Search

The SVI has been used to assess hazard mitigation plans in the southeastern US, evaluate social vulnerability in connection to obesity, explore the impact of climate change on human health, create case studies for community resilience policy, and even to look beyond disasters in examining a community’s physical fitness. 

The SVI was also used by public health researchers to explore the association between vulnerability and covid-19 incidence in Louisiana Census Tracts. Previous research examining associations between the CDC SVI and early covid-19 incidence had mixed results at a county level, but Biggs et al.’s study found that all four CDC SVI sub-themes demonstrated association with covid-19 incidence (in the first six months of the pandemic). Census tracts with higher levels of social vulnerability experienced higher covid-19 incidence rates. Authors of this paper point to the long history of racial residential segregation in the United States as an important factor shaping vulnerability and covid-19 incidence along racialized lines, with primarily Black neighborhoods typically most disadvantaged relative to primarily white neighborhoods. The compounding factors shaping vulnerability along racialized lines—high rates of poverty, low household income, and lower educational attainment—are identified as shaping the likelihood of covid-19 infection. The authors encourage policy initiatives that not only mitigate covid-19 transmission through allocation of additional resources and planning, but that also “address the financial and emotional distress following the covid-19 epidemic among the most socially vulnerable populations” (Biggs et al., 2021).

Image

Biggs, Erin N., Patrick M. Maloney, Ariane L. Rung, Edward S. Peters, and William T. Robinson. 2021. “The Relationship Between Social Vulnerability and COVID-19 Incidence Among Louisiana Census Tracts.” Frontiers in Public Health 8. https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpubh.2020.617976.

Lehnert, Erica Adams, Grete Wilt, Barry Flanagan, and Elaine Hallisey. 2020. “Spatial Exploration of the CDC’s Social Vulnerability Index and Heat-Related Health Outcomes in Georgia.” International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 46 (June): 101517. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.101517.

This event was the City Council meeting for the City of Santa Ana on february 15th 2022. The meeting took place in the city of Santa Ana council chambers. This meeting was organized by the city and city council. The purpose of this event was to award community members, pass agenda items, and listen to community concerns.

Council members Phan, Penaloza, Lopez, Barcerra, Hernandez, and Mendoza were all present along with Mayor Sarmiento. It is important to note that during agenda item number 26 Councilmember Phan left the chambers due to a formal complaint filed against her. During public comments on agenda item 26 Council members Hernandez and Penaloza left for unexplained reasons and missed the majority of public comments. Councilmemebr Lopez was not present for MPNA comments and a few oteh republic comments. I think that Councilmembrs Hernandez and Penaloza leaving during public comments on thai matter indicates a lack of interest and support for community members.

The most notable speakers at this event were community members who talked during public comments, city council, and the Mayor.

Many public comments were made on this matter with many written letters sent to the council which were not read during the meeting. The most notable public comments were made by the director of OCEJ, executive director of MPNA, attorney with the environmental law clinic at UCI,

Consensus amongst most commenters was that the city should not be moving forward with the GPU until they conduct better community engagement and address the EIJ in more detail. 

After public comments the mayor started off the council comments by saying he was not prepared to move forward on the city plan. He did however say that he would like to move forward with the general plan by the next meeting. He explained how the council immediately stopped pushing the general plan when they received a letter from the attorney general telling the city they must engage with the community on EIJ concerns. He also pointed to how after this letter the council held hundreds of meetings with EJ groups. After saying these things he said that in all this time there has not been enough movement and at this point the EJ groups are delaying the city plan which has been nearly 7 years in the making. He finished by saying that the EJ groups are hurting the communities that they want to protect and that there will be one more meeting and we are done.

Council-member Bacerra said we need to pass the plan tonight and that two more weeks will not do anything. He said that the EJ groups keep demanding to move the goal post further and are not offering any solutions, all they want is more time.

Council-member Penaloza agreed with Bacerra’s statements and further stressed how the council has held hundreds of meetings. He stated that in all of these meetings all the EJ groups wanted was more time and when given the time they offered no solutions to EIJ.

