This document outlines the steps for creating a baseline for measuring disaster resilience at the community level. It discusses issues with data availability and proposes components to measure resilience, including ecological, social, economic, infrastructure, institutional capacity, and community competence. Example variables are provided for each component. The document also describes the process for selecting and transforming indicators, normalizing data, conducting multivariate analysis, weighting variables, aggregating results, and analyzing sensitivity. Rankings of county resilience in South Carolina are presented as an example output.
This document outlines the steps for creating a baseline for measuring disaster resilience at the community level. It discusses issues with data availability and proposes components to measure resilience, including ecological, social, economic, infrastructure, institutional capacity, and community competence. Example variables are provided for each component. The document also describes the process for selecting and transforming indicators, normalizing data, conducting multivariate analysis, weighting variables, aggregating results, and analyzing sensitivity. Rankings of county resilience in South Carolina are presented as an example output.
Original Title
baseline indicator for disaster resilient communities
This document outlines the steps for creating a baseline for measuring disaster resilience at the community level. It discusses issues with data availability and proposes components to measure resilience, including ecological, social, economic, infrastructure, institutional capacity, and community competence. Example variables are provided for each component. The document also describes the process for selecting and transforming indicators, normalizing data, conducting multivariate analysis, weighting variables, aggregating results, and analyzing sensitivity. Rankings of county resilience in South Carolina are presented as an example output.
This document outlines the steps for creating a baseline for measuring disaster resilience at the community level. It discusses issues with data availability and proposes components to measure resilience, including ecological, social, economic, infrastructure, institutional capacity, and community competence. Example variables are provided for each component. The document also describes the process for selecting and transforming indicators, normalizing data, conducting multivariate analysis, weighting variables, aggregating results, and analyzing sensitivity. Rankings of county resilience in South Carolina are presented as an example output.
Susan L. Cutter, Christopher T. Emrich, and Christopher G. Burton
Hazards & Vulnerability Research Institute University of South Carolina Columbia, SC USA scutter@sc.edu CARRI Workshop July 14-15 Broomfield, CO Data issues Availability of variables (national, regional) Recent values (esp. Census) Role of census undercounts Coverage of variables (spatial & temporal) How to quantify unquantifiable? Example: Reliance on old socio- demographic data: SoVI SoVI for SC uses 32 variables based on 2000 Census American Community Survey provides more recent information (~2005) – Places >65,000 – Four variables unavailable (nursing home residents/capita; % rural farm populations; % social security recipients; % populations living in urban areas – Only 20/46 SC counties have ACS updates SoVI 2000/SoVI ACS comparisons SoVI score not significantly different Spatial representation changes: function of changes in % native American; % Asian, % Hispanic, median age, people per housing unit; % renters, % unemployment, per capita income, % rich, % poverty, % agricultural employment, median contract rent; median housing value Creating the Baseline: Steps Theoretical or conceptual framework Indicator selection criteria – Assessment of measurement error – Imputation of missing data Index structure (inductive or statistical vs. deductive or theory) Data transformation (per capita; density, absolute) Normalization (scaling & standardization) Multivariate analysis Weighting (for each component or variable) Aggregation (how combine into final product) Sensitivity analysis Resilience Indicators: Components for Baseline Theoretical framework
Ecological Social Economic Infrastructure Institutional capacity (mitigation) Community competence
CARRI white papers; Norris et al. 2008; Cutter et al. 2008
Ecological Indicator selection
Variable Source Effect on Resilience
