DISASTER AND POVERTY: THE DIFFERENTIAL IMPACTS OF

DISASTER ON THE POOR IN THE GULF COAST REGION

Dissertation Committee:

Abu M. Sufiyan

Melissa K. Merry, PhD

Hank V. Savitch, PhD

John Hans I. Gilderbloom, PhD

Cynthia Negrey, PhD

David M. Simpson, PhD

OVERVIEW

• Background

• Purpose & Importance of the study

• Theoretical & Conceptual Framework

• Research Questions

• Methodology

• Major Findings

• Implications

• Recommendations

BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

• Economic losses from natural hazards increasing in the United States (1 billion/month)

• The intensity predicted to be increased

• The widening gap between rich and poor

• Increasing concern about poverty and disaster

• Increasing urban population

• The number of Americans living in poverty has increased by almost six million in the six years since Hurricane Katrina

DEFINITION OF DISASTER

• According to UNISDR (2009), disaster is defined as “A serious disruption of the functioning of a community or a society, involving widespread human, material, economic and/or environmental losses and impacts that exceed the ability of the affected community or society to cope using its own resources.”

Definition of Poverty

“Poverty: a human condition characterized by the sustained or chronic deprivation of the resources, capabilities, choices, security and power necessary for the enjoyment of an adequate standard of living and other civil, cultural, economic, political and social rights.”

WHO ARE THE POOR?• Racial and Ethnic Minorities

• In the US nonwhites are disproportionately more likely to be poor than are whites.

• Children

• Many poor are children under the age of eighteen.

• The Elderly

• Poverty is relatively low among the elderly: It is slightly lower than among non-elderly adults.

WHO ARE THE POOR?

• Women• A growing number of women are among the poor, which has been

called the feminization of poverty.

• Central City and Rural Dwellers• Poverty tends to be concentrated in certain places such as central-

city and rural areas.

• The Disabled• Many poor suffer from severe physical disabilities.

PURPOSE

• More people are living in high-risk hazard-prone areas

• Massive disaster strikes in twenty-first century

• The poor and disadvantaged people suffer much during and after a disaster.

• Incorporating poverty in disaster strategy will increase resiliency

• Future generation would be at risk

IMPORTANCE OF THE RESEARCH

• Certain subgroups are at greater risk

• Small number of quantitative researches have been conducted

• No significant study has conducted on overall population of Gulf Coast States

• Most studies conducted on NOLA

• Other studies are on specific disaster on a single community

• No long term studies over 30 years time span

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

• Individualistic, structural, and fatalistic theory of poverty

• Structural-vulnerability paradigm

• Development Paradigm

• Sustainability paradigm

• Environmental Justice paradigm

• Ethical paradigm

• Disaster capitalism paradigm

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

Disaster Impacts (Fatalities, injuries,

property, & crop damages)

Poverty conditions (income, gender, age,

race, disabled, immigrants)

Social environment ( demographics

, housing, health,

education)

Political dimensions

(Governance, Political

economy)

Economic (Income, macro-

economy, unemployment,

insurance)

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

1) Do natural disasters exacerbate poverty?

2) Does poverty result in higher losses in a disaster?

HYPOTHESES

H1: Natural disasters are likely to increase poverty conditions.

H2: If there is a natural disaster, it is more likely to reduce economic status.

H3: If the poverty level is higher in a county, the impacts from disaster will be higher.

H4: The higher the poverty conditions in counties, the higher social vulnerability from disasters.

METHODOLOGY

• Univariate and Partial Analyses (Disaster Impacts, Frequency, trend analysis, time series analysis)

• Correlation and Regression Analysis (Relationships between disaster impacts and poverty conditions)

• Content Analysis (Survey different scholarly publications, policy documents, documents published by non-profits, international development organizations, United Nations, the World Bank, humanitarian agencies)

SIMPLIFIED RESEARCH DESIGN

Disaster Impacts (fatalities, injuries, property & crop

losses in phases of disaster cycle)

Economic Status (Local & Federal govt. expenditure, earning in all industries,

income, insurance)

Poverty conditions (income, gender, ethnicity, age, employment, family

structure, housing quality, immigration status, renters,

occupation, education, special needs, social dependence, insurance

coverage, people living below poverty threshold)

Vulnerability Preparedness

FATALITIES & INJURIES

PROPERTY AND CROP DAMAGES

FREQUENCY OF HAZARDS EVENTS

Hurricane & Tropical Storm

Flooding Coastal Severe Weather Drought & Heat Winter Weather Wind Tornado0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

