Abstract
The demands and occupational hazards of urban police work are well-researched, particularly concerning officer exposure to traumatic events and high-pressure situations and its implications on officer well-being. However, often overlooked is the need to examine policing and its impact on the well-being of police officers within rural landscapes. This article considers the unique contours of officer well-being in rural Australia, assessing how it is uniquely shaped by “place and space” and contrasts with urban policing challenges. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with police officers serving in rural Australia (N = 19). Our findings reveal a complex dynamic within rural police work regarding officer well-being. A predominant sentiment was the allure of rural policing, which many officers lauded as “the best job in the cops.” However, beneath this appealing facade lies a unique set of challenges. Officers find themselves deeply integrated within the community, making them perpetually accessible. This lack of distinction between personal and professional roles, combined with the inevitable loss of anonymity, has implications for officer well-being and law enforcement through police discretion as a place-based relational skill. We argue that policymakers and police command must recognize and address these unique dynamics to ensure the well-being of officers and foster healthier community-police engagements in rural areas.
Introduction
A large and growing body of literature has examined the impact of police work on officer well-being, with particular attention focused on issues of mental health (Bullock & Garland, 2020). Research has looked at varied causes of poor health and well-being of police, focused inter alia on the stressors and strains embedded in police work, including repeated exposure to traumatic and violent situations; managing complex social issues (domestic violence, mental health, and so on); the bureaucratic and political nature of policing; and public scrutiny and pressure. “Stressors” tend to refer to the occupational and psychosocial pressures inherent to police work (e.g., exposure to trauma, scrutiny, workload) while “strains” refers to the cumulative physical and psychological effects of these pressures over time (see Santa Maria, Wörfel, et al., 2018; Santa Maria, Wolter, et al., 2019).
Historically, stressors and strains were largely simply considered as part of the job and thus commanded an expectation of officer resilience and self-reliance. Increasingly, though, political attention and pressure are being focused on the importance of officer well-being, and, therefore, police organizations are expected to provide attention and support to officers whose well-being is suffering from their work (Bullock & Garland, 2020). The occupational health and safety of police officers is important not only for the well-being of the officers themselves but also for the effectiveness of the police force and the safety of the communities they serve. Indeed, issues concerning officer well-being are some of the primary reasons for sick leave and resignation (Santa Maria, Wörfel, et al., 2018). Coupled with difficulties in attracting new police officers, officer well-being is paramount in both recruitment and retention (International Association of Chiefs of Police, n.d.).
Police work, though, is context-specific, and rural criminological literature has pointed out how rurality not only shapes crime issues and salience but also the workings of the criminal justice system, including that of policing (see, e.g., Mulrooney et al., 2025). To this end, this article seeks to contribute to the literature by advancing a spatial approach to officer well-being and, in particular, providing an understanding as to how rurality and the realities of rural policing may uniquely shape officer well-being. This is especially important for policymakers and law enforcement agencies, who must recognize and address the unique dynamics of rural policing to ensure the well-being of officers and foster healthier community-police engagements in rural areas.
Background
While there exists an imbalance between studies of urban crime compared with rural crime (Harkness & Larkins, 2019), and while the body of literature on rural policing is small in comparison to that on urban police environments, studies of rural policing have become a separate subfield of criminological research (Mulrooney et al., 2025; Weisheit et al., 2006). Much of this literature has focused on crime patterns in rural spaces and the unique aspects of the rural environment, which shape both crime and police responses. For instance, Harkness and Larkins (2019, p. 49) flagged the four greatest challenges for rural policing as: “(i) geography and the tyranny of distance; (ii) rural stoicism and under-reporting of crime; (iii) familiarity between police and residents; and (iv) a lack of resources and rural-specific training.”
Increasingly, research has concentrated on the perspectives and experiences of rural police personnel. For example, Terpstra (2021) pays particular emphasis to organizational changes, examining officer perspectives of developments in rural policing in the Netherlands. He finds that while the Dutch police have gradually reduced their presence in rural areas, social density, a strong sense of identity, and robust social controls have enabled rural policing to preserve its unique stylistic approach, which includes an informal and individualized method of policing founded on the development of relationships and frequent interactions. Beyond the “Big 4” (United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia), scholarship on rural policing is expanding in the Caribbean and Africa. In Trinidad and Tobago, for example, Wallace advances how rural context and community dynamics shape policing roles, opportunity structures, and day-to-day practices (Wallace, 2021; Wallace, 2025a, 2025b). Aborisade and Gbahabo (2021) advance understanding of officer experiences and legitimacy challenges in resource‑constrained rural environments in Nigeria, while Clack (2025) details how rural security/farm‑crime dynamics, livestock theft, and police–farmer relations underpin rural safety strategy and policing responses in South Africa.
