JEM
Social vulnerability: An emergency managers planning tool
Garrett Dolan, PhD
Dmitry Messen, PhD
ABSTRACT
The frequency of natural disasters in the United
States is increasing.1 Since 1953, there has been an
average of 35 Federal Emergency Management Agency
declared disasters per year.2 However, more concern-
ing is that the number of declarations has more than
doubled over the last 5 years for an average of 73 per
year. Although it is true that natural disasters affect
everyone regardless of their respective health and/or
wealth, it is also true that not everyone will experience
the event in the same way. Those who can adapt to
changing situations are more likely to overcome adver-
sity. This article explains social vulnerability as an
emerging concept in natural hazard management and
demonstrates its utility as a tool for planning and
preparing for emergencies within the Houston-
Galveston hurricane storm surge evacuation zones.
Practitioners will gain insight into the characteristics
that make individuals vulnerable while providing a
basis for determining how to plan for their needs.
Key words: social vulnerability, evacuation, natu-
ral disaster, hazard, hurricane storm surge, emergency
management, planning tool
INTRODUCTION
Natural disasters affect everyone regardless of
their respective socioeconomic status in life. However,
for emergency managers, it is important to delve fur-
ther into understanding and adapting to the certainty
that not everyone will experience the event in the
same way.3 Indeed, it is recognized worldwide that
peoples vulnerability to risks depends largely on the
assets (ie, physical, emotional, social, and financial)
they have available at the time of occurrence4: the
belief being that demographic characteristics shape
DOI:10.5055/jem.2012.0095
Journal of Emergency Management
Vol. 10, No. 3, May/June 2012
peoples ability to absorb, cope with, and recover from
natural 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 for
examining predisaster socioeconomic characteristics
of a person or group and referred to it as social vul-
nerability. There are many social factors that could
influence a persons vulnerability to hazards includ-
ing age, culture, disability, illiteracy, education, gender,
household composition, income level, politics, poverty,
religion, and race/ethnicity.6-8* Understanding the
social factors that cause one individual, or group, to
become vulnerable will give emergency managers
insight into the characteristics that make them dis-
tinctive while providing a basis for determining how
to best plan for, and respond to, their needs.
Ultimately, by understanding an individuals or groups
susceptibility to hazards, emergency managers have
the potential to act in a way that will strengthen peo-
ples abilities to react and adapt to situations in a
resilient manner.
Three social characteristics that are particularly
insightful 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.
*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 their
ancestral origin on different continents. Black denotes African-American
origin background, White denotes European background, and Hispanic
or Latino denotes Latin American background. Based on the scientific
consensus that race is a social construct, race and ethnicity are used
interchangeably. This is consistent with the definition used by the Robert
Woods Jones Foundations Commission to Build a Healthier America.
161
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 difficulties
searching for information are key causes of vulnera-
bility, whereas other researchers have uncovered evi-
dence that decreased information processing and
problem-solving skills, declining memory capacity, and
reasoning 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 time
demands 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 abilities
leading to memory lapses and confusion are cause for
concern. 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 persons mental capacities are compro-
mised, pressure-filled situations often bring confusion,
bewilderment, and paralysis. Thus, staying in a place
that is known and familiar like their home is rela-
tively comforting. Bob and Clare James of Boynton
Beach, Florida are good examples. They had to be
removed by a Special Weapons and Tactics team from
their retirement community after Hurricane Wilma
(2005). The elderly couple decided to stay at home dur-
ing the storm because they didnt know where else to
go and had no one to guide them. Apparently, they
were not alone: a 100-year-old neighbor was in bed
when the roof of his condo collapsed on him.12
162
Income (subgroup poverty)
Income level is also an insightful indicator of social
vulnerability. Poor households are disproportionately
impacted by natural disasters because they are often
located in precarious areas and housing constructed to
subpar standards.13 The United States government
defines 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 for
preparation and response are very limited.15 Evidence
demonstrates 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 found
that nearly 25 percent of those living in the hardest-hit
areas were below the poverty line, about double the
national average.12,18 Complicating the matter is the
fact that the poor are less likely to own a vehicle and as
a result are less likely to be able to evacuate in a timely
manner.19 The Associate Press noted that 20 percent of
the low income households had no car.
When a disaster occurs, the consequences are felt
the hardest by those with the least amount of financial
resources. Consider the ripple effect caused by a local
company closing because of flood damage. At least for a
short 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 temporarily
or permanently out of work, they are losing not only
wages but also access to healthcare.16 A downward spi-
ral of economic turmoil can be created whereby the out
of work employee becomes increasingly dependent on
government welfare programs that are simultaneously
being underfunded because of lost tax revenue. In this
situation, 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 themselves
as a member of a racial or ethnic group other than
White non-Hispanic.20 Race and ethnicity are impor-
tant indicators of social vulnerability, because they
can reflect the challenges that exist with integrating
Journal of Emergency Management
Vol. 10, No. 3, May/June 2012
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 requires
the appropriate selection of messages, messengers,
and methods of delivery to disseminate information to
audiences from before an event to after it occurs.22
Emergency managers need to be cognizant of their
communitys demographic trends so they can make
accommodations to their communications plan and
reach a wider audience.
In Texas, the states population has experienced
unprecedented growth especially in the Hispanic
population which accounts for two-thirds of all
growth in the last decade. Hispanics now make up
38 percent of the states 25.1 million people, up from
32 percent a decade ago.23 Considering that only
23 percent of first-generation immigrants from
Spanish-speaking countries said they spoke English
very well24 it is apparent that the inability to com-
