelings and expectations from the future sub-dimension was 2.67 (ss = 1.99), the average of the motivation loss sub-dimension was 4.26 (ss = 2.71), the mean of the hope sub-dimension was 3.6 0(ss = 2.59), the mean score of hopelessness was 10.53 ± 6.83 (Table 1).

The relationship between the impacts of events, PARS, hopelessness levels and sociodemographic variables was evaluated. Men’s PARS and women’s IES were statistically significantly higher (p < 0.001). While the mean scores of the IES and hopelessness increased as the level of education decreased, the PARS increased as the level of education increased (p < 0.001). The mean score of the IES of married participants was statistically significantly higher compared to single participants (p < 0.001). The mean scores of the IES and hopelessness were statistically significantly high in farmers, and their PARS was low (p < 0.001). The participants with low income had higher mean scores of the IES and hopelessness and a lower mean score PARS (p < 0.001). The IES participants whose houses were heavily damaged and who lost their means of livelihood had a significantly higher mean score of the and hopelessness, and the PARS was the lowest in this group (p < 0.001). The mean scores of the IES and Hopelessness were significantly higher in those living in prefabricated houses, however, the PARS were significantly lower (p < 0.001) (Table 2).

Table 2 Comparison of IES, PARS, Beck hopelessness scale score averages according to Sociodemographic Properties
Full size table

The results revealed that the age variable was negatively correlated with the variable PARS (r = -0.394, p < 0.001) and positively correlated with the variables of hopelessness (r = 0.306, p < 0.001) and the IES (r = 0.314, p < 0.001). Furthermore, PARS was negatively correlated with the variables of hopelessness (r = -0.644, p < 0.001) and the IES (r = -0.478, p < 0.001). Finally, there was a positive correlation between variables of hopelessness and the IES (r = 0.422, p < 0.001). The results are presented in Table 3.

Table 3 Relationship between the IES, PARS, Beck hopelessness scale score averages
Full size table

In the study, the mediating role of hopelessness in the relationship between the PARS and the IES was examined. To this end, a macro PROCESS Model 4 with 5000 bootstraps was used for mediation analysis developed by Hayes (2017) to be added to the SPSS program was used. When the obtained results were examined, it was observed that PARS negatively and significantly predicted the variable of hopelessness (β= − 0.64 p < 0.001). Furthermore, it was observed that hopelessness positively and significantly predicted the variable of the IES (β = 0.42 p < 0.001). Moreover, it was observed that PARS negatively and significantly predicted the variable of the IES (β= − 0.48, p < 0.001), and with the inclusion of the variable of hopelessness in the analysis in the second step, this value was still significant (β= − 0.35, p < 0.001), however, the decrease was significant CI=[(-0.11) - (-0.01)]. This result showed that hopelessness had a partial mediating role in the relationship between PARS and IES (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Mediation analysis

Full size image

Discussion

In this study, the relationship between post-traumatic stress, hopelessness, and resource loss among individuals who experienced the fire disaster was assessed. Literature on the effects of disasters, including forest fires, has shown that disasters can lead to mental health problems such as PTSD, depression (major depressive disorder), and anxiety, as well as loss of life and physical injuries (Doerr & Santín, 2016; Agyapong et al., 2018). Field studies conducted on major forest fires have revealed that, similar to the three-month period following the fire (Marshall et al., 2007; Belleville et al., 2019), as well as three to four years later (Bryant et al., 2014), disaster survivors expressed concerns for their own lives or the lives of their loved ones, meeting criteria for PTSD and major depression. These studies reflect that the incidence of mental health problems resulting from disasters may decrease over time but may still have a negative impact on individuals’ mental well-being.

The findings obtained from the current study, supporting the literature on the effects of fires, reflect that the Manavgat forest fire victims experienced high levels of post-traumatic stress. (39.56 ± 15.71). Risk factors for the development of PTSD following the forest fire were examined in the study, revealing that being female, having a low level of education, low income, being a farmer, having heavy damage to the residence, and living in a prefabricated house emerged as risk factors. Similarly, studies conducted in the adult population have indicated that demographic factors such as female gender, living alone, low educational level, and low socioeconomic status are risk factors for PTSD (Jones et al., 2003; Bryant et al., 2014; Agyapong et al., 2018; Silveira et al., 2021).

