Social vulnerability: An emergency managersâ€™ planning tool

Journal of Emergency ManagementVol. 10, No. 3, May/June 2012

161

ABSTRACT

The frequency of natural disasters in the UnitedStates is increasing.1 Since 1953, there has been anaverage of 35 Federal Emergency Management Agencydeclared disasters per year.2 However, more concern-ing is that the number of declarations has more thandoubled over the last 5 years for an average of 73 peryear. Although it is true that natural disasters affecteveryone regardless of their respective health and/orwealth, it is also true that not everyone will experiencethe event in the same way. Those who can adapt tochanging situations are more likely to overcome adver-sity. This article explains social vulnerability as anemerging concept in natural hazard management anddemonstrates its utility as a tool for planning andpreparing for emergencies within the Houston-Galveston hurricane storm surge evacuation zones.Practitioners will gain insight into the characteristicsthat make individuals vulnerable while providing abasis for determining how to plan for their needs.

Key words: social vulnerability, evacuation, natu-ral disaster, hazard, hurricane storm surge, emergencymanagement, planning tool

INTRODUCTION

Natural disasters affect everyone regardless oftheir respective socioeconomic status in life. However,for emergency managers, it is important to delve fur-ther into understanding and adapting to the certaintythat not everyone will experience the event in thesame way.3 Indeed, it is recognized worldwide thatpeople’s vulnerability to risks depends largely on theassets (ie, physical, emotional, social, and financial)they have available at the time of occurrence4: thebelief being that demographic characteristics shape

people’s ability to absorb, cope with, and recover fromnatural hazards.*

In At Risk,5 the authors contend that human fac-tors are just as important a determinant of a disaster,as nature. They emphasized the significance forexamining predisaster socioeconomic characteristicsof a person or group and referred to it as “social vul-nerability.” There are many social factors that couldinfluence a person’s vulnerability to hazards includ-ing age, culture, disability, illiteracy, education, gender,household composition, income level, politics, poverty,religion, and race/ethnicity.6-8* Understanding thesocial factors that cause one individual, or group, tobecome vulnerable will give emergency managersinsight into the characteristics that make them dis-tinctive while providing a basis for determining howto best plan for, and respond to, their needs.Ultimately, by understanding an individual’s or group’ssusceptibility to hazards, emergency managers havethe potential to act in a way that will strengthen peo-ple’s abilities to react and adapt to situations in aresilient manner.

Three social characteristics that are particularlyinsightful and applicable to the vast majority of haz-ardous events are age (those 65 years and older),income (those living at or below poverty), and race/ethnicity.†

Social vulnerability: An emergency managers’ planning tool

Garrett Dolan, PhDDmitry Messen, PhD

JEM

DOI:10.5055/jem.2012.0095

*S. Van Zandt, Associate Professor and Fellow, Hazard Reduction &Recovery Center,Texas A&M University, phone interview,August 30, 2011.†Racial and ethnic groups refer to population groups identified by theirancestral origin on different continents. Black denotes African-Americanorigin background, White denotes European background, and Hispanicor Latino denotes Latin American background. Based on the scientificconsensus that race is a social construct, race and ethnicity are usedinterchangeably. This is consistent with the definition used by the RobertWoods Jones Foundation’s Commission to Build a Healthier America.

Age (elderly 65 years and older)Those who are 65 years and above represent a

significant segment of the population that is vulnera-ble to natural hazardous. Social scientists have discov-ered that the elderly population is vulnerable to haz-ards due to a variety of reasons such as health status,cognitive ability, and social support.9 Researchers10

report that limited physical mobility and difficultiessearching for information are key causes of vulnera-bility, whereas other researchers have uncovered evi-dence that decreased information processing andproblem-solving skills, declining memory capacity, andreasoning skills increase their susceptibility to risk.11

Family members or caretakers who look after the eld-erly may find it increasingly difficult to continue giv-ing support after a disaster because of competing timedemands to care for their own children.

During moments of high stress, like before and dur-ing a natural hazard, people require astute decision-making skills. Thus, any decrease in cognitive abilitiesleading to memory lapses and confusion are cause forconcern. They need to address the following fundamen-tal questions that can have life or death consequences:

� How is the hazard going to impact me?