Notably, research on police perspectives and experiences has also examined how working in rural communities can shape officer well-being. Research from various Western countries, including Canada (Huey & Ricciardelli, 2015, 2017; Ricciardelli, 2018; Ricciardelli et al., 2018), the United States (Oliver & Meier, 2004; Page & Jacobs, 2011), New Zealand (Buttle et al., 2010), and England (Oliver et al., 2023) has highlighted that rural police officers may experience significant job stress, which is unique to the rural contexts in which they work, impacting their health. Purba and Demou (2019) provide a very helpful systemic review of the relationship between stress and mental well-being for rural police.
Factors include risk associated with driving long distances on rural roads, understaffing, isolation and a lack of backup, and bureaucratic concerns with resourcing and management. Research in China, focusing on the health implications of job-related stress, found that rural officers experienced psychological distress from physical symptoms, including headaches, pounding heart, and nausea, at higher levels than their urban counterparts (see Wu & Wen, 2020). Keaton et al. (2023), in a United States context, identified three rural policing job stressor themes, including: (i) job demands; (ii) isolation; and (iii) critical decisions. Notably, they found that 44% of respondents reported symptoms of psychological distress likely indicative of a minor psychiatric disorder.
Jobes (2002) explored police practices in rural spaces, finding that rural officers were oriented toward practical community policing and indicated that being accommodating to the community, being a good listener, and treating the placement as a 24-hr job were essential for being an effective police officer. Notably, Jobes (2002) also found that most police participants actually enjoyed working in rural communities and that this was, in part, the product of a desire to avoid urban police culture. Furthermore, Jobes (2003) notes that rural police officers in New South Wales highlighted tensions between the formal expectations and police bureaucracy, and effective procedures for policing small towns. Specifically, officers indicated that effective policing occurred only after officers became integrated into informal community structures and exercised discretion regarding community standards.
Finally, Scott and Jobes (2007) further emphasize that the strategies and techniques that police officers employ are both adaptations to the types of communities they serve and the law enforcement system of which they are part. Following Bayley’s (1989) notion “that while crimes are policed in the city, people are policed in the country,” Scott and Jobes (2007) found that rural police officers often adopt a community-centric model of policing in which the officers themselves become integrated in the community and associated informal social networks. However, this is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, this allows officers increased opportunities to solve crimes (i.e., through access to sources of information), but on the other hand, it presents challenges by occupying often competing roles of law enforcer and local resident simultaneously. Notably, this fundamental distinction in the social dynamics of rural versus urban environments has been shown to manifest in other areas of the justice system, such as public attitudes toward punishment (see Davey et al, 2025; Mulrooney & Wise, 2019).
While this now-dated research has examined how aspects of the rural environment may shape officer practices and experiences, none has explicitly focused on how this unique context may shape officer well-being. Indeed, there is a gap in the literature as it relates to rural policing and officer well-being in an Australian context (see Mulrooney, Harkness, & Nolan, 2022; Mulrooney et al., 2025). While Australia may have a similar model of policing to Western counterparts in the United Kingdom, Canada, and New Zealand, each jurisdiction will have unique socio-cultural and spatial characteristics that shape rural policing and its subsequent impact on officer well-being. For instance, here we can consider geographic characteristics such as the size of Australia (7.688 million km2) and Canada (9.985 million km2) in contrast to the United Kingdom (243,610 km2) and New Zealand (268,021 km2), or demographic characteristics such as the presence and history of the Indigenous population in rural areas of Australia, Canada, and New Zealand.
Another consideration, unique to the rural context in Australia, is the relative importance and size of agriculture and farming and associated farm crime (see Keaton et al., 2023). Australia, for example, has a large agricultural industry, and stock theft and illegal hunting tend to occupy the attention of rural police (see Mulrooney et al., 2025). By contrast, while these issues are present in the United Kingdom (see Mulrooney et al., 2025, Chapter 6), a key issue here is the theft of agricultural and plant machinery and the involvement of organized criminal groups in these offences.
Additionally, and connected to this, while there is research that indicates that a community-oriented democratic approach to policing may have positive impacts on officer well-being (see Burke, 2020), no research has examined how the unique spatial characteristics of rural policing may have a positive impact on officer well-being. Here, we can consider, for example, hypothetical considerations surrounding increased social density and more meaningful connections with the community as contributing to job satisfaction. As such, an original contribution of this research is to empirically understand how “place and space” are lived and managed by officers in their daily practice and, most importantly, how this uniquely shapes officer well-being.