Council-member Lopez did not want the plan to move forward. She cited lead pollution data sources to show how the city needs to do more in regard to the GPU. She said tha too many of her constituents have concerns over EJ in the city plan so she does not want the GPU to move forward.

Council-member Hernandez did not say a lot other than agreeing that the plan is taking too long and should be moved forward.

Council-member Mendoza agreed with Lopez in saying that the general plan does not cover enough EJ problems and said the plan should not move forward.

After these statements Council-member Penaloza then tried to present a notion to pass the general plan. Bacerra then said he would want to make some amendments first before passing the plan which was done on the spot. Most amendments changed some language in the GPU EJ section. The most notable amendment was the adding of a permanent EJ staffer on the city staff. After these amendments were made Penaloza attempted to pass the notion which failed with a 3-3 vote. Council-members Lopez, Mendoza and Mayor Sarminto voted against the notion. 

The mayor stated the amendments were hastily put on the GPU and that the council needed to wait 30 days before passing the plan. With this the Mayor attempted to pass a notion giving EJ groups 30 days to come up with bullet points on what they wanted passed. This notion also failed with a 3-3 vote. Council-members Hernandez, Bacerra, and Penaloza voted against it.

This resulted in the agenda item to be later discussed at the next town council meeting.

Groups referred to by Councilmembers and the Mayor were Madison Park Neighborhood Association (MPNA), Orange County Environmental Justice (OCEJ), and the University of California, Irvine (UCI). EJ groups such as MPNA and OCEj were mentioned by council members to explain which groups they have worked with. The mayor called out these groups to identify the EJ group that must provide the council with bullet points on their concerns. The mayor also referenced UCI to explain his disappointment in the school and said that he would expect better from the institution.

Meetings with these EJ groups were also mentioned heavily from council members Bacerra, Pendaloza, and Mayor Sarmiento. The point of referencing these meetings was to show council has held hundreds of meetings with EJ groups and still have not been offered any solutions or given any ideas for what the city plan update (CPU) should have in its EJ section.

The concept of environmental justice was the most discussed concept.

Mayor Sarmiento said the city can not engage with all 330,000 citizens in Santa Ana when it comes to EJ concerns. This was in response to community comments saying that the city needed to better engage the city. They said that a poll that reached less than 1% of the population and was not in Spanish was not enough.

The city council meeting showed me which council-members were for or against EJ groups further delaying the plan in order to put in policies that would improve EJ in Santa Ana. It showed how the City Council as a whole is prepared to be done with the process of the GPU. Some council members however are more willing to give EJ groups time to send finishing touches to the council whereas some members want to pass the GPU as soon as possible.

The CDC SVI has been acknowledged to be limited in capturing accurate representations of small-area populations that experience rapid change between censuses (e.g. New Orleans in the years following Hurricane Katrina).

The Index is also limited, like other mapping tools, by the lack of homogeneity within any census tract or county/parish. There may very well be more vulnerable communities and individuals living in overall less vulnerable areas. Homeless populations may also specifically not be represented within studies that rely on geocoding by residential address. Length of residence within a geographic area may also impact results.  

The index is also limited by calculations that account for where people live, but not necessarily where they work or play. The lives of individuals are not necessarily restricted to the boundaries of a census tract or county/parish. 

Lastly, vulnerability is only one component of several components that are important for public health officials and policymakers to consider—the hazard itself, the vulnerability of physical infrastructure, and community assets and resources are other elements that must be taken into account for reducing the effects of a hazard.

This data resource has also been critiqued by Bakkensen et al. for not having been explicitly tested and empirically validated to demonstrate that the index performs well (a problem they identify as characterizing multiple indices).

Bakkensen, Laura A., Cate Fox-Lent, Laura K. Read, and Igor Linkov. 2017. “Validating Resilience and Vulnerability Indices in the Context of Natural Disasters.” Risk Analysis 37 (5): 982–1004. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12677.