《未來資源研究所：2024構建脆弱社區氣候韌性：社區災害韌性區劃定與應用分析報告（英文版）（32頁）.pdf》由會員分享，可在線閱讀，更多相關《未來資源研究所：2024構建脆弱社區氣候韌性：社區災害韌性區劃定與應用分析報告（英文版）（32頁）.pdf（32頁珍藏版）》請在三個皮匠報告上搜索。

1、Building Climate Resilience in Vulnerable Communities:Analyzing Designation and Use of Community Disaster Resilience ZonesABuilding Climate Resilience in Vulnerable Communities:Analyzing Designation and Use of Community Disaster Resilience ZonesSofia Hines and Margaret WallsReport 24-18 September 20

2、24Resources for the FutureiAbout the Authors Sofia Hines is a former summer intern at Resources for the Future.She earned a Master of Public Policy from the University of North Carolina(UNC)at Chapel Hill after receiving a BA in Public Policy from UNC.Hines was a graduate Research Assistant at the C

3、oastal Resilience Center of Excellence and interned for the US Department of State.Her research focuses on climate resilience and environmental justice.Margaret Walls is a senior fellow and director of the Climate Risks and Resilience Program at RFF,as well as cohost of RFFs podcast,Resources Radio.

4、Wallss research focuses on the impacts of extreme weather,floods,hurricanes,and wildfires on people and communities and the design of programs and policies to equitably enhance resilience to such events.AcknowledgmentsThe authors appreciate helpful conversations about CDRZs,the CDRZ Act of 2022,and

5、challenges communities face with understanding CDRZs and accessing federal resilience funding with Jon Cawley,Juel Gibbons,Tonya Graham,Laura Hilberg,Naveed Jazayeri,Josh Milner,Steven Porter,Mary Sabuda,Katie Skakel,Randy Welch,Helene Wetherington,Holly White,and several senior FEMA staff.Building

6、Climate Resilience in Vulnerable Communities:Analyzing Designation and Use of Community Disaster Resilience ZonesiiAbout RFFResources for the Future(RFF)is an independent,nonprofit research institution in Washington,DC.Its mission is to improve environmental,energy,and natural resource decisions thr

7、ough impartial economic research and policy engagement.RFF is committed to being the most widely trusted source of research insights and policy solutions leading to a healthy environment and a thriving economy.The views expressed here are those of the individual authors and may differ from those of

8、other RFF experts,its officers,or its directors.Sharing Our WorkOur work is available for sharing and adaptation under an Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International(CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)license.You can copy and redistribute our material in any medium or format;you must give appropriate cre

9、dit,provide a link to the license,and indicate if changes were made,and you may not apply additional restrictions.You may do so in any reasonable manner,but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.You may not use the material for commercial purposes.If you remix,transform,

10、or build upon the material,you may not distribute the modified material.For more information,visit https:/creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.Resources for the FutureiiiAbstractThe Community Disaster Resilience Zones Act of 2022 directed the Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA)to designa

11、te communities that are vulnerable to natural disasters as Community Disaster Resilience Zones(CDRZs),which would then be prioritized for federal climate resilience funding.FEMA announced the first round of CDRZs in September 2023 483 census tracts that are high risk based on FEMAs National Risk Ind

12、ex mapping tool and disadvantaged based on the White House Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool.FEMA also followed the CDRZ Acts mandate that the top one percent of census tracts based on risk in each state be designated as CDRZs,ensuring geographical representation of CDRZ communities.In thi

13、s study,we summarize the risk and demographic characteristics of the tracts designated as CDRZs and explore two alternative approaches to designation:one that removes the requirement that tracts be disadvantaged based on the CEJST,using only the National Risk Index score,and one that removes the req

14、uirement that the top one percent in each state be designated as CDRZs.We also evaluate a potential“round 2”of CDRZs,expanding the list of designated tracts.We find that incorporating disadvantaged status,based on the CEJST,pulls more socially vulnerable,lower income,communities onto the list of CDR

15、Zs than would have been the case using the National Risk Index alone.At the same time,the average risk and resilience characteristics of the communities would be approximately the same.If the top one percent in each state requirement was dropped and designations based only on risk rankings and disad

16、vantaged status,we find that only 22 states would have had CDRZs.This is because of the geographic concentration of risks in the United States,especially around the hurricane-prone Gulf Coast.Finally,our“round 2”list includes more relatively disadvantaged communities,with higher poverty rates,lower

17、household incomes,and higher social vulnerability and slightly lower risk scores.This finding suggests that the requirement that communities be disadvantaged may begin to carry more weight in the designation process as new tracts are added to the CDRZ list.Using North Carolina as a case study,we com

18、pare CDRZs to communities that would have been selected by local experts and using local risk mapping tools.We find very little overlap in the census tracts chosen as CDRZs and these locally selected alternatives.We conclude from this exercise that some refinement of the approach,bringing in local k

19、nowledge along with the two national mapping tools,could be useful in the future.Interviews we conducted with state agencies and nonprofit organizations working on local resilience issues suggest some concerns about the CDRZ process.Most of these revolve around capacity and resource challenges in co

20、mmunities in gathering knowledge about CDRZs and accessing federal funding for resilience.Building Climate Resilience in Vulnerable Communities:Analyzing Designation and Use of Community Disaster Resilience ZonesivContents1.Introduction 12.The Community Disaster Resilience Zones Act and FEMA Designa

21、tions of CDRZs 33.National Context:Disasters,Climate Change,and Environmental Justice 64.Characteristics of CDRZs 75.Alternative Approaches to Creating CDRZs 95.1.Comparing High-Risk,Not Disadvantaged Tracts to CDRZs 105.2.Removing the Top 1 Percent in Each State Requirement 125.3.Comparing Potentia

22、l Round 2 CDRZs with Initial Set of CDRZs 146.Case Study:CDRZs in Eastern North Carolina 166.1.Community-Identified Tracts versus CDRZs and Comparison Datasets 166.2.Incorporation of Local Data Tools 177.Perspectives on CDRZs from Community-Based Organizations 208.Discussion and Conclusions 239.Refe

23、rences 25Building Climate Resilience in Vulnerable Communities:Analyzing Designation and Use of Community Disaster Resilience Zones11.IntroductionThe United States experiences an average of$92.9 billion in disaster costs each year,and this number has been on the rise since the 1980s(NCEI 2024).Many