� What should I do?

� Where should I go?

� How do I get there?

When a person’s mental capacities are compro-mised, pressure-filled situations often bring confusion,bewilderment, and paralysis. Thus, staying in a placethat is known and familiar like their home is rela-tively comforting. Bob and Clare James of BoyntonBeach, Florida are good examples. They had to beremoved by a Special Weapons and Tactics team fromtheir retirement community after Hurricane Wilma(2005). The elderly couple decided to stay at home dur-ing the storm “because they didn’t know where else togo and had no one to guide them.” Apparently, theywere not alone: “a 100-year-old neighbor was in bedwhen the roof of his condo collapsed on him.”12

Income (subgroup poverty)Income level is also an insightful indicator of social

vulnerability. Poor households are disproportionatelyimpacted by natural disasters because they are oftenlocated in precarious areas and housing constructed tosubpar standards.13 The United States governmentdefines the 2011 poverty level for a family of four at$22,350 per year or $430 per week.14 When a family is at,or below this level, the financial resources required forpreparation and response are very limited.15 Evidencedemonstrates that struggles related to housing, trans-portation, and employment are the most pervasive.12,16,17

An Associated Press report on Hurricane Katrina resi-dents in the three dozen of the hardest-hit neighbor-hoods in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama foundthat “nearly 25 percent of those living in the hardest-hitareas were below the poverty line, about double thenational average.”12,18 Complicating the matter is thefact that the poor are less likely to own a vehicle and asa result are less likely to be able to evacuate in a timelymanner.19 The Associate Press noted that 20 percent ofthe low income households had no car.

When a disaster occurs, the consequences are feltthe hardest by those with the least amount of financialresources. Consider the ripple effect caused by a localcompany closing because of flood damage. At least for ashort period of time, the company will not be generat-ing revenue or contributing to the tax base of the com-munity. For those employees who may be temporarilyor permanently out of work, they are losing not onlywages but also access to healthcare.16 A downward spi-ral of economic turmoil can be created whereby the outof work employee becomes increasingly dependent ongovernment welfare programs that are simultaneouslybeing underfunded because of lost tax revenue. In thissituation, it is conceivable that portions of the popula-tion will become dependent on social welfare programs.

Race/ethnicity (subgroup Hispanic)According to the 2010 Census, nearly 36 percent

of the United States population identifies themselvesas a member of a racial or ethnic group other thanWhite non-Hispanic.20 Race and ethnicity are impor-tant indicators of social vulnerability, because theycan reflect the challenges that exist with integrating


162

minority population into the larger community.21

Characteristics such as language and cultural prac-tices can create artificial barriers that impede oppor-tunities for cross-cultural dialog and engagement,prerequisites for building trust and respect.

“Effective emergency risk communication requiresthe appropriate selection of messages, messengers,and methods of delivery to disseminate information toaudiences from before an event to after it occurs.”22

Emergency managers need to be cognizant of theircommunity’s demographic trends so they can makeaccommodations to their communications plan andreach a wider audience.

In Texas, the state’s population has experiencedunprecedented growth especially in the Hispanicpopulation which accounts for two-thirds of allgrowth in the last decade. Hispanics now make up38 percent of the state’s 25.1 million people, up from32 percent a decade ago.23 Considering that “only23 percent of first-generation immigrants fromSpanish-speaking countries said they spoke Englishvery well”24 it is apparent that the inability to com-municate in the native language of the region canincrease your vulnerability. Such demographictrends bring forth the obvious need to consider send-ing multilingual messages and also highlight theimportance of considering how vulnerable popula-tion receive messages.

Dr. Walter Peacock has identified a variety ofresearch studies where the source of informationrelates to the validity of the message.25 Social net-works, the media, emergency personnel like firemen,and government authorities are perceived differently.For example, those who identify as Whites tend to seemedia and government authorities as the most credi-ble sources, whereas those who identify as Blacksfavored government authorities and social networks.By contrast, Mexican-Americans first turn to socialnetworks for their information such as extended fam-ily members or religious institutions.