The literature on the mental health effects of forest fires reveals that depression and hopelessness are among the common mental health problems experienced in addition to PTSD (Hong et al., 2022). Forest fires cause loss of home-work-subsistence resources (animal and agricultural lands, plant species) (Ehrenreich, 2001; Cianconi et al., 2020), loss of social resources and lack of social support, causing disaster victims to develop hopelessness and depression (Norris et al., 2002b; Morgado, 2020). Supporting the literature, the current study revealed that people who experienced the Manavgat forest fire experienced moderate levels of hopelessness. The hopelessness was associated with the level of education. Accordingly, as the education level decreases, hopelessness increases. This relationship can be explained by the learning of coping mechanisms that occurs when education level rises. A high level of hopelessness in individuals with low income and farmers can be explained by the burning of gardens and fields and livestock that constituted their means of livelihood. The hopelessness after the forest fire was found to be highest in those whose houses were heavily damaged and those living in prefabricated houses. In most cases, severe damage to houses obliged farmers with low socioeconomic status to settle in prefabricated houses. Considering that the reconstruction continues for months, it is a predictable result that living in prefabricated houses with insufficient living space (21 m²), especially for crowded farmer families with many children, may adversely affected the people in this group and increased their feelings of hopelessness.

In this study, the PARS was found to be moderate in individuals exposed to forest fire (104.17 ± 32.15). It is indicated that PARS after a disaster is associated with psychological distress. In the study conducted by Freedy et al. (1992), it was found that adequacy of resources after negative life events negatively affected the mental health (Holahan et al., 1999). Similarly, in this study, a relationship was found between PTSD, hopelessness and PARS in individuals after the forest fire experience. Considering in terms of sociodemographic data, PARS was found to be high among men, married people and those with a high level of education, civil servants, those whose houses were not damaged and those living in their own house. On the other hand, the PARS was found to be quite low among women, farmers, those without education, those with low income, those whose houses were heavily damaged and those living in prefabricated houses. This was because the majority of people living in rural neighborhoods affected by forest fires were farmers. The fire destroyed the olive, citrus, laurel, fruit trees and greenhouse areas unique to the Mediterranean climate, which are the main livelihoods of the people of the region, and caused the death of livestock. Naturally, farmers were mostly affected by it. Nevertheless, among the people whose houses were demolished due to severe damage, those with a low income settled in a prefabricated house because they did not have another house to live in or because they could not afford to move to a rented house. Since the conditions of the prefabricated house were quite inadequate for a family to live, these people felt the PARS more. However, being educated makes it easier to get a more qualified job (Rosenbaum & Binder, 1997) and working in a public institution provides a regular income. On the other hand, the fire, that destroyed the means of livelihood of the farmers who have to maintain their lives with the income they get from the crops they plant throughout the year, caused a greater loss of resources.

The results of the study demonstrated a strong correlation between hopelessness, PARS and post-traumatic stress (Table 3). It was determined that as the PARS decreased, hopelessness increased at a high level and post-traumatic stress increased at a moderate level. In addition, as hopelessness increases, moderate post-traumatic stress also increases. Even though no study examining these three variables has been found in the literature, there are studies investigating the relationship between resource loss and post-traumatic stress (Ironson et al., 1997; Sattler et al., 2018). These studies reveal that the loss of resources after the disaster is the main determinant of post-traumatic stress and support the results obtained in our study.

In the study, we applied mediation analysis between the PARS, post-traumatic stress and hopelessness. We determined that hopelessness partially mediating role the relationship between the PARS and post-traumatic stress. This analysis reveals the impact of the research and is the strength of our study.

Based on the findings from our study, the physical, economic, and social losses resulting from a fire disaster may contribute to long-lasting mental health issues for affected individuals. It is important to evaluate the losses experienced by people in the context of their socioeconomic status and to perform risk management accordingly. The data obtained in this study can shed light on the determination of risky groups by mental health professionals after the fire disaster, the psychosocial interventions to be applied and the duration of the intervention.

Limitations

The results of this study demonstrate the relationship between post-traumatic stress, hopelessness, and resource utilization in individuals who experienced a fire disaster. Methodological limitations inherent in a cross-sectional design and variations in demographic data may limit our ability to interpret certain aspects of the data.

Implications for Social Work Practice

In recent years, disasters have become more frequent and destructive in many parts of the world, affecting in various ways not only those who are exposed but also all the people who witness. The results obtained from this study, it draws attention to the importance of the interventions that are necessary to meet immediate post-disaster needs and long-term public mental health problems. Social work is an important profession that carries out intervention and recovery efforts in the post-disaster period. It is recommended that social workers develop policies to sustain long-term psychosocial interventions for disaster survivors.