24、studies have shown that marginalized and socially vulnerable communities are more at risk of natural hazards and have been comparatively disadvantaged in receiving assistance for disaster recovery and hazard mitigation(EPA 2015).As one way to address these problems,Congress passed the Community Disa

25、ster Resilience Zones Act in 2022.The act requires the Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA)to designate high-risk and socially vulnerable communities as Community Disaster Resilience Zones(CDRZs),which will then be prioritized for federal climate and disaster resilience funding.FEMA announced t

26、he first round of CDRZs in September 2023.It used two national tools,FEMAs National Risk Index(NRI)and the White Houses Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool(CEJST),to identify the communities(CEQ 2022).The NRI is an online mapping tool that identifies census tracts that are most at risk for 1

27、8 types of natural hazards in combination with measures of social vulnerability and community resilience.The CEJST is another online tool that identifies whether census tracts are disadvantaged based on energy and pollution burdens and socioeconomic factors.Census tracts with NRI scores in the top 5

28、0 nationally and the top 1 percent within each state that are also identified as disadvantaged communities by CEJST were designated as initial CDRZs.This process generated a list of 483 CDRZs.In this report,we summarize the risk and sociodemographic characteristics of the initial set of CDRZ communi

29、ties and compare this initial list with lists developed under alternative approaches.We explore two alternatives:census tracts selected based only on risk scores and not disadvantaged status;and census tracts selected based on top national risk scores and disadvantaged status but without the require

30、ment that the top 1 percent from each state be included.We also identify a potential second set of CDRZ designations by expanding the criteria to census tracts with the top 100 national risk scores and top 2 percent in each state.The CDRZ Act requires updates to the designation process every five ye

31、ars,and thus this analysis gives a sense of what communities in a new round of designations might look like.In addition to these exercises,we carry out a case study in two North Carolina counties,investigating how the use of local data could affect CDRZ designations.We also summarize the findings fr

32、om semistructured interviews with nonprofit organizations and community leaders working to support CDRZs.Our analysis of alternative approaches to CDRZ designation reveals important insights into the current methodology.First,we find that CDRZs have higher risk scores and social vulnerability than t

33、racts identified based only on risk and not disadvantaged status.This suggests that the use of the CEJST reinforces,rather than undermines,the selection of vulnerable communities in high-risk areas.Second,removing the requirement that the top 1 percent of census tracts from each state be included an

34、d compiling a list of 483 tracts with the highest risk scores significantly changes the Resources for the Future2selection of qualified tracts.Because the highest risks and vulnerability tend to be geographically concentrated,only 22 states would have CDRZs under this alternative approach.Finally,ou

35、r examination of potential round 2 CDRZs indicates that future designations would likely be more geographically concentrated in the South and include tracts with lower overall risk scores but slightly higher poverty rates and lower median incomes than the initial CDRZs.These results suggest that exp

36、anding the list of CDRZs is likely to bring in less risk-exposed but more socially disadvantaged communities.Our case study in two North Carolina counties reveals significant discrepancies between CDRZ designations and locally identified vulnerable areas.Our use of two alternative data tools,the sta

37、tes NC Environmental Health Data Dashboard and the Neighborhoods at Risk tool,yielded results more closely aligned with community-identified vulnerable tracts than CDRZs.The CDRZ Act does not specify which tools should be used for CDRZ designations,but the intention was that FEMA rely on national to

38、ols that have a consistent set of data available for all census tracts in the United States.This has led to tension in states and localities that have developed their own tools and methods and have deep knowledge about local risks.Interviews with stakeholders from community-based organizations highl

39、ighted six key themes:communities limited awareness of CDRZ designations;challenges in coordinating funding and support across local,state,and federal governments;capacity and resource constraints in using CDRZ designations to secure federal funding;concerns about methodology and data used to determ

40、ine CDRZ;and questions about how CDRZs fit into environmental justice initiatives and long-term resiliency strategies that account for future climate risk.Building Climate Resilience in Vulnerable Communities:Analyzing Designation and Use of Community Disaster Resilience Zones32.The Community Disast

41、er Resilience Zones Act and FEMA Designations of CDRZsThe Community Disaster Resilience Zones Act was signed into law by President Joe Biden on December 20,2022.1 This act amends the Robert T.Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act.2 It requires FEMA to identify communities most at ris

42、k of natural hazards and climate change to create CDRZs,which should be prioritized for federal resilience grant funding and eligible for lower cost-share requirements on federal grants.The act specifies that the list of CDRZs comprise the 50 census tracts assigned the highest individual hazard risk

43、 ratings nationally and not less than 1 percent of census tracts in each state with the highest risk ratings.FEMA released an initial list of 483 CDRZ communities on September 1,2023.CDRZs are eligible for increased federal cost share from 75 to 90 percent for FEMAs Building Resilient Infrastructure

44、 and Communities(BRIC)grant program and its BRIC Technical Assistance program,which provides technical assistance for resilience projects in underserved communities and is often used to position communities to apply for BRIC grants.FEMA also reports that at least seven other federal agencies will us

45、e CDRZs to inform grant priorities and other programmatic assistance,especially as those agencies target spending toward resilience.CDRZs thus present a potential opportunity for communities to leverage more support for their hazard resilience,recovery,and emergency management efforts.1 S.3875,117th

46、 Cong.,2022,https:/www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/sen-ate-bill/3875.2 H.R.2617,117th Cong.,2022,https:/www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/COMPS-2977/pdf/COMPS-2977.pdf.Table 1.CDRZ TimelineDateEventDecember 2022Community Disaster Resilience Zones(CDRZs)Act is signed into lawMarch 2023National Risk In

47、dex(NRI)data version 1.19.0,the version used for CDRZ designations,is releasedMayJuly 2023 Public comment period is open for suggestions on the process used to designate CDRZs,including updates to the methodology and data used for the NRI September 2023FEMA releases initial list of 483 CDRZ designat

48、ionsSeptember 2024Release of CDRZ designations for tribes and territories is anticipatedResources for the Future4The CDRZ Act did not specify the use of particular tools or designation requirements for CDRZs.However,it required that FEMA base its designation on building and agricultural loss exposur

49、e to natural hazards,social vulnerability,and community resilience,the three factors that make up FEMAs NRI.FEMA initially proposed using only the NRI to designate CDRZs,but later,after public comment,it added the White Houses CEJST and based CDRZ designations on meeting the disadvantaged community

