Progress 09/01/10 to 08/31/13
Outputs
Target Audience: The household survey data collection effort in Bertie County served as graduate student practicum experience for Xianjuan Li (MSPH), Joann Gruber (MSPH), and Shannon Grabich (MSPH). Survey support was also provided by Team Epi-Aid, an award-winning volunteer group at the UNC Gillings School of Global Public Health that provides students with the opportunity to gain applied public health experience by assisting with outbreak investigations and other public health emergencies, while at the same time providing North Carolina's local and state health departments with needed surge capacity. On June 13, 2013, we conducted a workshop on disaster readiness with one of the North Carolina Rural Center’s longest-running programs which provides financial assistance to minority Community Development Corporations (CDCs). Workshop particpants included CDC leadership and North Carolina county emergency managers. CDCs are are nonprofit, community-based organizations that catalyze neighborhood partnerships to address community needs for home ownership, small business development, self-reliance, youth and workforce development. Increasingly, North Carolina CDCs are also leading efforts to help communities recover from disasters that have destroyed the assets and opportunities CDCs have worked countless hours to create. The purpose of the training was to assist CDCs in gaining new knowledge and/or a deeper understanding of factors affecting community resilience. Additional details on the workshop can be found in the Accomplishment section. Changes/Problems:
Nothing Reported
What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided? We identified a training opportunity that was described in the previous section as a disconnect between how emergency managers reach out to vulnerable populations in the planning process and how mitigation plans address the needs of the vulnerable. This disconnect could be addressed with training and technical assistance geared towards improving the understanding of rural emergency managers, planners, and other public officials about social vulnerability and increasing their commitment to reducing social vulnerability in the communities where they work, particularly in light of the changing demographics of the U.S. (e.g., the growth of ethnic and racial minorities and the aging of the population). On June 13, 2013, we conducted a workshop on disaster readiness with one of the North Carolina Rural Center’s longest-running programs which provides financial assistance to minority Community Development Corporations (CDCs). Workshop particpants included CDC leadership and North Carolina county emergency managers. CDCs are are nonprofit, community-based organizations that catalyze neighborhood partnerships to address community needs for home ownership, small business development, self-reliance, youth and workforce development. Increasingly, North Carolina CDCs are also leading efforts to help communities recover from disasters that have destroyed the assets and opportunities CDCs have worked countless hours to create. The purpose of the training was to assist CDCs in gaining new knowledge and/or a deeper understanding of factors affecting community resilience. Topics discussed included: History and current risk of disasters in NC communities Definition of social vulnerability and consequences Federal disaster declaration process The role of federal, state and local governments in disasters Roles and challenges facing CDCs in disasters Resources available for disaster mitigation, preparedness, relief and recovery There were fifteen surveys collected at the conclusion of the NC Rural Center Workshop. The majority of the respondents were satisfied with the workshop. They believed that the workshop enhanced their knowledge of the subject matter and that their time was well spent. Most believed that the workshop helped them understand disaster risk, vulnerability and social vulnerability and its consequences in North Carolina. Almost half of respondents intend to use learning objectives discussed in the workshop monthly in their jobs. The most anticipated barriers in implementing the objectives learned in the workshop were lack of time to implement while six respondents believed this was not directly related to their job duties. These fifteen respondents came from eleven North Carolina counties. They held positions such as CEO, Executive Director, Volunteer Coordinator, Housing Counselor, Program Director, Program In-take Specialist, NC STEP Coach, and Hazard Mitigation Specialist. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest? Results of our reserach were disseminated to communites in three different ways. The workshop described above, an online blog cited in the products section and the report provided to Bertie County following the household survey. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?
Nothing Reported
Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals?