% Land area in 100-year flood plain Cutter et al. 2008 negative % Land area subject to SLR Cutter et al. 2008 negative % Soil erosion Cutter et al. 2008 negative % Green space/undisturbed land Cutter et al. 2008 positive % Urban (access variable) Cutter et al. 2008 positive % Forested land cover (wildfire Cutter et al. 2008 negative potential) % Land with hydric soils (liquefaction) Cutter et al. 2008 negative % Wetland loss (ecosystem services) Gunderson 2009 negative Social Variable Transformations
Variable Source Effect on
Resilience Racial/ethnic inequality (Abs. value of Norris et al. 2008; Cutter et al negative difference in % black & % white) 2008 Educational inequality (Abs. value of difference Norris et al. 2008; Morrow negative less than 9th grade & college) 2008 Physicians/10,000 (health access) Norris et al. 2008 positive Elderly (%) Morrow 2008 negative Social vulnerability index (SoVI) Morrow 2008; Cutter et al. negative 2008; Tierney 2009 Transport challenged (% no vehicle) Tierney 2009 negative Communication challenged (% no phone) Colten et al. 2008 negative
Language competency (% ESL) Morrow 2008 negative
Crime rate (per 10,000) Colten et al. 2008 negative Special needs (% pop with disabilities) Heinz Center 2002 negative Health coverage (% pop with coverage) Heinz Center 2002 positive Population wellness (% black infant mortality Norris et al. 2002, 2008 negative rate) Economic Variable Source Effect on Resilience Housing capital ( difference % white Norris et al. 2008 negative homeowner and % black homeowner) Homeowners (%) Norris et al. 2008; Cutter positive et al. 2008 Employment (%) Mileti 1999 positive Median household income Norris et al. 2008; Cutter positive et al. 2008 Poverty (%) Norris et al. 2008; negative Morrow 2008; Enarson 2007 Single sector employment (% primary Berke & Campanella negative 2006 sector + tourism) Female labor force participation (%) NRC 2006 positive Business size (% large >100 employees) Norris et al. 2008 positive Institutional
Variable Source Effect on Resilience
Recent hazard mitigation plan Burby et al. 2000; positive Godshalk 2007 (yes/no) NFIP policies (per occupied housing Tierney et al . 2001 positive unit) Storm Ready participation (yes/no) Multi-hazard Mitigation positive Council 2005; Tierney et al . 2001 Municipal expenditures (fire, police, Sylves 2007 positive emergency services as a %) Infrastructure
Variable Source Effect on
Resilience Mobile homes (%) Cutter et al. 2003 negative Shelter capacity (% rental vacancy) Tierney 2009 positive Medical capacity (hospital beds/10,000) Auf der Heide and Scanlon positive 2007 Building permits for new construction (#) NRC 2006 negative Evacuation potential (arterial miles/mi2) NRC 2006 positive Evacuation potential (# highway bridges) General knowledge negative Housing age (% built 1970-1994) Mileti 1999 negative Community Competence Variable Source Effect on Resilience Political fragmentation (# local Norris et al. 2008 negative governments and special districts) Previous disaster experience (PDD, yes Cutter et al. 2008 positive or no) Social connectivity (VOADs yes or no) Morrow 2008; Norris et positive al. 2005 Dependency ratio (debt/revenue) Cutter et al. 2003 negative International migration (%) Morrow 2008 negative Sense of place (% borne in state and Vale & Campanella 2005 positive still live here) Social capital (churches/capita) Morrow 2008; Tierney positive 2009 Social capital (% registered voters Cutter et al. 2003 positive voting in 2004 election) Internal migration (% outmigration) Vale and Campanella negative 2005 Normalization Scaling Example
= = = = Common scaling techniques: Z-scores Linear scaling, Min-max transformation Linear scaling, maximum value transformation Putting it all together
Linear min-max scaling: X-min/max-min
Purpose: scale values from 0 to 1 where 0 reduces resilience; 1 increases resilience Scores theoretically range from -27 to +21; actually range from -3.54 to +4.71 Rank order of counties Most Resilient
Different aggregation schemes (PCA) National comparisons (coastal counties, other regions) Downscale to sub-county (communities, census tracts) Couple baseline indicators with process-oriented capacity building for disaster resilience Thanks and come for a visit http://webra.cas.sc.edu/hvri/
Get Indigenous Peoples National Parks and Protected Areas A New Paradigm Linking Conservation Culture and Rights 1st Edition Stan Stevens PDF ebook with Full Chapters Now
Get Indigenous Peoples National Parks and Protected Areas A New Paradigm Linking Conservation Culture and Rights 1st Edition Stan Stevens PDF ebook with Full Chapters Now