50、criteria from that tool as well the NRI criteria.3 The NRI assigns census tracts a risk index score on a 5-point scale ranging from“very low”to“very high”risk based on the following:expected annual losses from 18 individual natural hazards;social vulnerability,using the Centers for Disease Control a

51、nd Preventions Social Vulnerability Index(SVI);and an index of community resilience,developed by the University of South Carolina Hazards Vulnerability and Resilience Institute,that is based on a range of infrastructure,economic,and governance factors.4 The CEJST identifies census tracts as disadvan

52、taged if they experience burdens(climate change,energy,health,housing,legacy pollution,transportation,water and wastewater,and workforce development)above certain thresholds and also meet an associated socioeconomic burden based on poverty rates,household income,health outcomes,and more.5 The CEJST

53、is used to identify disadvantaged communities for the purposes of implementing the Justice40 Initiative,the requirement that 40 percent of the benefits of certain federal climate and energy programs go to disadvantaged communities.6 Census tracts with NRI scores in the top 50 nationally or the top 1

54、 percent within their state that CEJST also identified as disadvantaged communities were designated as CDRZs,resulting in a total of 483 initial CDRZs.In the 60-day public comment period from May 26 to July 25,2023,FEMA solicited input on implementation of the CDRZ Act,updates to the methodology and

55、 data used for the NRI,and what process should be used to designate community disaster resilience zones.The agency received more than 600 comments in 24 engagement sessions and in written comments(FEMA 2023b).FEMA conducted“review and consideration”of these comments as it determined a methodology fo

56、r the initial CDRZ designations.In addition to criticisms over the sole use of the NRI for designation,which led to the addition of the CEJST,commenters also raised concerns about census tract measures and methodology transparency.Many strongly urged FEMA to coordinate with state and local governmen

57、ts to designate zones and take an iterative approach to piloting and updating zone designations(ASFM 2023;FEMA 2023b).3 For more information on the NRI,see https:/hazards.fema.gov/nri/,and on the CEJST,see https:/screeningtool.geoplatform.gov/en/#3/33.47/-97.5.4 For more information on the SVI,see h

58、ttps:/www.atsdr.cdc.gov/placeandhealth/svi/in-dex.html,and on the University of South Carolina resilience indicator index,see https:/www.sc.edu/study/colleges_schools/artsandsciences/centers_and_institutes/hvri/index.php/bric.5 Tracts within boundaries of Federally Recognized Tribes,including Alaska

59、 Native Villag-es,also qualify as disadvantaged.6 For more information on the Justice40 Initiative,see https:/media.rff.org/documents/Report_24-01.pdf.Building Climate Resilience in Vulnerable Communities:Analyzing Designation and Use of Community Disaster Resilience Zones5It is worth noting that th

60、ere is a degree of overlap in the underlying data used in the two tools.For example,the SVI,which is used to create the NRI,is constructed from factors that are also used in the CEJST,such as underlying data on poverty rates,housing cost burdens,and English language proficiency.The CEJST incorporate

61、s data used to construct the NRI,such as building loss rates from natural hazards.Without deconstructing the two tools,it is impossible to know the full implications of this fact for the designations.However,in our alternative methods discussed in Section 5,we remove the disadvantaged community requ

62、irement(and use of CEJST)and assess the results if only the NRI was used.Resources for the Future63.National Context:Disasters,Climate Change,and Environmental JusticeCDRZs come at a time of increasingly harmful climate change events.In 2023,72 percent of Americans experienced at least one extreme w

63、eather event(Kennedy et al.2024),and 28 billion-dollar weather and climate disastersthe highest number on recordstruck the United States(NCEI 2024).Although FEMA granted$3 billion to communities recovering from climate disasters(FEMA 2023c),a conservative estimate of the total cost for these disaste

64、rs is$92.9 billion(NCEI 2024).Climate change and hazardous weather events in 2023 alone resulted in nearly 500 deaths,hundreds more injuries,public health issues,and lasting economic burdens(NCEI 2024).The impact on and recovery of communities from such events varies based on socioeconomic status,ge

65、ographic location,and economic resources.Research shows that disadvantaged communities are disproportionately affected by disasters and face greater challenges in recovery(Reid 2013;Howell and Elliott 2019).Studies indicate that marginalized populations,particularly those with low income,high povert

66、y rates,underlying health conditions,and English language deficiencies,as well as racial minorities,are more vulnerable to disaster impacts and experience more significant losses relative to their assets(Fussell et al.2010;SAMHSA 2017).Additionally,these communities often encounter barriers in acces

67、sing aid and resources for rebuilding,which can lead to prolonged recovery periods and exacerbate existing inequalities(Ferreira 2024;Fussell et al.2010;Howell and Elliott 2019).Given these findings,there is growing recognition among policymakers and researchers that federal disaster relief and pred

68、isaster mitigation investments should prioritize the most vulnerable communities(Reid 2013;Howell and Elliott 2019).By directing resources to areas with the greatest needs,there is potential to support more equitable disaster recovery and address underlying social disparities that contribute to disa

69、ster vulnerability.Building Climate Resilience in Vulnerable Communities:Analyzing Designation and Use of Community Disaster Resilience Zones74.Characteristics of CDRZs Figure 1 shows all 483 CDRZs across the continental United States.7 As the map shows,every state has at least one CDRZ,as required

70、by the legislation.States have about 9 CDRZs each,on average.Nine states have only one CDRZ,and these tend to be states with comparatively lower populations:Alaska,Connecticut,Delaware,Maine,North Dakota,Rhode Island,South Dakota,Vermont,and Wyoming.California has 51 CDRZs,the highest number of any

71、state.The average population density of a CDRZ is 2,452 people per square mile,which is significantly less than the population density of an average census tract,indicating that CDRZs tend to be relatively less urbanized.New York,Massachusetts,and Delaware have the most population-dense CDRZs.Table

72、2 provides summary statistics for the variables used in the NRI and other selected sociodemographic variables for the designated CDRZ census tracts and for all census tracts in the United States.In addition to differences in population and population density,building and agricultural values are high

73、er,on average,in CDRZs,and correspondingly,expected annual losses from hazards are also higher than in the average census tract in the United States.The risk score for CDRZs is nearly double the average risk score in the United States as a whole.Socioeconomic variables also differ between CDRZs and

74、the average US census tract.CDRZs have lower median household incomes,$52,084 compared with$73,300 for the average tract in the United States,and higher poverty rates,20.2 versus 13.5 percent.CDRZs also have a lower percentage of white population compared with all census tracts:57.14 versus 61.51 pe