Applying social vulnerabilityThe US Global Change Research Program26

states that the frequency and intensity of hurricanesand related storm surges could increase along the

upper Texas coast. Emergency managers are undermore and more pressure to safeguard the public. Aframework for thinking about the relationship of nat-ural hazards to humans needs to become common-place. Social vulnerability can address these concernsby illustrating the level of susceptibility for an indi-vidual or group to a risk. It is a concept based on thebelief that people/groups have different abilities tocope with hazards and as such, it is not enough toplan for a natural disaster based solely on the charac-teristics of the storm.27 Social vulnerability adds thedimension of sensitivity to the scenario by consider-ing the capacity or capability of a person to adapt.Social vulnerability is a more people-centric approachto hazard mitigation; therefore, any analysis beginsby asking the following questions:

� What social characteristics make peoplevulnerable to the approaching hazardbecause their ability to move to a saferlocation is compromised?

� Specifically, how do these characteristicsimpact their ability to understand warn-ings and take appropriate responses?

� Where are these people located?

STUDY AREA

Located within the State of Texas, the Houston-Galveston area is made up of 13 counties covering12,189 miles2 and has a total population of 6.08 mil-lion people.28 The region is predisposed to severe rain-storms and flooding with low-lying coastal areasbeing the most susceptible to damage. The NationalOceanic Atmospheric Administration’s NationalClimatic Data Center has reported that the TexasGulf Coast is a leading contributor to the “BILLIONDollar Disaster List.”29

In an effort to ensure a safe and expeditious evac-uation from future hurricanes, the Houston-GalvestonArea Council delineated four hurricane storm surgeevacuation zones30 (see Figure 1) on the basis of thezip code boundaries. To clearly communicate withcities, counties, and the public, the combined four


163

evacuation zones are collectively referred to as the“Coastal Region.” Evacuations in the Houston-Galveston region have always been determined bysurge zones, due to wind and water concerns, but thisconcept was taken further in 2007 when zip codeswere added. The available information on hurricanes,flooding, population data, and roadways was com-bined in a single map. The guiding principles behindthe zones’ development were based on managingthe flow of people and having an effective means forcommunicating who should evacuate. Thus, the cur-rent evacuation strategy is for officials to call for vol-untary evacuations in a phased manner with thoseclosest to the coast leaving first. The order of evacua-tions starts with the Coastal Zone, followed by zonesA, B, then C. Emergency announcements will then listthe zip codes that are asked to evacuate. The success

of a geographical proximity approach largely dependson residents in more inland zones waiting in theirhomes, whereas those closer to the coastline begin toevacuate. However, this approach did not take intoaccount vulnerable population.

The coastal region makes for an interesting sce-nario when considering the basic tenets of socialvulnerability. The natural31 conditions such as sea levelrise and an increase in severe storms, and socialprocesses such as population growth in urban coastalcenters and the building of supporting infrastructurelike roadways, are common phenomena driving changein most coastal communities throughout the country.

SOCIOECONOMIC DATA AND METHODS

The socioeconomic data relevant to vulnerabilityanalysis are summarized by four zones (Figure 1). For


164

Figure 1. The four H-GAC storm surge evacuation zones—“Coastal Region.”

the demographic data items in this report (all itemswith the exception of poverty and income) for both 2000and 2010, we used the census block-level data from theSF-1 tables. For 2000 poverty and income items, whichare only available in the SF-3 table for larger areas(census block groups), we assigned the block group-levelpoverty rate and per capita income to all the blocksinside each block group area. The per capita income in2000 SF-3 table, which is technically income received in1999, was converted to 2009 constant dollars using aConsumer Price Index32 deflator. After the 2000 decen-nial Census, the traditional “long form” that was thesource of sample-based poverty, income, and othersocioeconomic items for the SF-3 table was discontin-ued and the collection of the various socioeconomicitems became the domain of the American CommunitySurvey (ACS) program administered by the Census butfunctionally separate from the decennial Census. Thepoverty and income (reported in 2009 constant dollars)items are taken from the 2009 5-year block group-levelACS estimates; the ACS estimates are averagesconstructed from survey responses received over a 5-year period (2005-2009).