municate in the native language of the region can
increase your vulnerability. Such demographic
trends bring forth the obvious need to consider send-
ing multilingual messages and also highlight the
importance of considering how vulnerable popula-
tion receive messages.
Dr. Walter Peacock has identified a variety of
research studies where the source of information
relates 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 see
media and government authorities as the most credi-
ble sources, whereas those who identify as Blacks
favored government authorities and social networks.
By contrast, Mexican-Americans first turn to social
networks for their information such as extended fam-
ily members or religious institutions.
Applying social vulnerability
The US Global Change Research Program26
states that the frequency and intensity of hurricanes
and related storm surges could increase along the
Journal of Emergency Management
Vol. 10, No. 3, May/June 2012
upper Texas coast. Emergency managers are under
more and more pressure to safeguard the public. A
framework for thinking about the relationship of nat-
ural hazards to humans needs to become common-
place. Social vulnerability can address these concerns
by illustrating the level of susceptibility for an indi-
vidual or group to a risk. It is a concept based on the
belief that people/groups have different abilities to
cope with hazards and as such, it is not enough to
plan for a natural disaster based solely on the charac-
teristics of the storm.27 Social vulnerability adds the
dimension of sensitivity to the scenario by consider-
ing the capacity or capability of a person to adapt.
Social vulnerability is a more people-centric approach
to hazard mitigation; therefore, any analysis begins
by asking the following questions:
 What social characteristics make people
vulnerable to the approaching hazard
because their ability to move to a safer
location is compromised?
 Specifically, how do these characteristics
impact 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 covering
12,189 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 areas
being the most susceptible to damage. The National
Oceanic Atmospheric Administrations National
Climatic Data Center has reported that the Texas
Gulf Coast is a leading contributor to the BILLION
Dollar Disaster List.29
In an effort to ensure a safe and expeditious evac-
uation from future hurricanes, the Houston-Galveston
Area Council delineated four hurricane storm surge
evacuation zones30 (see Figure 1) on the basis of the
zip code boundaries. To clearly communicate with
cities, counties, and the public, the combined four
163
Figure 1. The four H-GAC storm surge evacuation zonesCoastal Region.
evacuation zones are collectively referred to as the
Coastal Region. Evacuations in the Houston-
Galveston region have always been determined by
surge zones, due to wind and water concerns, but this
concept was taken further in 2007 when zip codes
were added. The available information on hurricanes,
flooding, population data, and roadways was com-
bined in a single map. The guiding principles behind
the zones development were based on managing
the flow of people and having an effective means for
communicating who should evacuate. Thus, the cur-
rent evacuation strategy is for officials to call for vol-
untary evacuations in a phased manner with those
closest to the coast leaving first. The order of evacua-
tions starts with the Coastal Zone, followed by zones
A, B, then C. Emergency announcements will then list
the zip codes that are asked to evacuate. The success
164
of a geographical proximity approach largely depends
on residents in more inland zones waiting in their
homes, whereas those closer to the coastline begin to
evacuate. However, this approach did not take into
account vulnerable population.
The coastal region makes for an interesting sce-
nario when considering the basic tenets of social
vulnerability. The natural31 conditions such as sea level
rise and an increase in severe storms, and social
processes such as population growth in urban coastal
centers and the building of supporting infrastructure
like roadways, are common phenomena driving change
in most coastal communities throughout the country.
SOCIOECONOMIC DATA AND METHODS
The socioeconomic data relevant to vulnerability
analysis are summarized by four zones (Figure 1). For
Journal of Emergency Management
Vol. 10, No. 3, May/June 2012
the demographic data items in this report (all items
with the exception of poverty and income) for both 2000
and 2010, we used the census block-level data from the
SF-1 tables. For 2000 poverty and income items, which
are only available in the SF-3 table for larger areas
(census block groups), we assigned the block group-level
poverty rate and per capita income to all the blocks
inside each block group area. The per capita income in
2000 SF-3 table, which is technically income received in
1999, was converted to 2009 constant dollars using a
Consumer Price Index32 deflator. After the 2000 decen-
nial Census, the traditional long form that was the
source of sample-based poverty, income, and other
socioeconomic items for the SF-3 table was discontin-
ued and the collection of the various socioeconomic
items became the domain of the American Community
Survey (ACS) program administered by the Census but
functionally separate from the decennial Census. The
poverty and income (reported in 2009 constant dollars)
items are taken from the 2009 5-year block group-level
ACS estimates; the ACS estimates are averages
constructed from survey responses received over a
5-year period (2005-2009).
The stratified poverty rates were assigned to the
blocks inside each block group (for 2000) and census
tract (for 2010) area. The resulting estimates are
block-level three-way binary tabulations for age
(under 65/65 years and above), Hispanic origin (of
Hispanic origin/not of Hispanic origin), and poverty
status (income above poverty level/income below
poverty level). The block-level estimates were then
summarized by the four evacuation zones.
OBSERVATIONS
A population analysis of the Houston-Galveston
coastal region was conducted. US Census data from
2000 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 was
compiled and analyzed in relation to the four evacua-
tion zones. The results will enable managers to
understand the current scenario and determine the
trends 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 coastal
region grew significantly (by 198,000 or 15 percent).
Within the four zones, the greatest population
increase 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 lost
13,000 or 15 percent. It is beyond the purview of this
article to determine why there has been a migration
of people away from the coast; however, it is generally
believed that the destruction caused by Hurricane Ike
(2008) is the primary reason.
The three social vulnerability characteristics of
interest indicate that there has been substantial
change in the zones. Those identified as elderly (65
years of age and above) have increased in population
by 24 percent or 28,000 to a total of 144,000 people
(Table 2). There has been a net increase of elderly in
three of the four zones and although they represent only
9 percent of the total population, the level of assistance