75、rcent(note that race is not used in either the NRI or the CEJST).7 Hawaii has five CDRZs and Alaska has one.Figure 1.CDRZs in the Continental United States CDRZsResources for the Future8On average,only 0.7 percent of a states population resides in a CDRZ census tract,and only 10 states have 1 percen

76、t or more of their population in CDRZs.Hawaii and Oklahoma have the highest percentage of their population in CDRZs,and Maine and Connecticut have the lowest.Table 2.CDRZ Summary StatisticsVariableCDRZ census tractsAll census tractsPopulation4,2573,932Population density(people/sq.mi.)2,4525,204Build

77、ing value$1.8 billion$732 millionAgricultural value$33 million$5.2 millionRisk score*95.150.0Expected annual losses from natural hazards score93.650.0Social vulnerability score*77.050.6Resilience score*41.650.2Median household income$52,084$73,300Poverty rate 20.213.5Percentage white population57.14

78、61.51*Based on index scores from 0 to 100.Building Climate Resilience in Vulnerable Communities:Analyzing Designation and Use of Community Disaster Resilience Zones95.Alternative Approaches to Creating CDRZsWe explore two alternative approaches to creating CDRZs and compare the characteristics of co

79、mmunities designated under these alternative approaches with the actual CDRZs created by FEMA.First,we used FEMAs methodology to create a dataset of CDRZ designations based only on the NRI and not CEJST to better understand the importance of incorporating an official measure of a communitys disadvan

80、taged status in the designation.Census tracts with the 50 highest composite risk scores and the top 1 percent of census tracts within each state and the District of Columbia,based on composite risk score,were compiled.Next,we removed census tracts that are identified as disadvantaged by the CEJST.Th

81、is created a dataset of high-risk,not disadvantaged census tractsthat is,tracts that meet the NRI risk criteria but were not designated as CDRZs because they were not disadvantaged according to CEJST.This created a list of 405 alternatively designated tracts.2A.CRDZs2B.High-Risk,Not Disadvantaged Tr

82、acts2C.Highest-Risk,Disadvantaged Tracts2D.Round Two CRDZsCensus tracts with top 50 risk scores nationally and top 1 percent within their stateCRDZsCensus tracts identified as disadvantagedCensus tracts with top 50 risk scores nationally and top 1 percent within their stateCRDZsCensus tracts identif

83、ied as disadvantagedCensus tracts with next top 50 risk scores nationally and next top 1 percent within their stateCRDZsCensus tracts identified as disadvantagedCRDZsCensus tracts identified as disadvantagedCensus tracts with highest risk scores nationally(no top 1 percent within each state)Figure 2

84、.Dataset Visual Representations Resources for the Future10Our second scenario explores the importance of ensuring that each state has at least one tract designated as a CDRZ.Here we generate a list of 483 tractsthe same number as in the actual CDRZ listthat have the highest NRI composite risk scores

85、 nationally and are also disadvantaged according to CEJST,but without requiring that the top 1 percent from each state be included.Analyzing this scenario sheds light on the geographic concentration of risks and which states would have fallen off the CDRZ list had there not been the 1 percent requir

86、ement.Figure 2 depicts visual representations of CDRZs and the comparison datasets we constructed in the two alternative methodologies.It also includes a fourth option,which we refer to as a potential second round of CDRZs.We discuss this option in Section 5.3.The circles on the left side of each Ve

87、nn diagram in Figure 2 represent the NRI parameters used in the designation process,and the circles on the right represent the CEJST disadvantaged status.The intersecting area in each represents census tracts that meet both the NRI and the CEJST criteria in that scenario.The area outlined in black r

88、epresents the area that is,or would be,designated as CDRZs in each scenario.5.1.Comparing High-Risk,Not Disadvantaged Tracts to CDRZsThe map in Figure 3 represents scenario 2B,high-risk,not disadvantaged tracts(orange),compared with 2A,actual CDRZs(green).The high-risk,not disadvantaged tractsthat i

89、s,comparison designations based on the NRI but not CEJSTare generally located in similar areas to the CDRZs but appear more geographically concentrated.CDRZs are widely dispersed,with concentrations in the West,Midwest,Figure 3.CDRZs and High-Risk,Not Disadvantaged Tracts in the Continental United S

90、tates CDRZHigh-Risk,Not Disadvantaged TractBuilding Climate Resilience in Vulnerable Communities:Analyzing Designation and Use of Community Disaster Resilience Zones11and scattered pockets elsewhere.High-risk,not disadvantaged tracts are mainly in a north-south band from Texas northward through the

91、central states and in clusters in Illinois,Pennsylvania,and Northern California.Some states end up with more designations and others with fewer using these criteria.States with more high-risk,not disadvantaged designations relative to CDRZs have areas vulnerable to climate risk,but many of those are

92、as are not also considered disadvantaged.For example,Michigan has 20 high-risk,not disadvantaged tracts and 10 CDRZs;Kansas has 6 high-risk,not disadvantaged tracts and 4 CDRZs.On the other hand,having fewer high-risk,not disadvantaged tracts than CDRZs indicates that many of a states risk-vulnerabl

93、e tracts are also disadvantaged.For example,Missouri has only 2 high-risk,not disadvantaged tracts but 16 CDRZs;Nevada has 1 high-risk,not disadvantaged tract but 7 CDRZs.Thus the use of the CEJST was important in identifying CDRZs in those states.Table 3.CDRZ Summary StatisticsMeanP-valueVariableCD

94、RZ census tractsHigh-risk,not disadvantaged census tractsPopulation4,256.95,059.00.0000Population density(people per sq.mi.)2,452.11,748.40.1459Building value$1.80 billion$1.96 billion0.3087Agricultural value$32.9 million$33.3 million0.95917Risk score*95.193.30.00032Expected annual losses score*93.6

95、93.50.89724Social vulnerability score*77.052.70.0000Resilience score*41.656.30.0000Percentage of population in poverty20.911.20.0000Median household income$52,084$79,5790.0000Percentage white population57.1470.880.0000*Based on index scores from 0 to 100.Note:P-value is the probability,based on a t-

96、statistic,that there is no difference in the means of the two samples.Resources for the Future12Table 3 shows mean values for several characteristics of CDRZs and high-risk,not disadvantaged tracts and the results of t-tests for statistically significant differences in those means.While there are di