The stratified poverty rates were assigned to theblocks inside each block group (for 2000) and censustract (for 2010) area. The resulting estimates areblock-level three-way binary tabulations for age(under 65/65 years and above), Hispanic origin (ofHispanic origin/not of Hispanic origin), and povertystatus (income above poverty level/income belowpoverty level). The block-level estimates were thensummarized by the four evacuation zones.

OBSERVATIONS

A population analysis of the Houston-Galvestoncoastal region was conducted. US Census data from2000 and 2010 were compared to learn about the rel-ative growth and/or decline of three susceptible popu-lation segments to natural hazards: age/elderly,income/poverty, and race/ethnicity. Information wascompiled and analyzed in relation to the four evacua-tion zones. The results will enable managers tounderstand the current scenario and determine thetrends into the future.

The 2010 Census reports that there are 1.56 mil-lion people residing in the coastal region (Table 1).Between 2000 and 2010, the population of the coastalregion grew significantly (by 198,000 or 15 percent).Within the four zones, the greatest populationincrease has occurred in zone A which added 49,000,whereas the zone with the smallest rate of growth,actually a decrease, is the Zone Coastal which lost13,000 or 15 percent. It is beyond the purview of thisarticle to determine why there has been a migrationof people away from the coast; however, it is generallybelieved that the destruction caused by Hurricane Ike(2008) is the primary reason.

The three social vulnerability characteristics ofinterest indicate that there has been substantialchange in the zones. Those identified as elderly (65years of age and above) have increased in populationby 24 percent or 28,000 to a total of 144,000 people(Table 2). There has been a net increase of elderly inthree of the four zones and although they represent only9 percent of the total population, the level of assistance


165

Table 1. Total population in the coastal region (thousands)

Totalpopulation

2000 2010 2000-2010

Number ofpeople

Relativepercentage

Number ofpeople

Relativepercentage

Number ofpeople

Relativepercentage

Percentagechange

Zone A 179 13 228 15 49 25 28

Zone B 356 26 387 25 31 15 9

Zone C 740 54 871 56 132 66 18

Zone Coastal 90 7 77 5 –13 –7 –15

All zones 1,365 100 1,563 100 198 100 15

required to evacuate the elderly population can besubstantial.

The demographic changes in race/ethnicity havebeen significant. Total population of Hispanics hasincreased by 183,000 in the four zones bringing the totalto 663,000, which accounts for 42 percent of the popula-tion in the coastal region (Table 3). The most dramaticchange, percentage-wise, occurred in zone A where theHispanic population grew by 183,000 (an increase of20,000 people). Of the three social vulnerability factorsin the Coastal Zone, Hispanics are the only segment thathas actually posted a population increase (1,000 people).

Those living below the poverty level haveincreased by 61,000 people to 234,000 (Table 4). Thepoverty rate in the coastal region currently stands at15 percent (two percentage points increase from thetotal population in 2000). Three of the four zones showincreases in the number of residents in poverty,whereas the Coastal Zone has actually decreased by11 percent or 2,000 people; however, this decreasestems from the overall population decline in that zone.

Table 5 demonstrates that between 2000 and2010 the socially vulnerable population of the CoastalZone increased by 180,000 people. This increase of 26percent indicates an overall increased level of vulner-ability. The more socially vulnerable people living inan area the more resources it takes to communicatewith, and evacuate to safety.

Table 6 indicates that 56 percent of all those livingin the coastal region embody at least one of the threesocial vulnerability characteristics. This is a remark-able statistic and should alert local emergency man-agers that many logistical issues, above and beyondstandard procedures, will be necessary to address.Communicating, evacuating, and re-entering will bemore complex and difficult, requiring managers todevelop more sophisticated communication and logisti-cal plans.

DISCUSSION

Several significant aspects can be extracted fromthe data.


