Differences in FEMA National Risk Index scores between rural and urban communities: Findings and implications for national policy, planners, and decision-makers.

Q3 Medicine
Emma Kerr, Tyler L Malone, George M Holmes
{"title":"Differences in FEMA National Risk Index scores between rural and urban communities: Findings and implications for national policy, planners, and decision-makers.","authors":"Emma Kerr, Tyler L Malone, George M Holmes","doi":"10.5055/jem.0888","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The National Risk Index (NRI) was created by the Federal Emergency Management Agency in 2021 to quantify county-level natural hazard risk. The NRI is presented as a percentile score from 0 to 100 and is calculated based on three components: (1) expected annual loss (EAL), the average economic loss resulting from natural hazards; (2) Social Vulnerability Index (SVI), the susceptibility of local population groups to the adverse impacts of natural hazards; and (3) community resilience, the local community's ability to prepare for and respond to natural hazards. We hypothe-sized that the EAL component unintentionally obscures rural versus urban differences in natural hazard vulnerability and preparedness. We tested our hypothesis using publicly available NRI data for all rural (nonmetropolitan) and urban (metropolitan) counties in the United States. We found that the population-weighted average rural county had an NRI risk score equal to 54.9 (89.1 for urban counties). Follow-up analyses suggested that differing NRI scores between rural and urban counties were driven by greater EAL in urban areas (USD 12 M and USD 347 M EAL for the population-weighted average rural county and urban county, respectively). In contrast, SVI was the strongest predictor in linear regression models of county-level premature mortality rate and years of life lost (p < .001 in both models). We conclude that the NRI primarily communicates the potential economic loss of counties due to natural disasters and under-estimates public health-related vulnerability and resilience. Community planners unaware of this finding may mistakenly overlook the needs of rural communities, leaving rural residents unnecessarily vulnerable to natural disasters. This imbalance could also lead to inequitable distribution of disaster planning resources across rural and urban counties, particularly if policymakers and individuals in charge of emergency preparedness rely on the NRI to identify areas at greatest risk.</p>","PeriodicalId":38336,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Emergency Management","volume":"23 2","pages":"171-182"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Emergency Management","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5055/jem.0888","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The National Risk Index (NRI) was created by the Federal Emergency Management Agency in 2021 to quantify county-level natural hazard risk. The NRI is presented as a percentile score from 0 to 100 and is calculated based on three components: (1) expected annual loss (EAL), the average economic loss resulting from natural hazards; (2) Social Vulnerability Index (SVI), the susceptibility of local population groups to the adverse impacts of natural hazards; and (3) community resilience, the local community's ability to prepare for and respond to natural hazards. We hypothe-sized that the EAL component unintentionally obscures rural versus urban differences in natural hazard vulnerability and preparedness. We tested our hypothesis using publicly available NRI data for all rural (nonmetropolitan) and urban (metropolitan) counties in the United States. We found that the population-weighted average rural county had an NRI risk score equal to 54.9 (89.1 for urban counties). Follow-up analyses suggested that differing NRI scores between rural and urban counties were driven by greater EAL in urban areas (USD 12 M and USD 347 M EAL for the population-weighted average rural county and urban county, respectively). In contrast, SVI was the strongest predictor in linear regression models of county-level premature mortality rate and years of life lost (p < .001 in both models). We conclude that the NRI primarily communicates the potential economic loss of counties due to natural disasters and under-estimates public health-related vulnerability and resilience. Community planners unaware of this finding may mistakenly overlook the needs of rural communities, leaving rural residents unnecessarily vulnerable to natural disasters. This imbalance could also lead to inequitable distribution of disaster planning resources across rural and urban counties, particularly if policymakers and individuals in charge of emergency preparedness rely on the NRI to identify areas at greatest risk.

国家风险指数 (NRI) 由联邦紧急事务管理局于 2021 年创建,用于量化县级自然灾害风险。国家风险指数以 0 到 100 的百分位数表示,并基于三个组成部分进行计算:(1) 预期年度损失 (EAL),即自然灾害造成的平均经济损失;(2) 社会脆弱性指数 (SVI),即当地人口群体易受自然灾害不利影响的程度;以及 (3) 社区恢复力,即当地社区防备和应对自然灾害的能力。我们假设,EAL 部分无意中掩盖了农村与城市在自然灾害脆弱性和防备能力方面的差异。我们使用公开的美国所有农村(非大都市)和城市(大都市)县的 NRI 数据对我们的假设进行了检验。我们发现,经人口加权后,农村县的平均 NRI 风险分值为 54.9(城市县为 89.1)。后续分析表明,农村县和城市县的 NRI 分值不同是由于城市地区的 EAL 较高(农村县和城市县的人口加权平均 EAL 分别为 1 200 万美元和 3.47 亿美元)。与此相反,在县级过早死亡率和生命损失年数的线性回归模型中,SVI 是最强的预测因子(两个模型中的 p 均小于 0.001)。我们的结论是,NRI 主要反映了自然灾害对县域造成的潜在经济损失,而低估了与公共卫生相关的脆弱性和复原力。没有意识到这一点的社区规划者可能会错误地忽视农村社区的需求,使农村居民在自然灾害面前受到不必要的伤害。这种不平衡还可能导致灾害规划资源在农村和城市各县之间的不公平分配,尤其是如果决策者和负责应急准备的个人依赖 NRI 来确定风险最大的地区。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Emergency Management
Journal of Emergency Management Medicine-Emergency Medicine
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
67
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信