97、fferences in means for all variables,the differences are not statistically significant for population density,property values,crop values,and expected annual losses.Significant differences are found for the other variables.CDRZs have significantly higher risk scores,higher social vulnerability,and l

98、ower community resilience than high-risk,not disadvantaged tracts.CDRZs are also less populated than high-risk,not disadvantaged tracts and have significantly more people in poverty and lower median incomes.CDRZs have a lower percentage of white residents than high-risk,not disadvantaged tracts.It i

99、s notable that CDRZs have higher risk scores.This finding suggests that using the CEJST in combination with the NRI did not result in the exclusion of(on average)higher-risk tracts from CDRZ designations.Rather,the CEJST seems to have mostly reinforced the criteria in the NRI.Notably,this scenario h

100、as only 78 fewer tracts than the CDRZ list(405 versus 483).85.2.Removing the Top 1 Percent in Each State Requirement Figure 4 shows a map of the 483 tracts with highest NRI composite risk scores that are also disadvantaged according to the CEJST without also requiring that the top 1 percent in each

101、state be included,along with CDRZs.A total of 220 census tracts overlap;these tracts are represented on the map in red.Remaining CDRZs are shown in green;purple tracts are those highest-risk disadvantaged tracts that would have been CDRZs without the top 1 percent requirement.8 There are 41,708 cens

102、us tracts that are disadvantaged,according to CEJST,out of 73,057 cen-sus tracts in total in the United States.Thus 57 percent of all tracts are considered disadvan-taged.Figure 4.CDRZs and Highest-Risk,Disadvantaged Tracts CDRZsHighest-Risk and Disadvantaged TractOverlapBuilding Climate Resilience

103、in Vulnerable Communities:Analyzing Designation and Use of Community Disaster Resilience Zones13In this scenario,the 483 highest-risk and disadvantaged tracts are concentrated along the East,West,and Gulf Coasts.Only 22 states are represented in this groupAlabama,Alaska,California,Florida,Georgia,Ha

104、waii,Idaho,Iowa,Louisiana,Mississippi,Missouri,Nebraska,Nevada,New Jersey,New Mexico,North Carolina,Oregon,South Carolina,Tennessee,Texas,Utah,and Washingtonleaving 28 states without a CDRZ.Thus the top 1 percent requirement significantly affects the tracts selected as CDRZs.The green areas on the m

105、ap represent census tracts that were categorized as CDRZs by FEMA because of the top 1 percent from each state requirement.These tracts are mainly concentrated in landlocked areas such as Colorado,Kansas,and Missouri.The top 1 percent requirement has the biggest impact in New York,Ohio,and Pennsylva

106、nia,which have the highest number of green tracts(24,21,and 21,respectively)but no top 483 tracts.California,Texas,and North Carolina have the highest number of top 483 tracts that do not overlap with CDRZs(purple tracts;152,24,and 20,respectively).These states would have received the most CDRZ desi

107、gnations if the top 1 percent requirement were removed.Lastly,the red areas on the map represent tracts that would have been designated as CDRZs with or without the top 1 percent requirement.Table 4.CDRZ Summary StatisticsMeanP-valueVariableCDRZ census tracts483 highest-risk and disadvantaged tracts

108、Population4,256.94,740.50.0005Population density(people per sq.mi.)2,452.12,100.40.4121Building value$1.80 billion$1.84 billion0.8093Agricultural value$32.94 million$38.98 million0.4608Risk score*95.199.500.0000Expected annual losses score*93.699.00.0000Social vulnerability score*77.081.00.0005Resil

109、ience score*41.639.50.2479Percentage of population in poverty20.919.60.0724Median household income$52,084$57,6090.0002Percentage white population57.1444.060.0000*Based on index scores from 0 to 100.Note:P-value is the probability,based on a t-statistic,that there is no difference in the means of the

110、 two samples.Resources for the Future14Table 4 shows summary statistics for various characteristics of CDRZs and this alternative list of the 483 highest-risk and disadvantaged tracts.The 483 highest-risk tracts have a less-white population than CDRZs.Notably,the average risk and social vulnerabilit

111、y scores are higher for these highest-risk tracts than for designated CDRZs.Thus the top 1 percent requirement ensured geographic diversity of CDRZs but led to the exclusion of some highly vulnerable at-risk communities in some parts of the country.5.3.Comparing Potential Round 2 CDRZs with Initial

112、Set of CDRZs In this section,we analyze the characteristics of census tracts in a future potential round 2 list of CDRZs.Using the NRI and CEJST tools,we compiled a list of tracts that have the 100 highest risk scores based on the NRI and the top 2 percent of census tracts within each state and the

113、District of Columbia.We then removed tracts already designated as CDRZs and tracts not identified as disadvantaged by the CEJST.This created a list of 407 potential round 2 CDRZsthat is,the next top 50 and next top 1 percent tracts in each state based on risks and that are also disadvantaged communi

114、ties.Thus this list represents the result of a continuation of FEMAs method for designating CDRZs.Figure 5 depicts the initial CDRZs(green)and potential round 2 CDRZs(pink)mapped together.Potential round 2 CDRZs appear slightly more geographically clustered than existing CDRZs and are found primaril

115、y in the South,particularly in Texas,Louisiana,Mississippi,Alabama,and Georgia.Smaller pink clusters are seen in the Carolinas,Arizona,California,and southern Missouri and Illinois.Figure 5.Existing CDRZs and Potential Round 2 CDRZs CDRZPotential Round Two CDRZBuilding Climate Resilience in Vulnerab

116、le Communities:Analyzing Designation and Use of Community Disaster Resilience Zones15In this potential round 2,some states receive more CDRZs than in the first round and others fewer.For example,Florida has 32 CDRZs but would get only 25 round 2 tracts;Washington has 15 CDRZs but would get only 7 ro

117、und 2 tracts;and South Carolina has 10 CDRZs but would get only 4 round 2 tracts.This suggests that most of these states high-risk and disadvantaged tracts were already selected in the initial designation of CDRZs.Other states fare about the same in the second round as the first.Texas has 35 CDRZs a

118、nd would get 39 round 2 tracts,and Georgia has 15 CDRZs and would get 17 round 2 tracts.This suggests that these states have many census tracts that were not designated as CDRZs in the initial round although they are high-risk and disadvantaged.Table 5 shows summary statistics for existing CDRZs and