Our research has shown that hazard mitigation plans in rural counties are of lower overall quality than plans developed by urban jurisdictions (Horney et al 2012). Hazard mitigation plans in 96 rural counties across the Southeastern U.S. were content analyzed and compared with plans from urban areas in the same state. Rural plans were especially weak in certain key principles of plan quality, including the goals, fact base, policy, and participation principles. Lower scores in rural areas may be attributable to the fact that urban areas typically have a greater existing capacity to plan overall, such as more full-time equivalent staff or more certified planners that can be leveraged into hazard mitigation. Urban areas may be able to invest more in both staff and technology used in assembling elements of the fact base, such as hazard maps developed by geographic information systems (GIS). Urban areas may also provide more opportunities for public participation, such as holding more public meetings that provide a better understanding of the local situation based in more informal knowledge or having more extensive information available on-line. Further research is needed to better understand the explanations for differences in plan quality, as well as the impacts these differences may have on the experience of a community during and after a disaster. In addition to having lower quality hazard mitigation plans, there are also gaps in rural emergency managers’ knowledge and awareness of vulnerable populations in their jurisdictions.Project staff surveyed emergency managers and planners responsible for preparing and implementing hazard mitigation plans in the eight states that are part of Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Region IV (Alabama, Georgia, Florida, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee). Responding emergency managers were often not aware of vulnerable groups living in their jurisdictions, such as racial and ethnic minorities and those without at least a high school education (Horney et al In Press). These differences could result in increased vulnerabilities in rural areas, particularly for certain groups. This study also documented the limited efforts typically made in rural areas to include vulnerable populations in the planning process. Only 10% of emergency managers surveyed reported that the hazard mitigation planning process included outreach to vulnerable populations, although 40% felt that their hazard mitigation plan enhanced the understanding of the needs of vulnerable populations, and 69% felt that their hazard mitigation plan addresses the needs of vulnerable populations “well” or “very well” (Horney et al, In Press). We believe that it is unlikely that the needs of socially vulnerable groups can be effectively addressed by emergency managers without outreach to and participation by these groups in the planning process. This disconnect needs to be addressed with training and technical assistance geared towards improving the understanding of rural emergency managers, planners, and other public officials about social vulnerability and increasing their commitment to reducing social vulnerability in the communities where they work, particularly in light of the changing demographics of the U.S. (e.g., the growth of ethnic and racial minorities and the aging of the population). Finally, our research also included household interviews with a sample of residents of one highly vulnerable rural North Carolina county to determine if physical vulnerability, social vulnerability, or hazard exposure were associated with either participation in hazard mitigation plan development or knowledge of policy changes and investments that were adopted as part of the county’s plan. The unemployed were the only group significantly less likely to have participated in the planning process. However, African-Americans, mobile home residents, those living in poverty, short-term residents, and those with less disaster experience were significantly less likely to be aware of policies and investments made as part of hazard mitigation (Horney et al Under Review). Targeted efforts to increase participation and to raise awareness could increase buy-in and potentially improve disaster outcomes, based on the previously published research linking participation to plan quality.
Publications
- Type:
Journal Articles
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2012
Citation:
Horney JA, Naimi A, Lyles W, Simon M, Salvesen D, Berke P. (2012) Assessing the relationship between hazard mitigation plan quality and rural status in a cohort of 59 counties from 3 states in the Southern United States. Challenges 3(2):183-193.
- Type:
Journal Articles
Status:
Awaiting Publication
Year Published:
2013
Citation:
Horney JA, Nguyen M, Cooper J, Simon M, Ricchetti-Masterson K, Salvesen D, Berke P. Accounting for vulnerable populations in rural hazard mitigation plans: Results of a survey of emergency managers. In Press at Journal of Emergency Management 11(3):205-211.
- Type:
Journal Articles
Status:
Under Review
Year Published:
2013
Citation:
Horney JA, Simon M, Grabich S, Berke P. Measuring Participation by Socially Vulnerable Groups in Hazard Mitigation Planning, Bertie County, North Carolina. Under review at Journal of Environmental Planning and Management (23 pages; submitted 3/18/13; revised and resubmitted 7/29/13)
- Type:
Journal Articles
Status:
Other
Year Published:
2013
Citation:
Horney JA, Naimi A, Grabich S, Cooper J, Berke P. Assessing the quality of rural hazard mitigation plans in the Southeastern U.S. To be submitted for review before August 31, 2013.