166

Table 2. Elderly population in the coastal region (thousands)

Elderlypopulation

(65+)

2000 2010 2000-2010

Number ofpeople

Relativepercentage

Number ofpeople

Relativepercentage

Number ofpeople

Relativepercentage

Percentagechange

Zone A 18 15 24 17 6 21 34

Zone B 30 26 40 28 10 37 35

Zone C 56 48 69 48 13 47 24

Zone Coastal 12 10 10 7 –2 –6 –13

All zones 116 100 144 100 28 100 24

Table 3. Hispanic population in the coastal region (thousands)

Hispanicpopulation

2000 2010 2000-2010

Number ofpeople

Relativepercentage

Number ofpeople

Relativepercentage

Number ofpeople

Relativepercentage

Percentagechange

Zone A 29 6 49 7 20 11 68

Zone B 72 15 105 16 31 17 44

Zone C 353 74 485 73 134 72 38

Zone Coastal 25 5 27 4 1 1 6

All zones 480 100 663 100 183 100 38

1. The coastal region is becoming morevulnerable to severe storms due to overallpopulation increases especially within thethree categories used to measure socialvulnerability.

� The overall population has increasedby 198,000 or 15 percent over the lastdecade.

� The relative percentage of socially vul-nerable people has also increased from51 percent in 2000 to 56 percent in2010.

� Population growth has occurred in allthree categories of socially vulnerablepeople. The elderly grew by 28,000people or 24 percent; those below the

poverty level have grown by 61,000 or36 percent; and the Hispanic popula-tion has increased by 183,000 people,or 39 percent.

2. The increase in number and geographicdistribution of socially vulnerable popula-tion make communication more complexand difficult. The unique vulnerabilitiesmust be considered and information dis-tributed in a user-friendly format. Anincreased distribution of socially vulnera-ble people requires more robust communi-cation programs.

� The total number of elderly has increasedsignificantly by 24 percent except forZone Coastal which has experienced anet decrease of 13 percent.


167

Table 4. Population below poverty level in the coastal region (thousands)

Populationbelow

poverty level

2000 2010 2000-2010

Number ofpeople

Relativepercentage

Number ofpeople

Relativepercentage

Number ofpeople

Relativepercentage

Percentagechange

Zone A 19 11 25 11 6 10 30

Zone B 33 19 43 19 10 17 32

Zone C 102 59 149 64 47 77 46

Zone Coastal 18 10 16 7 –2 –3 –11

All zones 173 100 234 100 61 100 36

Table 5. Vulnerable population in the coastal region (thousands)

Vulnerablepopulation

2000 2010 2000-2010

Number ofpeople

Relativepercentage

Number ofpeople

Relativepercentage

Number ofpeople

Relativepercentage

Percentagechange

Zone A 62 9 87 10 25 14 41

Zone B 125 18 164 19 39 22 31

Zone C 458 66 578 66 120 67 26

Zone Coastal 50 7 45 5 –5 –3 –10

All zones 694 100 874 100 180 100 26

� The Hispanic population has increaseddramatically by 186,000 with the high-est concentration found in zone C rep-resenting 483,000 people.

� The overall number of people belowthe poverty level has increased exceptfor Zone Coastal which lost 15 percentof the population.

3.The importance of evacuating residents ina strategic manner is increasing. Currentevacuation procedures are centered on thephased withdrawal of residents with thoseclosest to the coastline leaving first. Thisstrategy is highly dependent on the moreinland residents waiting for their instruc-tions. If a mass evacuation were to occur, theregion’s limited roadway capacity would beoverwhelmed and traffic jams such as thoseduring Hurricane Rita (2005) could occur.However, 2010 Census data indicate a grow-ing complication with a phased approach.Socially vulnerable population segmentsrequire more time to evacuate yet they areincreasingly locating in zone C, the last zoneto evacuate with arguably the shortest timeframe to accomplish it in.

� Two of the three socially vulnerablepopulation segments are increasingin numbers in zone C. Over the lastdecade, the elderly have increased their

presence by 13,000, whereas thosebelow the poverty level have increasedby 47,000 people.

� Overall, the three categories of sociallyvulnerable people increased by 26 per-cent in zone C.