119、 potential round 2 CDRZs.Compared with the initial set of CDRZs,potential round 2 CDRZs have lower building values,lower expected losses,and lower risk scores,suggesting that the additional tracts pulled into the CDRZ category generally fall lower on the overall NRI risk score,as expected.There are

120、no significant differences between population and population density.However,potential round 2 tracts have slightly higher poverty rates and lower median incomes than existing CDRZs.This suggests that the CEJST may be carrying relatively more weight as the list of potential CDRZs expands.Potential r

121、ound 2 tracts also have a lower percentage of their populations that are white than existing CDRZs.Table 5.CDRZ Summary StatisticsMeanP-valueVariableCDRZ census tractsPotential round 2 CDRZsPopulation4,256.94,315.70.6216Population density2,452.13,136.30.248Building value$1.80 billion$1.18 billion0.0

122、000Agricultural value$32.94 million$25.57 million0.3809Risk score*95.191.20.0000Expected annual losses score*93.688.30.0000Social vulnerability score*77.079.40.0468Resilience score*41.641.30.8860Percentage of population in poverty20.922.70.0261Median household income$52,084$49,3600.0557Percentage wh

123、ite population57.1452.420.0070*Based on index scores from 0 to 100.Note:P-value is the probability,based on a t-statistic,that there is no difference in the means of the two samples.Resources for the Future166.Case Study:CDRZs in Eastern North CarolinaEastern North Carolina is a region that faces si

124、gnificant flood risks and vulnerability to sea level rise.In this section,we take a careful look at CDRZs designated in two counties in the region,Craven and Beaufort Counties,and investigate how the use of local data may have changed designation outcomes.We also summarize interviews with local offi

125、cials and representatives from NGOs working in the region.6.1.Community-Identified Tracts versus CDRZs and Comparison DatasetsCommunity representatives from Craven and Beaufort Counties used local data on hazard damages,house elevations,flooding,and expected loss from hazards to identify census trac

126、ts that are most vulnerable and would benefit most from resilience efforts.In most of these tracts,resilience projects are underway or have been deemed a priority(Holly White and Helene Wetherington,personal communication,March 20,2024).Figure 6 maps these tracts(blue)alongside designated CDRZs(gree

127、n)and potential round 2 CDRZs(pink).There is no overlap between the locally identified Figure 6.Community-Identified Vulnerable Census Tracts and CDRZs and Potential Round 2 CDRZs in Eastern North Carolina CDRZCommunity-IdentifiedVulnerable TractPotential Round Two CDRZBuilding Climate Resilience in

128、 Vulnerable Communities:Analyzing Designation and Use of Community Disaster Resilience Zones17tracts and either the CDRZs or a potential round 2 CDRZ list.In Figure 6,circles are drawn around the three locations where tracts identified by community representatives share a border with CDRZs and poten

129、tial round 2 CDRZs.Community representatives are aware of the discrepancies.In our discussions with representatives of the North Carolina Office of Recovery and Resiliency(NCORR),one pointed out a tract designated as a CDRZ to show how close it was to a census tract they had identified as in need of

130、 funding for resiliency projects.6.2.Incorporation of Local Data ToolsIn this section,we investigate how the use of other data tools,including those developed locally,may have changed designation outcomes in Craven and Beaufort Counties.North Carolina data sources such as the NC Environmental Health

131、 Data Dashboard(EHDD)illustrate census tracts with high environmental burdens based on a variety of social,environmental,and health indicators(NCDHHS 2024).Although there is overlap between the EHDD and the two national tools,the NRI and CEJST,the EHDD includes additional data on both environmental

132、hazards and health outcomes.Neighborhoods at Risk is a national tool developed by Headwaters Economics that identifies census tracts that may experience unequal impacts from flooding and extreme heat(Headwaters Economics 2024).Both tools are free and publicly available.To determine whether these alt

133、ernative data tools more accurately capture the tracts identified by community members,we constructed another set of comparison maps.We first selected census tracts with a composite Environmental Health Index score greater than 0.7that is,in the 70th percentile or higher of environmental burdens as

134、determined by the EHDD.Figure 7 represents the overlap(purple)between these Figure 7.Community-Identified Vulnerable Census Tracts and Vulnerable Tracts Identified by the EHHD in Eastern North CarolinaEHDD DesignationCommunityEHDDEHDD and CommunityResources for the Future18EHDD-identified tracts(gra

135、y)and the community-identified tracts(blue)from Figure 6.Five census tracts identified by community representatives were also identified by the EHDD.Using the Neighborhoods at Risk tools variables and parameters,we selected census tracts with properties that have a flood risk of 10 percent or more,a

136、t least 10 percent of the area located in a 500-year floodplain,and at least 10 percent of housing units being mobile homes.These tracts represent those likely to experience unequal climate change impacts in this region.Figure 8 represents the overlap(purple)between these tracts selected using the N

137、eighborhoods at Risk tool(gray)and community-identified tracts(blue).Nine census tracts identified by community representatives were also identified by the Neighborhoods at Risk tool.The census tracts in Craven and Beaufort Counties identified as having high environmental burdens by the EHDD or uneq

138、ual climate change impacts by the Neighborhoods at Risk tool,or both,more closely align with the census tracts identified by community representatives than do the CDRZ designations.The EHDD identified five overlapping census tracts,while the Neighborhoods at Risk tool identified nine overlapping cen

139、sus tracts.In contrast,there was no overlap between the community-identified tracts and the CDRZs or potential round 2 CDRZs,as depicted in Figure 6.These discrepancies highlight the limitations of relying on federal data and tools to designate CDRZs.They also show the potential of incorporating loc

140、al knowledge and data tools in the designation process.This strategy was also suggested by local NGO representatives we interviewed,who expressed a desire for more nuanced CDRZ designations.Figure 8.Community-Identified Vulnerable Census Tracts and Vulnerable Tracts Identified by the Neighborhoods a

141、t Risk Tool in Eastern North CarolinaNAR DesignationCommunityNARNAR and CommunityBuilding Climate Resilience in Vulnerable Communities:Analyzing Designation and Use of Community Disaster Resilience Zones19Relying on a local data approach could have drawbacks,however.Some communities may have greater

142、 capacity than others to collect accurate climate risk data,which may exacerbate the very disparities that the CDRZ process is attempting to address.Local data for all communities in the United States would have to be considered and incorporated into designations with the same degree of scrutiny.Ult