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

2000 2010 2000-2010

Total
population Number of Relative Number of Relative Number of Relative Percentage
people percentage people percentage people percentage change

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

Journal of Emergency Management 165

Vol. 10, No. 3, May/June 2012
 Table 2. Elderly population in the coastal region (thousands)

Elderly 2000 2010 2000-2010

population Number of Relative Number of Relative Number of Relative Percentage
(65+) people percentage people percentage people percentage change

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)

2000 2010 2000-2010
Hispanic
population Number of Relative Number of Relative Number of Relative Percentage
people percentage people percentage people percentage change

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

required to evacuate the elderly population can be
substantial.
The demographic changes in race/ethnicity have
been significant. Total population of Hispanics has
increased by 183,000 in the four zones bringing the total
to 663,000, which accounts for 42 percent of the popula-
tion in the coastal region (Table 3). The most dramatic
change, percentage-wise, occurred in zone A where the
Hispanic population grew by 183,000 (an increase of
20,000 people). Of the three social vulnerability factors
in the Coastal Zone, Hispanics are the only segment that
has actually posted a population increase (1,000 people).
Those living below the poverty level have
increased by 61,000 people to 234,000 (Table 4). The
poverty rate in the coastal region currently stands at
15 percent (two percentage points increase from the
total population in 2000). Three of the four zones show
increases in the number of residents in poverty,
whereas the Coastal Zone has actually decreased by
11 percent or 2,000 people; however, this decrease
stems from the overall population decline in that zone.
Table 5 demonstrates that between 2000 and
2010 the socially vulnerable population of the Coastal
Zone increased by 180,000 people. This increase of 26
percent indicates an overall increased level of vulner-
ability. The more socially vulnerable people living in
an area the more resources it takes to communicate
with, and evacuate to safety.
Table 6 indicates that 56 percent of all those living
in the coastal region embody at least one of the three
social vulnerability characteristics. This is a remark-
able statistic and should alert local emergency man-
agers that many logistical issues, above and beyond
standard procedures, will be necessary to address.
Communicating, evacuating, and re-entering will be
more complex and difficult, requiring managers to
develop more sophisticated communication and logisti-
cal plans.
DISCUSSION
Several significant aspects can be extracted from
the data.