- Type:
Conference Papers and Presentations
Status:
Accepted
Year Published:
2012
Citation:
Horney JA, Sutton J, Pearce L. Plans and Practices: Promoting Rural Community Resiliency. Natural Hazards Center Annual Workshop July 2012
- Type:
Conference Papers and Presentations
Status:
Accepted
Year Published:
2012
Citation:
Grabich S, Horney J. Evaluation of the usefulness of Social Vulnerability Indices in rural U.S. counties. Society for Epidemiologic Research June 2012.
- Type:
Websites
Status:
Accepted
Year Published:
2012
Citation:
Horney, J. Tracking the Benefits of Resident Participation in Hazard Planning. APA Recovery News. Web. 30 May 2012.
http://blogs.planning.org/postdisaster/2012/05/30/tracking-the-benefits-of-resident-participation-in-hazard-planning/
- Type:
Other
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2012
Citation:
Hazard Mitigation Plan Awareness Assessment: A Report prepared for Bertie County, North Carolina.
|
Progress 09/01/11 to 08/31/12
Outputs
OUTPUTS: We collected Hazard Mitigation Plans (HMPs) from 84 of the 96 counties in our 8 state, stratified sample. Plans were content analyzed to calculate a score for six principles of plan quality: Direction Setting Principles (goals, fact base and policies), Action Oriented Principles (monitoring, inter-organizational coordination and participation). Content analysis included 554 items. Analysis also included 2000 US Census data, Community Rating Scores (CRS), and presence of Community Emergency Response Teams (CERT). In each of the 6 principles, the mean scores for 84 rural counties were significantly lower than the maximum total score possible in each principle. The plans were strongest in the Fact Base, Goals, and Participation principles. For the 3 Direction Setting Principles, the percent of the county population that was minority and the absence of a CERT were associated with lower scores. For the 3 Action Oriented Principles, low education, high social vulnerability, the percent of residences that were mobile homes, and the percent of households with disabled persons were associated with lower scores. We selected 10 counties for key informant interviews with emergency managers and others familiar with the HMP process. Counties with high and low quality plans (top and bottom 25th and 75th percentile) and high social vulnerability (75th percentile) were selected. Twenty-one interviews are currently being transcribed. To assess community members knowledge of the HMP process, a household survey was conducted in Bertie County, NC. Since October, 2010, Bertie County has been affected by three major disasters, including flooding associated with Tropical Storm Nicole (Oct 2010), tornados that caused a dozen deaths in the county (April 2011), and Hurricane Irene (Aug 2011). Thirty census blocks in Bertie County were selected probability proportionate to population, and 7 interview locations were chosen in each block using a GIS-based survey site selection toolkit. Data were collected between March 1, 2012, and April 21, 2012, using GPS-equipped field data collectors via in-person interviews with one adult member of each selected household. Of those eligible to participate, 80.7% (209 / 259) responded to the survey. There were significant positive associations between resident participation in the hazard mitigation planning process and knowledge of specific policies and investments being made by Bertie County as part of the process, including: Updating flood plain maps Risk Difference (RD)=0.31 (95%CI: 0.14, 0.49), Government purchase of property located in the flood plain RD=0.28 (95%CI: 0.10, 0.45), Improvements to transportation infrastructure to improve evacuation RD=0.31 (95%CI: 0.13, 0.48), Protection of environmentally sensitive areas from development RD=0.33 (95%CI: 0.15, 0.51), Raising the minimum finished floor elevations of homes to two feet above base flood level RD=0.31 (95%CI: 0.14, 0.49), New regulations on residential subdivisions RD=0.20 (95%CI: 0.04, 0.37), Changes to zoning RD=0.32 (95%CI: 0.15, 0.49). A manuscript summarizing these findings has been drafted. PARTICIPANTS: Jennifer Horney is the principal investigator. She was responsible for convening regular project team meetings and supervising the project manager. She leads the overall research direction of the project. Philip Berke is a co-investigator. He led the hazard mitigation plan coding component of the project, and supervised graduate students who worked on plan coding. David Salvesen is a co-investigator. He led the development and implementation of the online survey component of the research project. Mai Nguyen is an assistant professor in City and Regional Planning at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She assisted with the development of the online survey questions. Matt Simon is the project manager. He scheduled and ran regular project