143、imately,CDRZs present the federal government with the opportunity to identify the most vulnerable and at-risk areas to ensure they receive support to adapt to the impacts of climate change.As the program moves forward,the debate over whether and how to bring local data,tools,and knowledge into the C

144、DRZ process deserves more attention and discussion.If CDRZ designations do not match priorities at the state and local levels,the program risks failing to meet its objectives of helping the most underserved and at-risk communities.Resources for the Future207.Perspectives on CDRZs from Community-Base

145、d OrganizationsTo gain further understanding of CDRZ designation and usage,we conducted semistructured interviews with nine stakeholders from five different organizations.Table 6 lists these organizations,which represent government agencies,nonprofits,and research institutions.We aimed to gather inf

146、ormation,experiences,and insights pertaining to CDRZs from professionals working in community resilience and disaster recovery.All interviewees have expertise related to community resilience and disaster risk reduction efforts at various levels of implementation.Our main objective was to understand

147、the current practices,challenges,and opportunities associated with CDRZ implementation and explore potential strategies for enhancing their effectiveness and broader adoption.The Geos Institute builds systems to help communities access support services to address the effects of climate change.EcoAda

148、pt,Project In-CORE,and NCORR,are all part of the Geos Institutes Southeast Navigator Network.Launched in October 2023,the Southeast Navigator Network established individuals as navigators in four states to serve as“trusted partners to CDRZ communities”and help them take advantage of funding sources,

149、identify capacity-building strategies,and secure technical support for resilience(Geos Institute 2024).NCORR is a state government agency that partners with local governments,other state agencies,and community organizations to improve resiliency.SERCAP aims to improve the quality of life for low-inc

150、ome individuals by promoting affordable water and wastewater facilities,community development,environmental health,and economic self-sufficiency across its regional programs.We completed a thematic analysis of interview transcripts and identified six themes surrounding the implementation and use of

151、CDRZ designations.These themes are awareness and understanding of CDRZs,coordination and alignment challenges across different levels of government,capacity and resource constraints,methodological and data concerns,equity and environmental justice considerations,and the need for sustainability and l

152、ong-term planning.Table 7 lists these themes along with related interview sentiments.Table 6.Interviewee Organizations EcoAdapt Geos Institute National Institute of Standards and Technology Center of Excellence,Project IN-CORENorth Carolina Office of Recovery and Resiliency(NCORR)Southeast Rural Com

153、munity Assistance Project(SERCAP)Building Climate Resilience in Vulnerable Communities:Analyzing Designation and Use of Community Disaster Resilience Zones21Table 7.Interview Themes and SentimentsThemeSentimentsAwareness and understanding of CDRZ designationsMany communities unaware of their CDRZ de

154、signationLack of clarity on the meaning and implications of the CDRZ designationNeed for better communication and outreach from FEMA to notify and inform communities of CDRZ statusCoordination and alignment challenges across different levels of governmentChallenges in coordinating federal,state,and

155、local climate resiliency efforts and funding structuresDisconnect between CDRZ census tract boundaries and local community jurisdictions and plansNeed for better alignment and integration of climate data sources and information across all levels of governmentCapacity and resource constraintsVarying

156、capacity and resources in CDRZ communitiesChallenges in effectively accessing and allocating federal funding and assistanceNeed for dedicated support and resources tailored to CDRZ communitiesMethodology and data concernsConcerns about the relevance of CDRZ designation at the census-tract level Ques

157、tions about the data sources used for designation and their ability to capture local risk accuratelyNeed for a more nuanced and locally informed approach to designationsEquity and environmental justice considerationsQuestions about how CDRZs fit into environmental justice initiatives like the Justic

158、e40 InitiativeDesire that CDRZ designations amplify rather than detract from or complicate existing environmental justice effortsNeed for a more holistic and equitable approach to community resilienceSustainability and long-term planningEmphasis on using CDRZs to build long-term resilience and susta

159、inabilityIncorporation of future climate change risks and regional resilience planning into designation and support for CDRZsNeed for a comprehensive and forward-looking approach to disaster preparednessResources for the Future22These themes highlight significant challenges and opportunities in the

160、current CDRZ framework.The first thing we learned is that there is a notable lack of awareness and understanding of CDRZs among designated communities.Nonprofit officials supporting CDRZs reported that community leaders in designated zones frequently had no idea they had been designated as a CDRZ or

161、 what the designation means for their community.Once they are made aware of their communitys CDRZ status,leaders often face difficulties coordinating across different levels of government.For example,CDRZs are designated at the census tract level,but governance is at the town or city level,and appli

162、cations for FEMA funding and other forms of assistance must be coordinated with county and state governments.Another theme that emerged is the complexity of assisting CDRZ communities effectively because capacity and resources vary widely between CDRZs.Many concerns were raised about the methodology

163、 for CDRZ designations,particularly regarding the ability to capture local risk accurately using only federal data.Interviewees had questions about how to ensure that the CDRZ framework complements rather than complicates existing environmental justice initiatives.For example,several interviewees as

164、ked about the connection between the CEJST being used to designate both CDRZs and disadvantaged communities under the Justice40 Initiative.Finally,especially for interviewees in North Carolina,there was an emphasis on the importance of long-term planning and sustainability in CDRZ implementation.Som

165、e agency workers and others remarked on their desire for future climate risks and long-term regional resilience strategies to be incorporated into the CDRZ framework.These insights highlight the challenges,opportunities,and considerations surrounding CDRZ designations.They also underscore the comple

166、xity of CDRZ implementation and the importance of addressing identified challenges.Building Climate Resilience in Vulnerable Communities:Analyzing Designation and Use of Community Disaster Resilience Zones238.Discussion and ConclusionsAttention to the problems of climate and disaster risks in the Un

167、ited States is increasing,with a greater focus on the need to build resilience.With passage of the Community Disaster Resilience Zones Act of 2022,Congress acknowledged the disproportionate impacts that disasters are causing in some socially vulnerable communities and the need to prioritize those co

168、mmunities for investments in resilience.In this report,we have taken a first look at the 483 communities designated as CDRZs,mapping where they are,summarizing their risk and sociodemographic characteristics,and comparing them with communities that might have been selected under alternative criteria

169、.The use of FEMAs National Risk Index(NRI)and the White Houses Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool(CEJST)to designate CDRZs effectively selected the most socially vulnerable,least-resilient communities in high-risk areas,as Congress intended.Inclusion of the CEJST in the designation process,