166 Journal of Emergency Management

Vol. 10, No. 3, May/June 2012
 Table 4. Population below poverty level in the coastal region (thousands)

Population 2000 2010 2000-2010

below
Number of Relative Number of Relative Number of Relative Percentage
poverty level
people percentage people percentage people percentage change

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)

2000 2010 2000-2010

Vulnerable
population Number of Relative Number of Relative Number of Relative Percentage
people percentage people percentage people percentage change

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

1. The coastal region is becoming more
vulnerable to severe storms due to overall
population increases especially within the
three categories used to measure social
vulnerability.
 The overall population has increased
by 198,000 or 15 percent over the last
decade.
 The relative percentage of socially vul-
nerable people has also increased from
51 percent in 2000 to 56 percent in
2010.
poverty level have grown by 61,000 or
36 percent; and the Hispanic popula-
tion has increased by 183,000 people,
or 39 percent.
2. The increase in number and geographic
distribution of socially vulnerable popula-
tion make communication more complex
and difficult. The unique vulnerabilities
must be considered and information dis-
tributed in a user-friendly format. An
increased distribution of socially vulnera-
ble people requires more robust communi-
cation programs.

 Population growth has occurred in all  The total number of elderly has increased
three categories of socially vulnerable significantly by 24 percent except for
people. The elderly grew by 28,000 Zone Coastal which has experienced a
people or 24 percent; those below the net decrease of 13 percent.