meetings, supervised graduate students, assisted with sampling, mapping, and collection of hazard mitigation plans from selected counties and the implementation of Dillman methodology to improve response rate for the online survey (weekly email and phone reminders). Tania Jordanova and Brennan Bouma worked as graduate research assistants on hazard mitigation plan coding. Augustus Anderson worked as a graduate research assistant collecting secondary data (U.S. Census, CERT, PERI, etc.) for the 96 rural counties in the study sample. Kristen Ricchetti-Masterson worked as a graduate student research assistant who implemented the Dillman methodology to improve response rate for the online survey and conducted data analysis for the online survey. Shannon Grabich worked as a graduate student research assistant on data analysis on associating hazard mitigation plans with individual actions. As part of the data collection effort in Bertie County, the project team collaborated with Ashley Stoop, Preparedness Coordinator and Safety Officer for the Albermarle Regional Health District. TARGET AUDIENCES: The household survey data collection effort in Bertie County served as graduate student practicum experience for Xianjuan Li (MSPH), Joann Gruber (MSPH), and Shannon Grabich (MSPH). Survey support was also provided by Team Epi-Aid, an award-winning volunteer group at the UNC Gillings School of Global Public Health that provides students with the opportunity to gain applied public health experience by assisting with outbreak investigations and other public health emergencies, while at the same time providing North Carolinas local and state health departments with needed surge capacity. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: Not relevant to this project.
Impacts
A manuscript has been drafted to describe the results of an online survey that was developed using Qualtrics and distributed to the lead public official in each of the 96 counties. The survey consisted of 31 questions related to the countys HMP process. Vulnerabilities identified by respondents included: poverty rate (48.0%), unemployment rate (41.3%), individuals 65 years or older (61.3%), limited English proficiency (22.7%) and percentage of mobile homes (84%). Interestingly, 40% felt neither minority status nor language increased vulnerability. The proportion of respondents who identified some groups as particularly vulnerable exceeded the population in each of these groups for our sample. For example, 84% of respondents felt those living in mobile homes were vulnerable but only 28% of people in our sample lived in mobile homes. The same trend held for other vulnerable groups: individuals over age 65 (61% v. 14%), those living in poverty (48% v. 20%), families with a single head-of-household (32% v. 10%). However, other groups were not acknowledged as frequently as they occur: those without a high school diploma (25% v. 34%), racial and ethnic minorities (16% v. 28%), and children under age 18 (17% v. 25%). Only 34% of respondents "often" or "sometimes" include groups representing vulnerable populations in their hazard mitigation planning process. Only 9.3% of the counties surveyed reported using outreach to reach vulnerable populations. However, 68.7% felt that their hazard mitigation plan addressed the needs of vulnerable populations "well" or "very well". Our results suggest that there are important differences in hazard mitigation plan quality between urban and rural counties. These differences could help explain variation of disaster preparedness, response and recovery. Findings could help improve disaster planning, response and recovery in highly vulnerable rural areas. These findings have several policy implications. Simply giving counties funding to have a hazard mitigation plan is not enough - the plan needs to be high quality. Rural counties (compared with urban) have relative strengths, including inter-organizational cooperation and implementation and monitoring. Finally, rural counties need technical assistance to strengthen goals, hazard identification, and participation in the planning process. These findings also point to numerous future research needs. One such need is to compare disaster recovery in rural and urban counties and quantify differences (time, money, outcomes). There is also a need for disaster specific studies (drought, heat waves, etc.), particularly in lieu of potential impacts due to global climate changes. Results have been presented at the USDA PI Meeting (Understanding Rural Vulnerability to Natural Hazards: Mitigation Plan, the Planning Process and Outcomes, Sept 2012), the Natural Hazards Center Annual Workshop (Plans and Practices: Promoting Rural Community Resiliency, July 2012) and the Society for Epidemiologic Research (Evaluation of the usefulness of Social Vulnerability Indices in rural U.S. Counties, June 2012).
