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