The objective of this current study was to understand the perspectives and experiences of police personnel who work in rural areas in Australia and who deal primarily with responding to rural crime generally and farm crime specifically. The research explored several thematic areas, including perceptions of rural crime, the impacts of crime on rural communities, and rural policing and crime prevention initiatives. We were particularly interested in how police organizations adapt to the challenges of policing rural contexts; how community policing and crime prevention work operate within rural areas; the nature of reassurance and community engagement in rural areas; the operation of intelligence and law enforcement in rural areas; and perceptions of the impacts of policing in rural areas on officer well-being. This article focuses specifically on the personal experiences of police officers working in rural spaces, examining the contours of officer well-being in the context of rural Australia, considering how it is uniquely shaped by geographic location and contrasting it against the backdrop of urban policing challenges.
Methodology
Data collection was undertaken throughout 2022 using non‑probability purposive sampling to identify sworn officers with current or recent operational experience in rural and remote policing roles in Australia. Recruitment proceeded via three pathways: (i) direct invitations sent through command-level contacts within rural and farm crime units; (ii) circulation of a study notice through professional networks and rural policing working groups; and (iii) snowball referrals from early interviewees. Officers contacted the research team directly to register interest and schedule an interview. Ethics approval was received from the University of New England Human Research Ethics Committee (HE21‑139).
The intent was to elicit rich, contextually grounded accounts rather than achieve statistical generalization. A total of 19 officers participated, with ranks varying from detective through to command-level officers. Notably, while the participants self-described as rural police and saw their primary role as preventing and responding to rural crime, the officers involved in this project worked primarily in the area of farm crime (Whiteside et al., 2023). Whilst all the officers interviewed had prior experience in general duty policing and other policing roles, their current roles centered primarily around responding to acquisitive and property crime, as well as on community engagement.
As the study involves officers drawn from small, tightly knit, rural units, individuals can be readily identified by combinations of age, gender, rank, tenure, and region. As such, consistent with our Human Research Ethics Committee approval (UNE HREC HE21-139) and established qualitative ethics on avoiding deductive disclosure (NHMRC, 2018), we report only aggregated descriptors. To further reduce identifiability, quoted excerpts are labelled with participant ID and no linkable descriptor (e.g., age/gender etc.). As the credibility or transferability of the thematic finding does not hinge on individual demographic differences, this approach serves to preserve confidentiality.
Participants participated in a semi-structured interview that lasted for between 60 and 120 min. Interviews were conducted exclusively via Zoom. Interviewees were asked a similar set of questions based on seven common themes: (i) crime prevention and community policing; (ii) community reassurance and engagement; (iii) policing diverse communities in rural areas; (iv) enforcement of the criminal law; (v) the role of technology; (vi) personal experiences of policing in rural areas; and (vii) the organization and management of police work in rural areas.
Data Analysis
The interviews were transcribed, and the transcripts were subjected to a thematic analysis following the six-step analytical process proposed by Braun and Clarke (2021). With a semantic method, which produces themes with consideration for the explicit meanings of the data, and an inductive approach, which is a data-driven approach to producing themes, we specifically aimed to find and describe repeated patterns in the data. Data extraction was performed using the NVivo 12 data analysis software. Illustrative quotations were selected based on (i) representativeness (recurring patterns across interviews) and (ii) salience (clear articulation of the core idea), with attention to including multiple voices and noting points of nuance.
Findings
Participants (N = 19) were sworn officers across the frontline and command of a rural police unit in Australia. Years of service ranged from 5 to 35 and ages spanned late 20s to late 50s. In the analysis, two overarching themes emerged, each comprising several interrelated sub‑themes. Theme 1, The Allure of Rural Policing (“the best job in the cops”), encompassed sub‑themes of (a) community recognition and civility (“good people”), (b) relational, lower‑violence work and meaningful engagement, and (c) rural roles as respite and career re‑set. Theme 2, The Challenges of Rural Policing (risk, exposure, and blurred boundaries), comprised sub‑themes of (a) the paradox of risk (infrequent but high‑severity events; limited backup), (b) hyper‑visibility and 24/7 role engulfment, (c) spillover into private/family life, and (d) discretion under social density: being “firm but fair.” These sub‑themes are not mutually exclusive. Rather, they form a discourse in which the same place‑based conditions that foster meaning and belonging also generate chronic exposure and ethical complexity.