170、rather than use of the NRI alone,appears to have strengthened rather than undermined the selection of socially vulnerable communities.The requirement to include tracts from every state,however,led to the exclusion of some highly vulnerable communities in favor of geographic representation.Losses fro

171、m disasters are regionally concentrated,especially along the coasts,and highly vulnerable at-risk communities are mainly in the South and along the Gulf Coast(Walls and Liao 2024).With the requirement of state representation,some of those communities drop off the list in order to include communities

172、 in other states.Our examination of potential round 2 CDRZs indicates that future designations are likely to have different geographic distributions and risk profiles than those in the initial set,with a tendency toward more socioeconomically disadvantaged areas but slightly lower overall risks.Thes

173、e findings highlight the complex trade-offs inherent in the current designation methodology and suggest areas for potential refinement.Our case study of two counties in eastern North Carolina highlights the potential disconnect between federal designations and local realities.The incorporation of lo

174、cal data and knowledge could significantly enhance the accuracy and relevance of CDRZ designations.Although bringing in local data and knowledge must be balanced against the need for a standardized national methodology,the current approach could end up at odds with state and local efforts,which coul

175、d undercut the objectives of the CDRZ effort.Thus we feel that better coordination with states and localities is needed.One idea would be to have the top 50 tracts selected with the national tools and the top 1%in each state selected by combining the state and local data and knowledge with the natio

176、nal tools.A step in this direction is for FEMA to start coordinating with state offices of resilience and emergency management to bring in state-sanctioned data and tools to the CDRZ process.Although some states are ahead of others in developing these tools and in their attention to resilience more

177、broadly,the very process of engagement could push states to do more.Resources for the Future24The challenges identified through stakeholder interviewsincluding lack of awareness about CDRZ designations and their implications,coordination difficulties across local and state governments,and varying co

178、mmunity capacitiesunderscore the need for a more comprehensive implementation strategy.FEMA and other federal agencies should prioritize outreach and capacity-building efforts to ensure that CDRZ designations translate into tangible benefits for communities.Finally,it is important to point out that

179、the CDRZ approach can only do so much.The 483 CDRZs make up less than 1 percent of all census tracts in the United States.Clearly,many more communities need investments in resilience,including those that are socially vulnerable and disadvantaged.In addition,FEMA resilience funding is limited.The BRI

180、C program had$1 billion in grant funding available in FY2023.In comparison,disaster recovery spending by FEMAmoney spent to help individuals and communities recover from the impacts of a disastertotaled more than$13 billion that same year.More emphasis on predisaster resilience investments is needed

181、 at all levels of government and in communities across the United States.Building Climate Resilience in Vulnerable Communities:Analyzing Designation and Use of Community Disaster Resilience Zones259.ReferencesASFPM(Association of State Floodplain Managers).2023.“ASFPMs Comments on FEMAs Community Di

182、saster Resilience Zones and the National Risk Index Notice and Request for Information.”https:/asfpm-library.s3.us-west- on Environmental Quality).2022.Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool.Last updated November 22,2022.https:/screeningtool.geoplatform.gov.EPA(US Environmental Protection Agenc

183、y).2015.“Environmental Justice Timeline.”https:/www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/environmental-justice-timeline.FEMA(Federal Emergency Management Agency).2023a.“Community Disaster Resilience Zones and the National Risk Index.”FEMA-2023-0009.Fed.Reg.https:/www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/05/26

184、/2023-11268/community-disaster-resilience-zones-and-the-national-risk-index.2023b.“Summary of Request for Information on the Implementation of Community Disaster Resilience Zones.”https:/www.fema.gov/fact-sheet/summary-request-information-implementation-community-disaster-resilience-zones.2023c.“202

185、3 By the Numbers”(blog).December 29.https:/www.fema.gov/blog/2023-numbers.Ferreira,R.,T.Davidson,F.Buttell,C.M.Contillo,C.Leddie,C.Leahy,C.Nuez-Dune,et al.2024.“Barriers to Equitable Disaster Recovery:A Scoping Literature Review.”International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 110:104628.https:/doi

186、.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2024.104628.Fussell,E.,N.Sastry,and M.Van Landingham.2010.“Race,Socioeconomic Status,and Return Migration to New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.”Population and Environment 31(13):2042.https:/doi.org/10.1007/s11111-009-0092-2.Geos Institute.2024.“Climate Ready America:Southeast

187、Navigator Network.”https:/geosinstitute.org/initiatives/climate-ready-america/southeast-navigator-network/.Headwaters Economics.2024.“Neighborhoods at Risk.”https:/headwaterseconomics.org/tools/neighborhoods-at-risk/tool-about/.Howell,J.,and J.R.Elliott.2019.“Damages Done:The Longitudinal Impacts of

188、 Natural Hazards on Wealth Inequality in the United States.”Social Problems 66(3):44867.https:/doi.org/10.1093/socpro/spy016.Kennedy,B.,Tyson,A.,and Yam,E.2024.“Americans Extreme Weather Policy Views and Personal Experiences.”Pew Research Center.July 23.https:/www.pewresearch.org/science/2024/07/23/

189、americans-extreme-weather-policy-views-and-personal-experiences/.Kennedy,B.,Tyson,A.,and Yam,E.2024.“Americans Extreme Weather Policy Views and Personal Experiences.”Pew Research Center.July 23.https:/www.pewresearch.org/science/2024/07/23/americans-extreme-weather-policy-views-and-personal-experien

190、ces/.NCDHHS(North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services).2024.“Epidemiology:Occupational and Environmental:NC Environmental Public Health Tracking Program.”Last modified July 23,2024.https:/epi.dph.ncdhhs.gov/oee/programs/EnvPubHealthTracking.html.Resources for the Future26NCEI(National C

191、enters for Environmental Information).2024.“U.S.Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters.”National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.https:/www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/billions/.Reid,M.2013.“Disasters and Social Inequalities.”Sociology Compass 7(11):98497.https:/doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12080.Wall

192、s,M.,S.Hines,and L.Ruggles.2024.Implementation of Justice40:Challenges,Opportunities,and a Status Update.Report 24-01.Washington,DC:Resources for the Future.https:/media.rff.org/documents/Report_24-01.pdf.Walls,M.and Y.Liao.2024.“Storm Watch:Mapping Extreme Weather Events in the United States.”Common Resources(blog).August 2.https:/www.resources.org/common-resources/storm-watch-mapping-extreme-weather-events-in-the-united-states/.Resources for the Future27