Publications
- Horney J.A., Naimi A., Lyles W., Simon M., Salvesen D., Berke P. (2012) Assessing the relationship between hazard mitigation plan quality and rural status in a cohort of 59 counties from 3 states in the Southern United States, Challenges 3(2): 183-193.
- Horney J.A., Nguyen M., Cooper J., Simon M., Ricchetti-Masterson K., Salvesen D., Berke P. (2012). Accounting for vulnerable populations in rural hazard mitigation plans: Results of a survey of emergency managers. Journal of Emergency Management (20 pages, under review, submitted 8/27/2012).
- Horney J.A., Simon M., Grabich S., Berke P. (2013). Assessing Individual Knowledge of Hazard Mitigation Plans, Bertie County, North Carolina. Drafted manuscript for 2013 submission, Target journal: International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters.
|
Progress 09/01/10 to 08/31/11
Outputs
OUTPUTS: A stratified random sample of 12 rural counties (USDA RUC codes 6-9) from each of the eight states in FEMA's Region IV was selected for a total of 96 counties (referred to as the "sample"). Data on community characteristics was then compiled for our sample which included the following: 2000 and 2010 U.S. Census variables, American Community Survey data from 2005-2009, whether communities participate in the Community Rating System (and its CRS score), the presence of a CERT (Community Emergency Response Team), history of local disaster experience from the Public Entity Risk Institute (PERI) database determining if and when counties experienced a presidentially declared disaster or emergency from 2004-2009, the Social Vulnerability Index (SOVI2000), and 15 Census variables derived from Flanagan et al (2011) describing social vulnerability (e.g., percent individuals below poverty, percent unemployed, per capita income, etc.). To estimate physical vulnerability specifically to flood hazards, Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps (DFIRM) were compiled for the all of FEMA Region IV. As of 7/18/11 there were 78 counties in our sample with DFIRMs. A database of federally approved Hazard Mitigation Plans (HMP) adopted from 1/1/04 until 12/31/09 was compiled for 84 of the 96 counties. Eight counties in Tennessee did not have a HMP during our time frame, and we were unable to obtain one HMP in MS and three in TN. An evaluation protocol was designed to assess the extent to which each of the six plan quality principles (goals, fact base and hazard identification, policies or actions, implementation, inter-organizational coordination and participation) relate to the plan content. Two graduate students used this protocol to score 84 county plans, double-coding 11 of plans. We are currently working using a previously validated protocol to compute an inter-coder reliability score. An online survey was developed, pilot tested and administered to the lead public official responsible for administering the hazard mitigation plan (typically emergency managers) in each of the 96 counties using Qualtrics survey software. A total of 76 responses were received from 05/03 - 08/03 for a response rate of 79%. Respondents identified older people, people living in poverty, and people living in mobile homes as their county's most vulnerable residents. Few respondents reported that the percentage of children, non-whites, and unemployed persons increased their vulnerability to natural hazards. In developing their hazards plans, rarely or never did affordable housing groups or groups representing vulnerable populations participate, and only 13% of respondents reported targeted outreach to vulnerable populations. However, 66% of respondents reported that their county's plan addressed the needs of vulnerable populations well or very well. Additional results are currently being analyzed. The PI (Horney) attended the annual Natural Hazards Center conference at the University of Colorado. There she was able to network with several PIs from other universities working on funded projects related to rural resiliency. PARTICIPANTS: Jennifer Horney is the principal investigator. She was responsible for convening regular project team meetings and supervising the project manager. She leads the overall research direction of the project. Philip Berke is a co-investigator. He led the hazard mitigation plan coding component of the project, and supervised