More Like this

1. Examining the Optimal Placement of Cooling Centers to Serve Populations at High Risk of Extreme Heat Exposure in 81 US Cities

   https://doi.org/10.1177/00333549221148174  

   Adams, Quinn H.; Chan, Elana M.G.; Spangler, Keith R.; Weinberger, Kate R.; Lane, Kevin J.; Errett, Nicole A.; Hess, Jeremy J.; Sun, Yuantong; Wellenius, Gregory A.; Nori-Sarma, Amruta (November 2023, Public Health Reports)

   Objective:Although extreme heat can impact the health of anyone, certain groups are disproportionately affected. In urban settings, cooling centers are intended to reduce heat exposure by providing air-conditioned spaces to the public. We examined the characteristics of populations living near cooling centers and how well they serve areas with high social vulnerability. Methods:We identified 1402 cooling centers in 81 US cities from publicly available sources and analyzed markers of urban heat and social vulnerability in relation to their locations. Within each city, we developed cooling center access areas, defined as the geographic area within a 0.5-mile walk from a center, and compared sociodemographic characteristics of populations living within versus outside the access areas. We analyzed results by city and geographic region to evaluate climate-relevant regional differences. Results:Access to cooling centers differed among cities, ranging from 0.01% (Atlanta, Georgia) to 63.2% (Washington, DC) of the population living within an access area. On average, cooling centers were in areas that had higher levels of social vulnerability, as measured by the number of people living in urban heat islands, annual household income below poverty, racial and ethnic minority status, low educational attainment, and high unemployment rate. However, access areas were less inclusive of adult populations aged ≥65 years than among populations aged <65 years. Conclusion:Given the large percentage of individuals without access to cooling centers and the anticipated increase in frequency and severity of extreme heat events, the current distribution of centers in the urban areas that we examined may be insufficient to protect individuals from the adverse health effects of extreme heat, particularly in the absence of additional measures to reduce risk. 

   more » « less
2. Adaptive capacity beyond the household: a systematic review of empirical social-ecological research

   https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac68fb  

   Vallury, Sechindra; Smith, Ada P.; Chaffin, Brian C.; Nesbitt, Holly K.; Lohani, Sapana; Gulab, Sabrina; Banerjee, Simanti; Floyd, Theresa M.; Metcalf, Alexander L.; Metcalf, Elizabeth C.; et al (May 2022, Environmental Research Letters)

   Abstract The concept of adaptive capacity has received significant attention within social-ecological and environmental change research. Within both the resilience and vulnerability literatures specifically, adaptive capacity has emerged as a fundamental concept for assessing the ability of social-ecological systems to adapt to environmental change. Although methods and indicators used to evaluate adaptive capacity are broad, the focus of existing scholarship has predominately been at the individual- and household- levels. However, the capacities necessary for humans to adapt to global environmental change are often a function of individual and societal characteristics, as well as cumulative and emergent capacities across communities and jurisdictions. In this paper, we apply a systematic literature review and co-citation analysis to investigate empirical research on adaptive capacity that focus on societal levels beyond the household. Our review demonstrates that assessments of adaptive capacity at higher societal levels are increasing in frequency, yet vary widely in approach, framing, and results; analyses focus on adaptive capacity at many different levels (e.g. community, municipality, global region), geographic locations, and cover multiple types of disturbances and their impacts across sectors. We also found that there are considerable challenges with regard to the ‘fit’ between data collected and analytical methods used in adequately capturing the cross-scale and cross-level determinants of adaptive capacity. Current approaches to assessing adaptive capacity at societal levels beyond the household tend to simply aggregate individual- or household-level data, which we argue oversimplifies and ignores the inherent interactions within and across societal levels of decision-making that shape the capacity of humans to adapt to environmental change across multiple scales. In order for future adaptive capacity research to be more practice-oriented and effectively guide policy, there is a need to develop indicators and assessments that are matched with the levels of potential policy applications. 

   more » « less
3. How Valid Are Social Vulnerability Models?

   Rufat, S.; Tate, E.; Emrich, C.; and Antolini, F. (March 2019, Annals of the American Association of Geographers)

   Social vulnerability models are becoming increasingly important for hazard mitigation and recovery planning,but it remains unclear how well they explain disaster outcomes. Most studies using indicators and indexes employ them to either describe vulnerability patterns or compare newly devised measures to existing ones. The focus of this article is construct validation, in which we investigate the empirical validity of a range of models of social vulnerability using outcomes from Hurricane Sandy. Using spatial regression, relative measures of assistance applicants, affected renters, housing damage, and property loss were regressed on four social vulnerability models and their constituent pillars while controlling for flood exposure. The indexes best explained housing assistance applicants, whereas they poorly explained property loss. At the pillar level,themes related to access and functional needs, age, transportation, and housing were the most explanatory.Overall, social vulnerability models with weighted and profile configurations demonstrated higher construct validity than the prevailing social vulnerability indexes. The findings highlight the need to expand the number and breadth of empirical validation studies to better understand relationships among social vulnerability models and disaster outcomes. 

   more » « less
4. The persistence of household energy insecurity during the COVID-19 pandemic

   https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac90d7  

   Konisky, David M.; Carley, Sanya; Graff, Michelle; Memmott, Trevor (September 2022, Environmental Research Letters)

   Abstract This study analyzes household energy insecurity in the United States during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. Previous research is limited by mostly cross-sectional research designs that do not allow scholars to study the persistency of this specific type of material hardship. We fill this gap by analyzing data from an original, nationally-representative, panel survey of low-income households. We find high levels of energy insecurity during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, especially during the initial months when the economic dislocation was at its height, and that many low-income households experienced it on multiple occasions during this period. We also identify disparities: households with people of color, very low-income, children aged five years and younger, with someone who relies on an electronic medical device, and those living in deficient housing conditions were more likely to experience energy insecurity. Households with these characteristics were also more likely to suffer from energy insecurity on a persistent basis through the first year of the pandemic. 

   more » « less
5. Barriers to Preparing for Disasters: Age Differences and Caregiving Responsibilities

   https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102338  

   Cong, Z.; Chen, Z.; Liang, D. (July 2021, International journal of disaster risk reduction)

   null (Ed.)

   This study examined age differences in barriers to preparing for disasters and how caregiving responsibilities are associated with these barriers among different age groups. Using a sample of 1142 individuals from the 2017 Federal Emergency Management Agency National Household Survey, binary and multinomial logistic regressions were conducted to investigate the likelihood of encountering any or one of the two types of barriers, namely, barriers related to coping appraisal (i.e., capacity) and those related to threat appraisal (i.e., risk perception). Age was the key predictor and was categorized into five groups: 18–34, 35–49, 50–64, 65–74, and 75+. The results showed that the 18–34, 35–49, and 75+ age groups were more likely to have coping appraisal barriers than those aged between 65 and 74. In addition, being a caregiver increased the likelihood of having coping appraisal barriers. Interestingly, relative to the 65–74 age group, being a caregiver in the 18–34, 35–49, and 50–64 age groups would be more likely to have coping appraisal barriers. Our findings highlighted age patterns and heterogeneity among older adults. This study also directed attention to how disaster preparation behaviors were shaped by life course experiences. 

   more » « less