Search

The case study findings in the text have been discussed with senior staff at the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services and members of the California Latino Legislative Caucus. It has also been presented at the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies and the Yale Center for the Study of Race, Indigeneity, and Transnational Migration during a Scoping Analysis workshop with California policymakers and advocates.

“Despite these disadvantages, the state of California has failed to map wildfire vulnerability based on socioeconomic status. Without an accurate identification and mapping process, the state is unable to provide local governments and community-based groups with a reliable rendering of the populations most vulnerable to the impacts of wildfire. Most importantly, by failing to identify socially vulnerable communities across California, government entities are unable to understand in advance where to target limited resources and programs (Sadd et al., 2011).” (Mendez 57)

“To further ensure participation and strengthen capacity, federal, state and local governments should provide appropriate funding to community-based organizations working directly with vulnerable populations.Community-based organizations have stronger cultural competency in engaging with communities of color and immigrants,

greater levels of trust, and more flexibility to explicitly assist these populations. In community-based planning processes, vulnerable communities are actively engaged in the identification, analysis and interventions, monitoring, and evaluation of disaster risks. This approach helps reduce their vulnerabilities and enhance their capacities.” (Mendez 59)

This text highlights the importance of a mixed methods approach to disaster planning. Specifically, the importance of incorporating qualitative research methods as a way to anchor the voices of marginalized communities within disaster planning and provide context to emerging trends observed in climate related risks.  Regarding disaster planning and undocumented immigrant communities for example, Mendez (2020) stresses that practitioners must go beyond addressing the contextual vulnerability of these communities and consider how to address systemic problems perpetuated by the agricultural industry. The lack of accountability and disregard for human life within the industry, coupled with the lack political power within undocumented immigrant communities, particularly those belonging to the Mixteco/ Indigena indigenous groups, are systems of oppression which must be addressed if climate disaster risks are to be truly addressed.

Mendez (2020) stresses that the intersectionality of race, class, gender, indigeneity, and many other dimensions of identities coalesce to shape the lived experiences of people in their local environments. Traditional quantitative methods, though useful in providing snapshots of disaster vulnerability, can do little in capturing the social environmental conditions which determine responses to extreme weather and climatic events. At best, it can serve to provide an obscured understanding of disaster risks, at worst, this one-dimensional methodology approach may exacerbate existing inequalities perpetuated by systems of racism, classicism, and sexism by rendering whole communities invisible simply by virtue of sampling biases (Mendez, 2020). The case study by which Mendez frames his central argument focuses on how Indigenous immigrants were systematically ignored in emergency response and alleviation efforts following the Thomas Fire in California’s Ventura and Santa Barbara counties. 

How are Data Gaps Worked Around:

Sarnia, and the surrounding area around chemical valley, have 9 air monitoring stations in which air pollutants are monitored from the nearby petrochemical complex. Until 2017, only data from one of these stations (the one on Christina Street in downtown Sarnia) was publicly available. This created a gap in accessiblility of important data for sarnia and the nearby AFN residents. In September 2015, the Clean Air Sarnia and Area group launched as a "community advisory panel made up of representatives from the public, government, First Nations, and industry, who are dedicated to providing the community with a clear understanding of ambient air quality in the Sarnia area." This group works to improve air quality in Sarnia by making information about air quality publicly available and by making recommendations to relevant authorities. In 2018, this group launched the website: https://reporting.cleanairsarniaandarea.com/ (also uploaded as an artifact) which allows public to access data from the air quality monitoring stations and understand how air quality compares to Ontario's standards. This site works to fill the gap of publicly available air quality data in Sarnia.

This report from Ecojustice shows a decline in air pollution compared to Ecojustice's first report released in 2007 for the area around Chemical Valley, yet Sarnia industries continue "to release far more pollution, and in particular far more SO2 , than comparable U.S. refineries." One contributor to the continued excessive emissions is Ontario's lagging air quality standards. The report notes that "Ontario’s AAQC and air quality standards are lagging behind current science on the health impacts of air pollutants, which may put the health of residents at risk." The report highlights pollutants where Ontario's standard is above the national standard or where Ontario has no standard at all. Additionally, Sarnia's benzene emissions are exempt from Ontario's health-based standard for this chemical and are instead regulated by  "an industry technical-based standard" allowing benzene levels to be far higher than the health-based standard. The lagging, lack of, or exemption from regulation undercut efforts in monitoring and reducing emissions to a "safe" level as what is considered "safe" by standards is out of line with what is considered "safe" by health and other standards.

This study utilized a random sample of rape victim advocates to determine whether the current community systems and services work for these victims. As is mentioned in the introduction, the services for rape victims are typically separated in terms of legal, medical, mental health; studies tend to focus on these entities individually when evaluating their procedures, thus greatly narrowing the scope of the procedure. This study, therefore, aims to create a comprehensive view of the system as a whole and whether services provided to victims work in this larger context.

The study does utilize a fairly new perspective to gather information. This study as a whole appears to work both as a review article and present information gathered through the subjects interviewed. The first portion of the article presents the various factors being considered in the provided services (for example, why some rape cases are thrown out at a community level, and what characteristics of sexual assault influence social system response). The second portion utilizes interviews with a national, random sample of victim advocates. The selection process ended with 177 eligible agencies for questioning, and 168 participated in the interview process. As mentioned in the introduction of the report and in a previous answer, this large scale study is contrary to usual methodologies. Victim services are typically examined within a small context (i.e. how many alleged rape cases brought to a detective are pursued or how many alleged rape victims who present for counseling receive this help and what is their progress). This study took all of the levels of service (legal, medical, and mental health) and viewed their effectiveness as a network.

This study was published in 1998 in the American Journal of Community Psychology. It is a bimonthly, peer-reviewed academic journal focusing on research devoted to community psychology. Community psychology attempts to place an individual's context within communities/community structure and in society. This includes quality of life for certain individuals, populations, and communities. The impact factor is only about 2, indicating that the journal is infrequently cited and does not have the prowess of larger journal publications. 

According to PubMed, this article has been cited 217 times since its publication in 1998. It has appeared as a reference work for research in areas such as PTSD, secondary victimization, silencing of victims, and emotional engagement of researching rape/traumatic events. The list of citing articles seems to commonly focus on the themes of community impact on rape victims, suggesting that this article did spark at least several additional studies.