The Allure of Rural Policing: The Best Job in the Cops
One of the most repeated statements, uttered by nearly the entire sample, was that rural policing is “the best job in the cops.” Indeed, this statement was repeated so often and verbatim that it quickly became clear that this was how police in these positions described their work among themselves. In other words, the sentiment was tied to subcultural ‘talk’ in which the role of rural police officers was seen as overwhelmingly positive in general: “I think it’s the best job in the cops. I try to keep that a secret (P19)”; “Well, personally, I think I’ve got the best job in the cops (P8)”; and “It’s the best job in the police. . . that’s a phrase. . . that’s a phrase that gets thrown around the police a lot (P5).”
For some, this was linked to their policing career, with their time in the rural crime space standing out as a particular highlight. P20, for example, outlined his lengthy career in the police service, comparing the last two and a half years with the rural crime team as the best policing role yet: “I’ve been a police officer for about 34 years. I’ve been in the rural crime environment for the last two and a half. And it’s the best job in the cops.”
The notion of rural policing as a valued role appeared closely tied to quality of life, with several officers reflecting on their personal and professional well-being while working in rural policing. This is exemplified by P11, who observed that: “I think the quality of life where we are could not get any better. And I think I’ve got the best job in the cops. So, I can’t top it.”
This sentiment was informed by a broader dialogue among rural police officers, who indicated that they find their work uniquely fulfilling, especially when compared to other police work with which they had extensive experience. Specifically, two primary sub-themes emerged from the interviews that strongly spoke to the notion of “the best job in the cops” being tied to personal and professional well-being. First were the positive relationships with rural communities, and second was the nature of rural policing itself, which officers described as less violent and more focused on interpersonal relationships. For example, rural areas and the people therein were viewed as “good people” and as supportive of and pleasant to police: I’ve always said you’re dealing with good people. . . you go to a property, and it just still doesn’t matter what time of day or where it is; you get offered a cup of tea as soon as you get there, and you still get offered food. If you say no to him, every time you go, they’ll still offer you a cup of tea (P21).
Furthermore, day-to-day policing was described as being relatively free from violence and about managing people and relationships in a deliberate manner, rather than rushing from call to call: “Because people generally are happy to see us. Yeah, I’m not forever responding to a bad situation and quite often going out knocking on doors and being met with coffee and doughnuts. . . they’re glad that we’re around (P20).” Additionally, P9 stated: “Even your crooks, they’re not your typical bad people you deal with in the city. . . Even your crooks are good people (P9).”
As these quotes suggest, this sentiment of the “best job” was often supported via social density and relations of rural spaces. “Crooks,” victims, and police were all varyingly known to one another, or at least tended to occupy the same community spaces, and this density of social relationships demanded a recognition of individuals rather than just “problems”: You are dealing with good people, and everybody knows who you are like, it’s not just like in an urban environment where it’s just a cop, but in the country, they know that I’m a local, and they know who my family is. They know I’m off the land, and they know who my dad is (P18).
Both the rural police environment and the nature of the job were often contrasted to urban environments and urban policing, both of which were unanimously couched in negative terms. In this context, the violent nature of policing and its subsequent implications on police-community relationships were most often emphasized. The following quotes exemplify this position well: “[in rural areas] you get the engagement that you generally don’t have with the community. You’re actually helping. You’re not dealing with, I suppose, the violent crimes essentially (P16).”
Taken together, this environment was understood by officers as being better for their well-being. For example, P11 stated, “I personally think it is a lot better for police. . . I think there is less pressure. . . there seems to be a lot less sick leave, and I think generally people are more happy,” while P16 noted, “In terms of overall policing, it is quite easy. I think it is a highly sought-after position within the police.”
By way of contrast, many directly discussed their work in urban environments and in particular, the burnout that came and the freedom of going to police in the “bush” or the country. Indeed, there were several anecdotes offered during the research suggesting that many had come to rural policing as a form of respite and that this could, in part, explain the amount of mental health-related sick leave among rural police officers. In other words, it was understood not as a result of the hardships of the current role, but rather as part of the baggage of past experiences in policing that continued to have a negative impact on their well-being.