CONCLUSIONS

The purpose of this article was to explain socialvulnerability as an emerging concept in natural haz-ard management and to demonstrate its value as atool for emergency personnel to plan and prepare fornatural disasters. An effective means to accomplishthis is to apply a social vulnerability framework topopulation trends. As population and infrastructureincrease in scope and scale, social conditions fluctuateand the relationship of humans to the built and natu-ral environment becomes more complex. Thus, socialvulnerability is a valuable construct, because it allowsemergency planners to focus their attention on thefactors that make people susceptible to harm, asopposed to the physical variables of the potential nat-ural hazard. It also enables the planners to see howvulnerability is socially expressed and as a result, itprovides a frame of reference for addressing solutions.

The Houston-Galveston hurricane storm surgeevacuation zones were used as a proxy to illustratethe way a fundamental demographic analysis couldyield insightful information. The three social vulner-ability characteristics examined (ie, age/elderly,income/poverty, and race/ethnicity) were chosenbecause they illustrate different sources of exposure,interesting historical trends and applicability to mosthazard scenarios. Given the total population increase,the population growth in all three vulnerable charac-teristics and the distribution of vulnerable people, thedata indicate that the evacuation zones are becomingmore vulnerable and less resilient to natural hazardsand disasters.

Emergency managers eager to expand their use ofa social vulnerability analysis should consider map-ping clusters of vulnerable population, perhaps usingcensus data, and then developing targeted interven-tion programs based on their unique factors.


168

Table 6. Vulnerable population in the coastalregion as a share in total population

Vulnerable population, percent

2000 2010

Zone A 35 38

Zone B 35 42

Zone C 62 66

Zone Coastal 55 59

All zones 51 56

ACKNOWLEDGMENTSWe thank Dr. Shannon Van Zandt of Texas A&M University

and Dr. Phil Bedient of Rice University’s SSPEED Center for theirencouragement and support.

Garrett Dolan, PhD, Civil & Environmental Engineering, Rice University,

Houston, Texas.

Dmitry Messen, PhD, Socioeconomic Modeling Program Manager,

Houston-Galveston Area Council.

REFERENCES1. Federal Emergency Management Agency: Annual major disasterdeclarations totals. Available at http://www.fema.gov/news/disaster_totals_annual.fema. Accessed March 13, 2012.2. Federal Emergency Management Agency: Declaration ProcessFact Sheet. Available at http://www.fema.gov/media/fact_sheets/declaration_process.shtm. Accessed March 13, 2012.3. Mileti DS: Natural Hazards, Planning and SustainableDevelopment, University of Colorado at Boulder, KeynotePresentation to the Eastern Regional Organisation for Planningand Housing. Available at http://www.earoph.info/pdf/2007papers/KN4.pdf. Accessed March 13, 2012.4. Aguilar L: How natural disasters affect women. InternationalUnion for Conservation of Nature. Available at http://www.iucn.org/news_homepage/events/isdr/?3373/How-natural-disasters-affect-women. Accessed March 13, 2012.5. Blaikle P, Cannon T, Davis I, et al.: At Risk: Natural Hazards,People’s Vulnerability and Disasters. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge,2004.6. O’Keefe P, Westgate K, Wisner B: Taking the naturalness out ofnatural disasters. Nature. 1976; 260: 556-557.7. Cutter SL, Boruff BJ, Shirley WL: Social vulnerability to envi-ronmental hazards. Social Sci Q. 2003; 84(2): 242-261.8. Schmidlin TW: Risk factors and social vulnerability. Paper pre-sented at the Proceedings of International Forum on TornadoDisaster Risk Reduction for Bangladesh, Dhaka, Bangladesh,Wind Engineering Research Center, Tokyo PolytechnicUniversity: 104-108. Available at http://www.iawe.org/WRDRR_Bangladesh/Preprints/S5Schmidlin.pdf. Accessed March 13,2012.9. Kim EJ, Geistfeld L: What makes older adults vulnerable toexploitation or abuse? The Forum for Family and Consumer Issues.2008; 13(1).10. Lyon P, Dave K, Anne C: Experience, change, and vulnerability:Consumer education for older people revisited. Int J ConsumerStud. 2002; 26(3): 178-187.11. Zwahr MD, Park DC: Judgment about estrogen replacementtherapy: The role of age, cognitive abilities, and beliefs. PsycholAging. 1999; 14(2): 179-192.12. Associate Press: Seniors vulnerable as hurricane season nears:Florida is deploying rapid response teams to retirement communi-ties. Available at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24732270/ns/weather/t/seniors-vulnerable-hurricane-season-nears/. AccessedMarch 13, 2012.13. Inter-American Development Bank: Social Protection for Equityand Growth. Washington, DC: IDP Publications, 2000.