45000

50000

TXMSLAFLAL

FREQUENCY OF HAZARDS

• Severe weather (38%)

• Wind Hazards (29%)

• Flooding (9%)

• Winter Weather (9%)

• Tornadoes (7%)

• Hurricanes (4%)

• Droughts (3%)

• Coastal Hazards (1%)

• Wildfires (272)

• Avalanches (2)

• Texas experienced highest number of hazards

• Followed by MS, AL, LA, & FL

ECONOMIC LOSSES

Hurricane & Tropical Storm

Flooding

Coastal

Severe Weather

Drought & Heat

Winter Weather

Wind

Tornado

7810

2332

22

402

695

1014

362

1359

1337

1044

530

5971

19

587

4132

2086

31989

1856

35715

4889

793

677

518

607

23178

4625

12510

816

163

971

246

898

18563

5397

831

9414

9548

1031

2712

2740

TX MS LA FL AL

ECONOMIC LOSSES

• Hurricanes (41%)

• Coastal Hazards (25%)

• Severe weather (11%)

• Flooding (8%)

• Droughts (5%)

• Tornadoes (4%)

• Wind hazards (4%)

• Winter weather (2%)

HurricanesLAMSTXAL

FloodingTXMSAL LA

TornadoesTXFLAL

  Model (1) Model (2) Model ((3) Model (4)

Observation 524 534 534 534

R2 0.430 0.175 0.349 0.314

Adjusted R2 0.420 0.159 0.337 0.301

F 39.53*** 11.07*** 28.10*** 23.96***

Constant -45,649.90(26,283.8)

-30,181.2(30,370.1)

-9,438.3(27,019.8)

-32,857.9(28,861.5)

Alabama 6,966.632(4,703.13)

-5,592.2(5,179.5)

-3,302.3(4,599.9)

8,058.04(5,159.98)

Florida 33,501***(5,467.1) 

21,463.8***(5,279.6) 

14,567.7***(4,361.5) 

27,610.5***(6,044.1)

Louisiana 7,631.35*(4,633.9)

-5,437.96(5,279.6)

-5,461.3(4,685.4)

3,676.21(5,105.2)

Mississippi--

-13,850.8**(5,516.5)

-9,956.43**(4,906.9)

--

Texas 11,786.7**(4,583.2)

-- --10,171.03**(5,039.5)

Black population (%) 27.96(93.68)

98.3(112.65)

37.340(100.1)

71.05(102.7)

Unemployment rate 1,166.3(845.8)

1,205.4(1,018.9)

1,127.3(903.9)

1,386.2(928.26)

Per capita personal Income 1.23***(0.257)

1.90***(0.305)

1.668***(0.271)

1.78***(0.278)

Female population 1,511.95***(489.41)

1,610.3***(589.09)

1,125.05**(524.6)

1,309.2**(537.8)

Median Age -1783.8***(313.26)

-2,354.5***(589.09)

-2,134.2***(332.9)

-2,164.4***(341.8)

Fatalities 10,252.93***(668.98)

-- -- --

Injuries--

-0.644(2.74)

-- --

Property damages-- --

0.000***(0.001)

--

Crop damages-- -- --

0.001***(0.000)

  Model (1) Model (2) Model ((3) Model (4) Model(5)

Observation 534 534 534 467 534

R2 0.222 0.268 0.225 0.251 0.050

Adjusted R2 0.206 0.252 0.208 0.235 0.031

F 13.58*** 17.35*** 13.76*** 15.31*** 2.73***

Constant 8,697.47(26,999.65)

40,781.65(26,483.36)

32,277.50(27,204.54)

10,157.56(29,180.36)

17,607.94(32,654.76)

Alabama -4,257.97(4,596.18)

-6,858.44(4,436.40)

-9,892.93(4,555.68)

---4,610.52(4,829.39)

Florida 5,360.05(4,364.61)

-5,968.03(4,355.74)

-4,016.74(4,468.0)

2,985.41(4,637.38)

12,897.49***(4,391.87)

Louisiana 3,554.68(4,604.94)

1,890.04(4,457.29)

242.49(4,581.54)

6,052.93(5,112.25)

3,724.99(4,850.13)

Mississippi -2,642.12(4,736.32)

-4,439.06(4,573.24)

-6,975.34(4,692.34)

-3,892.76(5,407.86)

-4,812.98(5,120.26)

Texas -- -- -- -- --Per capita income -0.198

(0.313)-0.586*(0.309)