This trajectory is perhaps best encapsulated by P10’s story, where he describes what it was like for him to become a rural cop, just at the time as he was burning out: I was holidaying. . . And there were three stock squad fellows in the state. And one of them. . . was the closest thing to John Wayne that I had come across, you know wandering with his gooseneck spurs and big high-top 10-gallon and Sydney slow drawl and that. So, I’d sort of met him around a few different jobs, and I was thinking, “geez, imagine being able to just do that job.” And I was sort of in awe of this bloke. So, he phones me up. . . and I’ll always remember it; he said, “you got any horses going?” . . . and I said, “yea, I’ve got two in work.” And he said, “we might need you to come on a job.” “When?” “Monday.” So, I went home from my holidays early, and I couldn’t believe it. I’ve got a fully marked police car with a horse float on the back. . . and I am headed up the flat to go to this bloody mustering job to help. And I was up there that night, and I was just thinking, “this is unbelievable.” Keeping in mind I had just finished 10 years on the old battle track. Doing my best against whatever came up, you know. To be all of a sudden in the mountains. . . all things I was quite used to but not when I was working. I ended up getting that job. . . mate, I can’t describe what that meant to me at that point, because I was getting a bit tired and weary, battle-weary. . . I couldn’t be happier in my current role.
The Challenges of Rural Policing: Risk, Exposure, and Blurred Boundaries
Whilst officers lauded rural policing as “the best job in the cops,” this sentiment was consistently tempered by a recognition of a unique and demanding set of challenges. Beneath the appealing facade of community engagement and a less volatile work environment lies a complex dynamic of logistical risk, profound loss of anonymity, and a constant blurring of personal and professional boundaries. Together, these factors create a distinct form of occupational stress and hazards that shape both officer well-being and the practice of law enforcement in rural Australia.
One key challenge identified by officers was the paradox of risk. As outlined above, while violent day-to-day confrontations were perceived as less frequent than in urban settings, the potential for danger was situational and amplified by geographic isolation and the lack of immediate backup or support. This trade-off between the frequency and severity of risk was a constant consideration, demanding a heightened sense of operational awareness among officers. For example, as one officer explained: On the whole, probably your risk of confrontations is less. If it does turn bad, you’re not getting help from anyone. . . Operational safety boys got to be really careful. We chase some hunters in the middle of the night. . . we’re in the National Park and they have firearms, dogs, guns, and knives (P8).
Beyond logistics, the challenges of rural policing focused heavily on the very same social dynamics that, on the one hand, were appealing from the perspective of community engagement and connectedness but, on the other hand, could also present as a double-edged sword when the darker side of social density was apparent. Central to this was the utter loss of anonymity and identity beyond being a police officer. Unlike their urban counterparts, who can retreat into the relative obscurity of a large city by living away from where they work, rural officers are deeply embedded in their communities and therefore perpetually identifiable. This hyper-visibility was described as a significant source of strain, creating a feeling of being constantly on duty and under scrutiny. As P10 noted, you have to have your “eyes on your tongue,” a sentiment echoed by P7: Yeah, the being on duty all the time. Yeah, I get that it gets a bit tiring. And it’d be hard to let your hair down when you’re being watched all the time. . . that anonymity and just getting away is hard.
This constant exposure and the blurring of roles as both member of the community and police officer meant that officers were often perpetually accessible. For example, the boundary between work and private life quickly dissolves when community members feel they can seek assistance at any time. For example, P12 notes that: “Everyone knows you’re a cop. . . the next thing you know, someone’s knocking on your front door saying, ‘something’s happening, or can I ask a question?’ and you just have to want to be part of your community.”
Similarly, P14 observed that: You’re a cop 24/7 out here. . . as soon as you take the clothes off, people still know that you’re a police officer. . . for the lockup keepers and the single unit officers working in remote areas, everyone knows their house. If something happens in town, they don’t necessarily find out about it because their main head stations called them. . . it’s because a neighbor knocked on their front door and said, “Hey, can you help me?” You’re on duty all the time, I think.
This accessibility extends to private mobile telephones, which become another channel for police work, even during holidays. “I’m on holidays, and I’ve already got messages,” noted P11. While some found this draining, others framed it as an essential part of the job. For instance, P19 argued this accessibility is “the backbone” of rural policing, viewing it as essential for building the rapport and community relationships; “otherwise you are going to fail.” P17 concurred, seeing himself as both “cop and community member,” stating, “I still think it is the best way because you are just a member of the community at the end of the day.”
At times, this erosion of private life had more explicitly harmful repercussions. For example, officers reported that their homes and families were often targeted as a result of them doing their job, significantly blurring the lines between their public and private lives. Harassment could be low-level yet persistent, with officers recounting how their homes became targets. One described having “things stolen from down the road and placed on my front lawn” and “eggs thrown in my house (P8),” while another experienced similar intimidation, finding “padlocks on my letterbox (P4).”
