衡量洪水恢复资金中的社会公平

IF 1.7 3区 社会学 Q3 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES Environmental Hazards-Human and Policy Dimensions Pub Date : 2020-05-26 DOI:10.1080/17477891.2019.1675578
C. Emrich, Eric Tate, Sarah E. Larson, Yao Zhou
{"title":"衡量洪水恢复资金中的社会公平","authors":"C. Emrich, Eric Tate, Sarah E. Larson, Yao Zhou","doi":"10.1080/17477891.2019.1675578","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Deconstructing causal linkages between place attributes and disaster outcomes at coarse scales like zip codes and counties is difficult because heterogeneous socio-economic characteristics operating at finer scales are masked. However, capturing detailed disaster outcomes about individuals and households for large areas can be equally complicated. This dichotomy highlights the need for a more nuanced and empirically-driven approach to understanding financial disaster recovery support. This study assessed how social characteristics influenced federal disaster recovery support following the 2015 South Carolina floods. Ordinary linear and spatial regression models provided a mechanism for pinpointing statistically significant links between individual/compound vulnerabilities and resource distribution from four federal disaster response and recovery programmes. The study makes two unique contributions. First, exploration of how social characteristics influence recovery support is a critical, yet understudied path toward fair and equitable disaster recovery. Second, finer scale inquiry across a large impact area is rare in quantitative case studies of US disasters. While we found flood recovery assistance to be strongly associated with physical damage overall the relationship was more tenuous in places with higher social vulnerability. Results indicate that future disaster recovery programs focusing on both physical damage and social vulnerable would lead to a more equitable disaster recoveries. Findings provide new understanding of equity at the intersection of social vulnerability, impacts, and disaster recovery and showcase both best-practices and areas for programme improvements for future disasters.","PeriodicalId":47335,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Hazards-Human and Policy Dimensions","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2020-05-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"73","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Measuring social equity in flood recovery funding\",\"authors\":\"C. Emrich, Eric Tate, Sarah E. Larson, Yao Zhou\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/17477891.2019.1675578\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT Deconstructing causal linkages between place attributes and disaster outcomes at coarse scales like zip codes and counties is difficult because heterogeneous socio-economic characteristics operating at finer scales are masked. However, capturing detailed disaster outcomes about individuals and households for large areas can be equally complicated. This dichotomy highlights the need for a more nuanced and empirically-driven approach to understanding financial disaster recovery support. This study assessed how social characteristics influenced federal disaster recovery support following the 2015 South Carolina floods. Ordinary linear and spatial regression models provided a mechanism for pinpointing statistically significant links between individual/compound vulnerabilities and resource distribution from four federal disaster response and recovery programmes. The study makes two unique contributions. First, exploration of how social characteristics influence recovery support is a critical, yet understudied path toward fair and equitable disaster recovery. Second, finer scale inquiry across a large impact area is rare in quantitative case studies of US disasters. While we found flood recovery assistance to be strongly associated with physical damage overall the relationship was more tenuous in places with higher social vulnerability. Results indicate that future disaster recovery programs focusing on both physical damage and social vulnerable would lead to a more equitable disaster recoveries. Findings provide new understanding of equity at the intersection of social vulnerability, impacts, and disaster recovery and showcase both best-practices and areas for programme improvements for future disasters.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47335,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Environmental Hazards-Human and Policy Dimensions\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-05-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"73\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Environmental Hazards-Human and Policy Dimensions\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/17477891.2019.1675578\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental Hazards-Human and Policy Dimensions","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17477891.2019.1675578","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 73

摘要

在像邮政编码和县这样的粗糙尺度上解构地方属性和灾难结果之间的因果关系是困难的,因为在更精细的尺度上运行的异质社会经济特征被掩盖了。然而,在大范围内获取个人和家庭的详细灾难结果也同样复杂。这种二分法强调需要一种更细致和经验驱动的方法来理解金融灾难恢复支持。本研究评估了2015年南卡罗来纳州洪水后社会特征如何影响联邦灾难恢复支持。普通线性和空间回归模型提供了一种机制,可以精确指出个人/复合脆弱性与四个联邦救灾和恢复方案的资源分配之间在统计上的重要联系。这项研究有两个独特的贡献。首先,探索社会特征如何影响恢复支持是实现公平和公平的灾难恢复的关键,但尚未得到充分研究。其次,在美国灾害的定量案例研究中,很少对大范围受灾地区进行更精细的调查。虽然我们发现洪水恢复援助与物理损失密切相关,但总体而言,在社会脆弱性较高的地方,这种关系更为脆弱。结果表明,未来的灾难恢复计划将同时关注物理损失和社会弱势群体,这将导致更公平的灾难恢复。调查结果提供了对社会脆弱性、影响和灾害恢复交叉点的公平的新理解,并展示了最佳做法和未来灾害方案改进的领域。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Measuring social equity in flood recovery funding
ABSTRACT Deconstructing causal linkages between place attributes and disaster outcomes at coarse scales like zip codes and counties is difficult because heterogeneous socio-economic characteristics operating at finer scales are masked. However, capturing detailed disaster outcomes about individuals and households for large areas can be equally complicated. This dichotomy highlights the need for a more nuanced and empirically-driven approach to understanding financial disaster recovery support. This study assessed how social characteristics influenced federal disaster recovery support following the 2015 South Carolina floods. Ordinary linear and spatial regression models provided a mechanism for pinpointing statistically significant links between individual/compound vulnerabilities and resource distribution from four federal disaster response and recovery programmes. The study makes two unique contributions. First, exploration of how social characteristics influence recovery support is a critical, yet understudied path toward fair and equitable disaster recovery. Second, finer scale inquiry across a large impact area is rare in quantitative case studies of US disasters. While we found flood recovery assistance to be strongly associated with physical damage overall the relationship was more tenuous in places with higher social vulnerability. Results indicate that future disaster recovery programs focusing on both physical damage and social vulnerable would lead to a more equitable disaster recoveries. Findings provide new understanding of equity at the intersection of social vulnerability, impacts, and disaster recovery and showcase both best-practices and areas for programme improvements for future disasters.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
9.20
自引率
5.00%
发文量
18
期刊介绍: Environmental Hazards: Human and Policy Dimensions is an innovative, interdisciplinary and international research journal addressing the human and policy dimensions of hazards. The journal addresses the full range of hazardous events from extreme geological, hydrological, atmospheric and biological events, such as earthquakes, floods, storms and epidemics, to technological failures and malfunctions, such as industrial explosions, fires and toxic material releases. Environmental Hazards: Human and Policy Dimensions is the source of the new ideas in hazards and risk research.
期刊最新文献
The impact of sinkholes on crop choices in water-scarce regions Trends and future research in climate migration: a bibliometric analysis of forty years Multi-directional communication between decision makers and environmental health researchers: a qualitative inquiry Method for prioritising buildings for seismic reinforcement based on prediction of earthquake-induced building collapse and evacuation routes Is the number of global natural disasters increasing?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1