graduate students who worked on plan coding. David Salvesen is a co-investigator. He led the development and implementation of the online survey component of the research project. Mai Nguyen is an assistant professor in City and Regional Planning at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She assisted with the development of the online survey questions. Matt Simon is the project manager. He scheduled and ran regular project meetings, supervised graduate students, assisted with sampling, mapping, and collection of hazard mitigation plans from selected counties and the implementation of Dillman methodology to improve response rate for the online survey (weekly email and phone reminders). Tania Jordanova and Brennan Bouma worked as graduate research assistants on hazard mitigation plan coding. Augustus Anderson worked as a graduate research assistant collecting secondary data (U.S. Census, CERT, PERI, etc.) for the 96 rural counties in the study sample. No personnel have been added to the project since initiation. TARGET AUDIENCES: Nothing significant to report during this reporting period. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: Not relevant to this project.
Impacts
A manuscript with results from the proposed case-control study is currently being written (see publications). A stratified random sample of 36 rural counties with USDA continuum codes 6 through 9 were selected from 3 states in the Southeastern US (Florida, Georgia, North Carolina). Twenty-three non-rural counties from the same states were used as a control group. Data on the six principles was extracted from the hazard mitigation plan for the selected counties. A coding instrument was utilized with items selected to assess how well each of the six plan quality principles was accounted for in the thirty-six rural county's hazard mitigation plans and 23 urban county plans. Unadjusted differences between rural and urban counties were not always in the same direction. Though the plans from urban counties had a higher number of items in Goals, Hazard Identification, Participation, and Proposed Actions, there were fewer items in Implementation and Inter-organizational coordination. The average number of goals outlined in urban hazard mitigation plans was 1.20 (95% CI: 1.10, 1.32) times those in rural plans. Urban counties had 1.22 (95% CI: 1.14, 1.30) times the number of hazards identified than their rural counterparts. The average number of institutions participating in the planning process in urban counties was 1.10 (95%: 1.03, 1.19) times the average in rural counties. Alternatively, the average number of implementation items in urban plans was 0.68 times that in rural counties (95% CI: 0.45, 1.03), as was the number of items on inter-organizational coordination (mean ratio: 0.70; 95% CI: 0.64, 0.75). Furthermore, we noted marked heterogeneity across states in the differences for hazard identification, implementation, and proposed actions. Higher scores on hazard identification, goals and participation in urban areas could be attributed to the fact that urban areas have a broader array of stakeholder groups and thus are more likely to have a more diverse set of goals. Urban areas may also do more to support investment in stakeholder participation and in assembling elements of the fact base such as hazard maps. Urban areas may also have a greater existing capacity to plan that can be leveraged into hazard mitigation. Stronger participation score for urban areas probably drives the more diverse set of goals that address values of multiple stakeholders. The stronger implementation scores of rural communities may mean that weaker plans are more likely to be more effectively implemented. This is not good. It could be that implementation in urban areas is more complex and requires are broader set of local government and no-government actors to coordinate for implementation.
Publications
- Horney JA, Naimi AI, Lyles LW, Simon M, Salvesen D, Berke P. Assessing the relationship between hazard mitigation plan quality and rural status in a cohort of 59 counties from 3 states in the Southern United States. Drafted manuscript for 2012 submission, Target journal: Special issue of the Journal of Technological Forecasting and Social Change on Planning and Foresight Methodologies in Emergency Preparedness and Management
|
|