For others, the intimidation escalated to a more severe and personal level. The exposure and vulnerability were enunciated by P18, who recounted, “I’ve had threats like, you know, some crook threatened to come and cut my throat and rape my daughter. . . They definitely would know where I live.” Similarly, another officer detailed a similar pattern of exposure to threats of violence that he believed was unique to the rural context, stating, “I’ve had death threats I wouldn’t have gotten if I was working in a more populated environment. . . I just wouldn’t be exposed to that level of concentration, malicious damage to vehicles, you know, that sort of thing (P10).”
Notably, this vulnerability often extended beyond the officer to their family, as children and spouses bore negative social consequences. For instance, one officer stated that their children became known not by their names but as “the cop’s kid (P3).” This label carried its own burdens, as the actions of the parent could directly influence the social world of the child. As P3 explained further, “It’s always ‘Your dad’s a cop’. Or the fact that I’ve arrested one of their parents or friend’s parents. . . yes, it’s close to home.” Another officer reiterated this dynamic, noting his children had all received “a little bit of stick” and that it had also affected his wife at times (P10). Faced with this reality, officers described the necessity of adopting a resilient posture, viewing these social issues as an unavoidable and essential part of the job. As P19 asserted, “If you let that worry you, I don’t think you’ll ever become a policeman. Certainly not in a rural community, because you are the go-to person.”
Perhaps the most profound consequence of this deep community integration is its direct impact on the practice of law enforcement. The social density of rural life means that officers may have gone to school with offenders or victims and live alongside them, with their kids, for example, playing on the same soccer team. For many, this closeness necessitates a more discretionary and diplomatic approach to policing. As P14 explained, “You’ve got to be maybe more diplomatic about it.” For instance, this often involves leveraging personal rapport as an enforcement tool: In Sydney, you arrest someone if they need to be arrested; you arrest them, it is what it is. Yeah. In a small town, a lot of the time, if you know them, you can ring them up and say, “listen,” or get a message to him. “You need to come in and see us. If not, we’re coming.” Yeah. And when you’ve got that rapport with them, they’ll come in (P9).
Similarly, P18 noted this relational approach can be an investigative asset, indicating that a shared history could lead to more productive interviews: “I have locked up people who I went to high school with. . . They will actually speak quite openly. And I’ve probably gotten more out of them in interviews than what another cop would.” At the same time, this closeness also creates ethical complexities in law enforcement, as the social relationships can shape discretion and, indeed, how and if the law is enforced. One officer described this challenge as a constant “juggling act” borne from the reality that, unlike in a city, there is no anonymity, and this called for careful navigation and necessary adaptation to the social environment, in part, to preserve social relationships long-term: I can guarantee every single cop at my local police station, all the good crooks know exactly where they live. They know who their family are; kids probably go to school with their kids. . . You’ve got to be maybe more diplomatic about it (P14).
This required diplomacy was enacted through a guiding ethos of being “firm but fair.” As P11 outlines, this was not about avoiding enforcement altogether, but rather about executing it with a level of respect that recognized the basis of social relationships for community stability and social fabric more broadly: I always run by the rule of we need to be firm but fair. . . if you’re fair to them, and you treat them with respect. . . you have no issues. You’re still going to put them before the court. There’s that mutual respect that, yep, I’ve done the wrong thing and got to pay the price. . . If you overstep your mark, you’ll have issues. And yeah, I think a lot of country police have that attitude.
This context forces a relational style of policing that places a unique decision-making burden on the individual officer, as officers must carefully balance their legal authority and discretionary powers with their social reality. The “firm but fair” approach is a crucial discretionary skill that allows officers to do their jobs and to enforce the law effectively, all while managing the complex, overlapping relationships inherent to rural life.
Discussion
This study reveals rural policing in Australia to be a paradox of cultural and social embeddedness. Indeed, the very same conditions that make the work deeply rewarding or “the best job in the cops,” including dense social ties, the development of meaningful relationships, and community engagement, also generate significant strains through the loss of anonymity, role engulfment, and high community visibility. Officers describe how they are continually negotiating this terrain, balancing the badge in the bush, in ways that fundamentally shape both their individual well-being and their daily police practice.
The findings support key insights from the extant rural policing scholarship. Specifically, research on rural policing has long identified that police practices in rural contexts are inherently community-oriented, relational, and multi-modal in nature (see Jobes, 2002; Weisheit et al., 1994). Our findings extend this work in two important ways. First, the notion of “the best job in the cops” emerges not simply from job variety or autonomy (i.e., police practice) but from a sense of place-based belonging, which is generated through positive community recognition and deeper connection with dense social networks.