-0.361(0.316)

-0.377(0.334)

0.502(0.326)

Female population 352.59(485.69)

54.56(473.55)

182.09(486.67)

450.92(518.66)

790.14(531.39)

Black population 33.68(92.38)

49.32(89.44)

50.12(92.09)

19.02(117.30)

54.22(105.26)

Educational attainment -231.29(235.20)

-354.58(227.02)

-430.43(233.28)

-275.65(254.72)

-374.72(240.27)

Unemployment -1227.41(955.68)

-1391.15(927.86)

-1074.73(953.86)

-1117.42(1,035.99)

-617.46(1,057.97)

Housing value -0.004(0.071)

0.003(0.068)

0.034(.070)

0.006(0.075)

--

People living below poverty 0.389***(0.035)

-- -- ----

People in welfare--

0.484***(0.038)

-- ----

Disabled people in welfare-- --

4.230***(0.389)

----

Single mother households-- -- --

1.182***(0.105)

--

Homeownership       

-648.23***(180.34)

H1: FINDINGS (DISASTER↑ POVERTY↑)

• Disasters result in increased poverty conditions

• Fatalities, property, and the crop damages positively related with poverty

• Per capita income increased with the increase in disaster fatalities and crop damages

• Unemployment rate decreased and private non-farm employment increased with the increase of disaster impacts.

H1: FINDINGS

• As the employments and people living below poverty line, both increases with the increase of natural disaster losses, it implies the creation of many low-wage employments.

• As poverty rates, per capita income, and median household income have increased with the increase in disaster losses, it might indicate that natural disaster is a factor that results in an increased income inequality.

• Severity of natural disaster has no negative impact on employments

H2: FINDINGS (DISASTER↑ ECONOMY↓)

• Both local government expenditures and federal government expenditures on counties have increased with the increase of disaster fatalities and economic losses.

• Earnings of all industries have increased with the increase in disaster fatalities and economic losses

• Local government general revenue and IRS gross income have increased with the increase of disaster fatalities and economic losses

H2: FINDINGS

• Disasters result in higher government expenditures to meet the costs of disaster relief, repair and rehabilitation of public property, and provide support to victims.

• The federal government had to spend more on insurance, disability, and the health sector with the increase of disaster impacts.

• Industries are well-prepared and recover in an effective way from a natural disaster.

• As per capita income and earning of all industries increased, it justifies increased government revenues

• Natural disaster have no negative impact on population growth

H3: FINDINGS (POVERTY ↑ →DISASTER↑)

The counties experienced higher number of fatalities and economic losses that have

• Higher number of people living below poverty

• Higher number of people in welfare

• Higher number of single mother households

• Higher number of disabled persons in welfare

• Lower number of homeownership rate

H4: FINDINGS (POVERTY↑→SOVI↑)

• The regression analysis reveals that more than 70% variations in the social vulnerability index (SOVI) can be explained by socially disadvantaged demographic groups.

• It confirms that the socially disadvantaged population groups are more vulnerable to natural disasters in the Gulf Coast states.

• The counties which have more socially disadvantaged groups are more vulnerable to disaster.

CONCLUSIONS

• The results imply that natural disasters result in increased poverty in the counties of the Gulf coast region and

• Disaster hinder economic development

• It is also evident that increased in poverty make disaster outcomes more severe

• The higher number of socially disadvantaged groups results in higher vulnerability in natural disaster

POLICY IMPLICATIONS • Reducing the level of poverty and improving the socio-economic

conditions

• Pre-disaster interventions

• Investing in poverty reduction should be considered as an element of disaster recovery

• Proactive and preventive urban planning

• Empowering socially disadvantaged groups

• Concerns about gender, age, disability, and minorities should be fully addressed in the planning and policy making process.

• A better coordination among multi-level governments

Understanding the nature of

poverty

Incorporating poverty into

DRR strategies

Pre-disaster approach for poverty reduction

through policies and funding

Implementation of policies and programs

Monitoring outcomes in

disaster situations

Actors in participatory processes:

-Local govt.-State & Fed govt.- Community,

including socially disadvantaged

- Civil society- Humanitarian

organizations

Policy Recommendations

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

• Complex interactions of disaster and risk with gender, class, age, disability, and other axes of inequality

• Group behaviors and inter-community comparisons of socially disadvantaged groups

• Development of theoretical models based on sociological and political-economy theory

• Technological disasters

• Cross country study at a larger scale

QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS

Thank you!!!