Journal of Emergency Management 167

Vol. 10, No. 3, May/June 2012
 Table 6. Vulnerable population in the coastal
region 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
 The Hispanic population has increased
dramatically by 186,000 with the high-
est concentration found in zone C rep-
resenting 483,000 people.
 The overall number of people below
the poverty level has increased except
for Zone Coastal which lost 15 percent
of the population.
3. The importance of evacuating residents in
a strategic manner is increasing. Current
evacuation procedures are centered on the
phased withdrawal of residents with those
closest to the coastline leaving first. This
strategy is highly dependent on the more
inland residents waiting for their instruc-
tions. If a mass evacuation were to occur, the
regions limited roadway capacity would be
overwhelmed and traffic jams such as those
during Hurricane Rita (2005) could occur.
However, 2010 Census data indicate a grow-
ing complication with a phased approach.
Socially vulnerable population segments
require more time to evacuate yet they are
increasingly locating in zone C, the last zone
to evacuate with arguably the shortest time
frame to accomplish it in.
 Two of the three socially vulnerable
population segments are increasing
in numbers in zone C. Over the last
decade, the elderly have increased their
168
presence by 13,000, whereas those
below the poverty level have increased
by 47,000 people.
 Overall, the three categories of socially
vulnerable people increased by 26 per-
cent in zone C.
CONCLUSIONS
The purpose of this article was to explain social
vulnerability as an emerging concept in natural haz-
ard management and to demonstrate its value as a
tool for emergency personnel to plan and prepare for
natural disasters. An effective means to accomplish
this is to apply a social vulnerability framework to
population trends. As population and infrastructure
increase in scope and scale, social conditions fluctuate
and the relationship of humans to the built and natu-
ral environment becomes more complex. Thus, social
vulnerability is a valuable construct, because it allows
emergency planners to focus their attention on the
factors that make people susceptible to harm, as
opposed to the physical variables of the potential nat-
ural hazard. It also enables the planners to see how
vulnerability is socially expressed and as a result, it
provides a frame of reference for addressing solutions.
The Houston-Galveston hurricane storm surge
evacuation zones were used as a proxy to illustrate
the way a fundamental demographic analysis could
yield insightful information. The three social vulner-
ability characteristics examined (ie, age/elderly,
income/poverty, and race/ethnicity) were chosen
because they illustrate different sources of exposure,
interesting historical trends and applicability to most
hazard scenarios. Given the total population increase,
the population growth in all three vulnerable charac-
teristics and the distribution of vulnerable people, the
data indicate that the evacuation zones are becoming
more vulnerable and less resilient to natural hazards
and disasters.
Emergency managers eager to expand their use of
a social vulnerability analysis should consider map-
ping clusters of vulnerable population, perhaps using
census data, and then developing targeted interven-
tion programs based on their unique factors.
Journal of Emergency Management
Vol. 10, No. 3, May/June 2012
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank Dr. Shannon Van Zandt of Texas A&M University
and Dr. Phil Bedient of Rice Universitys SSPEED Center for their
encouragement and support.
Garrett Dolan, PhD, Civil & Environmental Engineering, Rice University,
Houston, Texas.
Dmitry Messen, PhD, Socioeconomic Modeling Program Manager,
Houston-Galveston Area Council.
REFERENCES
1. Federal Emergency Management Agency: Annual major disaster
declarations totals. Available at http://www.fema.gov/news/disaster_
totals_annual.fema. Accessed March 13, 2012.
2. Federal Emergency Management Agency: Declaration Process
Fact Sheet. Available at http://www.fema.gov/media/fact_sheets/
declaration_process.shtm. Accessed March 13, 2012.
3. Mileti DS: Natural Hazards, Planning and Sustainable
Development, University of Colorado at Boulder, Keynote
Presentation to the Eastern Regional Organisation for Planning
and Housing. Available at http://www.earoph.info/pdf/2007papers/
KN4.pdf. Accessed March 13, 2012.
4. Aguilar L: How natural disasters affect women. International
Union 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,
Peoples Vulnerability and Disasters. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge,
2004.
6. OKeefe P, Westgate K, Wisner B: Taking the naturalness out of
natural 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 Tornado
Disaster Risk Reduction for Bangladesh, Dhaka, Bangladesh,
Wind Engineering Research Center, Tokyo Polytechnic
University: 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 to
exploitation 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 Consumer
Stud. 2002; 26(3): 178-187.
11. Zwahr MD, Park DC: Judgment about estrogen replacement
therapy: The role of age, cognitive abilities, and beliefs. Psychol
Aging. 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/. Accessed
March 13, 2012.
13. Inter-American Development Bank: Social Protection for Equity
and Growth. Washington, DC: IDP Publications, 2000.
Journal of Emergency Management
Vol. 10, No. 3, May/June 2012
14. US Department of Health and Human Services: 2011 HHS
Poverty 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 of
Hurricane Katrina evacuees in Houston shelters: Implications for
future planning. Am J Public Health. 2006; 96(9): 1402-1408.
17. Tierney K: Social inequality: Humans and disasters. In Daniels
RJ, Keitl DF, Kunreuther H (eds.): On Risk and Disaster: Lessons
from Hurricane Katrina. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania
Press, 2006.
18. US Department of Health and Human Services, Agency for
Healthcare Research and Quality: 2007 National Healthcare
Disparities Report. Available at http://www.ahrq.gov/qual/nhdr07/
nhdr07.pdf. Accessed March 13, 2012.
19. Mongaboy.com: Poverty worsens hurricane impact. Available at
http://news.mongabay.com/2005/0905-new_orleans_income.html.
Accessed March 13, 2012.
20. US Census Bureau: American Fact Finder 2. Available at
http://factfinder2.census.gov. Accessed March 13, 2012.
21. Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured: How
race/ethnicity, immigration status and language affect health insur-
ance coverage, access to care and quality of care among the low-income
population. Washington, DC: Kaiser Family Foundation, 2003.
22. Andrulis DP, Siddiqui NJ, Gantner JL: Preparing racially and
ethnically diverse communities for public health emergencies.
Health Aff. 2007; 26(5): 1269-1279.
23. McKinley J Jr: Population Tipping Point in Texas, as Hispanics
Get 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 Grasping
English. 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 observatory
network, Rice UniversityTexas A&M University Research
Workshop, Rice University, Civil & Environmental Engineering
Department, March 2011.
26. US Global Change Research Program: Regional climate
impacts: 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 Hazards
in 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 and
Atmosphere Administration: Billion Dollar Weather Disasters
1980-2010. 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 the
Sea. College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 2007.
32. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Consumer Price Index. Available at
http://www.bls.gov/cpi/home.htm#tables. Accessed March 13, 2012.
169