Second, this same density, which enables these positive sentiments, also produces a “fishbowl” effect wherein everyday encounters, including those outside their formal role of police officers, are opportunities for public scrutiny, leaving many officers feeling like “24/7 cops.” Importantly, while this duality has been acknowledged in earlier work (Buttle et al., 2010), our primary contribution here is to position this as a central organizing mechanism that links together police practice, police legitimacy, and officer well-being. This finding, positioning relational dynamics as central to rural policing, is consistent with comparative international research highlighting the importance of police-citizen engagement in shaping police practice and legitimacy across different rural contexts internationally (Mulrooney et al., 2024).
This dynamic extends the literature on police well-being by moving beyond its tendency to focus on acute incident-based trauma, commonly associated with high-volume urban policing. Rather, we reframe rural officer well-being around chronic and cumulative stress arising from social exposure, the loss of individual identity, and the social consequences of the discretionary decisions they make in the course of their duties. Indeed, while positive community engagement, including meaningful personal interactions and a lower exposure to violence, may function as a significant “protective” factor for officer well-being, this co-exists with low-level yet persistent pressures, which may include social surveillance, limited opportunity for role decompression, and, at the more confronting end, the targeting of officers’ homes and families. As such, while rural officers may be less exposed to the high-intensity trauma on which many police well-being insights are established, they are especially exposed to ambient and, indeed, enduring forms of stress that extend well beyond their role of police officer and into their broader embeddedness in community life.
This research also reveals an important dynamic related to career trajectory, offering a life-course perspective on police well-being. For many participants, rural policing was seen as a destination or as a conscious move to seek respite from the high-intensity, incident-driven burnout of their former urban roles. These findings challenge a simplistic or binary view of rural work as either idyllic or uniquely stressful, revealing its potentially “corrective” experience for officers who seek to address their well-being needs by self-selecting into an environment they perceive as calmer and relationally rewarding. Notably, however, through the officer narratives, we see that this pathway reveals the dual dynamics at play: drawn by the allure of “the best job in the cops,” they find they must then learn to navigate the challenges of that same socially embedded reality. As such, this career trajectory is not so much an escape from stress as it is a trade-off toward a different and perhaps more chronic form of it. Indeed, while officers may move to rural roles seeking respite from acute, incident-based stress they may find themselves negotiating more chronic, socially embedded stressors related to visibility and community integration.
Our findings are consistent with the extant rural policing scholarship showing that while rural postings may reduce exposure to frequent, high-intensity incidents (e.g., violence), they introduce a different configuration of stressors, including those related to isolation, limited resourcing, boundary blurring into private life, and persistent community visibility (Buttle et al., 2010; Huey & Ricciardelli, 2017; Ricciardelli, 2018). From a job demands perspective in policing, rural moves can reduce certain demands (e.g., constant critical incidents) while increasing others (e.g., role engulfment, social surveillance, discretionary burden under social density), with well‑being, in part, contingent on available resources (e.g., supportive supervision, community recognition; Santa Maria, Wörfel, et al., 2018; Wolter et al., 2019). In other words, “corrective” attraction of rural postings coexists with chronic, socially embedded strains that must be actively navigated rather than altogether escaped.
Perhaps the most distinctive contribution of this study lies in the exercising of discretion. While previous research has noted the significance of discretion and informal problem solving in small communities (Jobes, 2003; Wooff, 2015), our research advances this by articulating discretion as a form of “localized” procedural justice shaped, in part, by the social density of rural contexts. Officers described a “firm but fair” ethos that guided their police discretion through relationship-first practices anchored in procedural justice principles of respect, voice, neutrality, and reason. For instance, this included resolving disputes informally through warnings or mediated conversations and tailoring their enforcement to reflect community norms. Being “firm but fair” was enacted not purely through the formal application of the law but, rather, through relational practices that were undertaken as a means to maintain legitimacy and social license in a setting where personal encounters are frequent, and reputations and relationships are long-lasting.
Viewed through a rural lens, the discretionary practices officers described here align with long‑standing evidence that small‑community policing is inherently relational, negotiated, and often informal (Jobes, 2003; Weisheit et al., 1994; Wooff, 2015). In these contexts of dense social ties and frequent repeat encounters, to preserve social license and cooperation beyond any single enforcement event, discretion operates as a place‑based legitimacy practice wherein officers lean on procedural justice principles, including respectful treatment, opportunities for voice, and reasons for decisions (Mazerolle et al., 2013; Scott & Jobes, 2007).