14. US Department of Health and Human Services: 2011 HHSPoverty Guidelines. Available at http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/11poverty.shtml. Accessed March 13, 2012.15. Morrow BH: Identifying and mapping community vulnerability.Disasters. 1999; 23(1): 1-18.16. Brodie M, Weltzien E, Altman D, et al.: Experiences ofHurricane Katrina evacuees in Houston shelters: Implications forfuture planning. Am J Public Health. 2006; 96(9): 1402-1408.17. Tierney K: Social inequality: Humans and disasters. In DanielsRJ, Keitl DF, Kunreuther H (eds.): On Risk and Disaster: Lessonsfrom Hurricane Katrina. Philadelphia: University of PennsylvaniaPress, 2006.18. US Department of Health and Human Services, Agency forHealthcare Research and Quality: 2007 National HealthcareDisparities Report. Available at http://www.ahrq.gov/qual/nhdr07/nhdr07.pdf. Accessed March 13, 2012.19. Mongaboy.com: Poverty worsens hurricane impact. Available athttp://news.mongabay.com/2005/0905-new_orleans_income.html.Accessed March 13, 2012.20. US Census Bureau: American Fact Finder 2. Available athttp://factfinder2.census.gov. Accessed March 13, 2012.21. Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured: Howrace/ethnicity, immigration status and language affect health insur-ance coverage, access to care and quality of care among the low-incomepopulation. Washington, DC: Kaiser Family Foundation, 2003.22. Andrulis DP, Siddiqui NJ, Gantner JL: Preparing racially andethnically diverse communities for public health emergencies.Health Aff. 2007; 26(5): 1269-1279.23. McKinley J Jr: Population ‘Tipping Point’ in Texas, as HispanicsGet Closer to Parity With Whites, New York Times, February 2011.Available at http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/18/us/18texas.html.Accessed March 13, 2012.24. Preston J: Latino Immigrants’ Children Found GraspingEnglish. New York Times. November 2007. Available at http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/30/us/30immig.html. Accessed March 13, 2012.25. Peacock WG: Toward a resiliency and vulnerability observatorynetwork, Rice University—Texas A&M University ResearchWorkshop, Rice University, Civil & Environmental EngineeringDepartment, March 2011.26. US Global Change Research Program: Regional climateimpacts: Southeast. Cambridge University Press, November 2009:114. Available at http://downloads.globalchange.gov/usimpacts/pdfs/southeast.pdf. Accessed March 13, 2012.27. Mileti DS: Disasters by Design:A Reassessment of Natural Hazardsin the United States. Washington, DC: Joseph Henry Press, 1999.28. US Census Bureau: Available at http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/48000.html. Accessed March 13, 2012.29. US Department of Commerce, National Oceanic andAtmosphere Administration: Billion Dollar Weather Disasters1980-2010. Available at http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/reports/billion/billion2010.pdf. Accessed March 13, 2012.30. Houston-Galveston Area Council: Zip zone evacuation map.Available at http://www.h-gac.com/taq/hurricane/documents/Hurricane_zip_2011small.pdf. Accessed March 13, 2012.31.Anderson JB: The Formation and Future of the Upper Texas Coast:A Geologist Answers Questions about Sand, Storms and Living by theSea. College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 2007.32. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Consumer Price Index. Available athttp://www.bls.gov/cpi/home.htm#tables. Accessed March 13, 2012.


169

Documents

Social vulnerability: An emergency managersâ€™ planning tool