Empirical research in rural/remote settings shows that such relationship‑first or “firm but fair” approaches often translate into informal resolutions including warnings or mediated conversations, aligned to community norms and expectations without abandoning formal authority (Jobes, 2003; Wooff, 2015). Likewise, comparative research further indicates that officer-citizen engagement in rural settings is central to sustaining legitimacy where visibility is high and identities are deeply intertwined (Huey & Ricciardelli, 2017; Mulrooney, Bullock, et al, 2024). While procedural justice theory is often developed with urban contexts in front-of-mind (Mazerolle et al., 2013), this asks us to consider the place-based mechanisms through which officers build and sustain legitimacy. Within this dynamic, scholars have noted that small-town policing is essentially a “spontaneous and informal process” of keeping peace and that modern community policing initiatives are in many ways a formalization of these long-standing rural practices (see Weisheit et al., 1994).
Our findings reinforce and extend this understanding by illustrating how such discretion is used by officers, not simply to enforce the law but to maintain community legitimacy, providing a rich, qualitative account of what procedural justice looks like in a context of high social density. Officers must be “firm” to uphold their formal authority, but they must be “fair” to maintain their social license to operate within a community where their legitimacy is constantly being negotiated outside of their formal policing role, including in the pub, the schoolyard, the supermarket, and so on. This contrasts significantly with urban models of policing that can often rely more heavily on formal authority and anonymity, as officers may be much more socially separate from the communities they police.
Our findings contribute to rural criminological theory (e.g., Donnermeyer, 2022; Hogg & Carrington, 2006) and the importance of understanding not only “place” as a physical manifestation but also “space” as a social and cultural construct that shapes how actors operate and how this impacts the practices of policing and police officers themselves. As participants outlined from their own experience, rural policing operates through place-based logics, including dense social networks, informal mechanisms of social control, and economies of community reputation. The “best job in the cops” emerges from the positive manifestations of these dynamics, including a sense of belonging and engaging in meaningful and relational work.
However, the negative or dark side of this reveals a dual dynamic in which the very same space that allows for positive outcomes also introduces experiences of hypervisibility, the loss of individual identity to role engulfment, and social surveillance. By documenting how police officers in rural Australia live and manage this duality, or balance the badge in the bush, we offer an empirical account of how place and space elevate meaning and amplify pressure, impacting both the practice of policing and officer well-being.
This study contributes to a rapidly growing body of rural policing research and responds to the paucity of research specifically on rural policing by focusing on how a rural context not only shapes police practice but also officer well-being and, more importantly, how these are deeply entwined. This contribution is significant when we consider that many police agencies worldwide serve small or rural communities, yet scholarly understanding of their unique challenges has lagged behind that of urban police. Our work helps fill a gap by documenting the realities of rural police work in detail and from the perspective of rural officers themselves and, in doing so, broadens the geographical and comparative scope of rural policing studies. Much of the current extant literature draws on North American and European settings, with the Australian context being well established but underrepresented in more recent discussions (see Mulrooney & Peterson, 2023; Peterson & Mulrooney, 2022).
Finally, the findings hold important implications for police policy and practice, demanding a move away from one-size-fits-all models toward a place-sensitive approach that is considerate of the spatial and social realities of the rural context. First, to address the chronic and cumulative stress associated with social density and hyper-visibility, well-being programs must be tailored and move beyond a singular focus on critical-incident trauma (e.g., post-traumatic stress disorder). A practical example is the development of formal mentorship programs that pair officers new to rural areas with experienced officers. These mentors could offer lived-experience guidance on how to “balance the badge in the bush,” which could be especially relevant for new recruits transferring from urban environments who may be unfamiliar with such social dynamics. Second, the findings on discretion as a form of “localized” procedural justice highlight a critical training need.
Training should focus on equipping officers with strategies for managing social visibility while ethically exercising the significant police power of discretion within tightly knit communities. Related to this, policymakers must navigate the inherent tensions with police recruitment in rural areas. While officers coming from urban environments may be challenged by the unique social dynamics, initiatives such as the “Be a Cop in Your Home Town” (New South Wales Police Force, n.d.) program leverage valuable local knowledge, yet pre-existing community ties may complicate the impartial exercise of discretion and the “firm but fair” approach.
Conclusion
Rural policing appears to be at once the most rewarding and most personally exposing form of police work. Both legitimacy and individual well-being appear to turn on the same place-based dynamics. By reframing rural well-being as “chronic load” and discretion as a form of “localized” procedural justice, this study extends urban-centric theories and demands policy and practice consider place-sensitive opportunities for support and training. Recognizing and addressing the paradox of rural policing as experienced by rural officers in Australia is essential to sustaining healthy officers and trust with local communities.
Footnotes
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.