Social Risk and Vulnerability Analysis: Bexar vs. Philadelphia

Introduction

All regions of the United States have experienced disasters, both natural and human-made. The vulnerabilities that give rise to these disasters will continue to occur in the future. Vulnerability to hazards is affected by several factors, including age, income, the strength of social networks, and neighborhood characteristics. In mitigating and planning for emergencies, state, local, and tribal representatives must identify socially vulnerable communities in order to provide residents with improved assistance during a disaster. State, local, and tribal agencies are most familiar with the individuals in their communities. The Social Vulnerability Index is intended to assist them in their efforts to ensure the safety and well-being of their residents (Flanagan et al., 2011). The components of the SVI can help state and local personnel concerned with all stages of the disaster cycle. The purpose of this paper is to undertake a social risk and vulnerability analysis of both Bexar County, Texas, and Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania.

Background and Geography

Bexar County is located in south-central Texas, situated between the Edwards Plateau to the northwest and the Gulf Coastal Plains to the southeast. On the northeastern side of the county, the topography slopes upward to the Edwards Plateau, while to the southeast it slopes downward to the Gulf Coastal Plains. The region's mildly rolling landscape is scattered with mesquite, oak trees, and cacti, which thrive under partially cloudy or clear skies present approximately sixty percent of the time (San Antonio Office of Emergency Management, 2014).

Philadelphia County, by contrast, is situated at the convergence of the Schuylkill River and the Delaware River on the eastern boundary of Pennsylvania. To the west lie the Appalachian Mountains, and to the east is the Atlantic Ocean. This positioning produces a moderate climate, as the two geographic features temper extremes of both heat and cold. Periodically during the summer months, the city becomes inundated with ocean air that generates high humidity. Rainfall is fairly evenly distributed throughout the year, with peak amounts during the summer months, sometimes causing the Schuylkill River to flood. Snowfall is generally greater in the northern suburbs than in the city itself, where snow occasionally turns to rain. High winds sometimes prevail during the winter months (City Data, 2016).

Demographics

The demographic composition of Bexar County is dominated by two main ethnic groups: Hispanic and Caucasian. The Caucasian group makes up 26.6% of the county's total population, while the Latino and Hispanic group makes up 63.2%. The remainder of the population consists of other minority groups (San Antonio Office of Emergency Management, 2014). The racial composition of Philadelphia County, by contrast, includes approximately 45.3% White, 44.1% Black, 7.2% Asian, 13.6% Hispanic and Latino, and the remainder from mixed or other racial backgrounds (United States Census Bureau, 2016).

The table below outlines key demographic indicators for Bexar County and Philadelphia County relative to national figures.

People

Population estimates, July 1, 2015: Philadelphia County — 1,567,442; Bexar County — 1,897,753; United States — 321,000,000. Population estimates base, April 1, 2010: Philadelphia County — 1,526,006; Bexar County — 1,714,774; United States — 309,000,000. Population percent change (April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2015): Philadelphia County — 2.7%; Bexar County — 10.7%; United States — 4.1%.

Age and Sex

Persons under 5 years (2015): Philadelphia County — 7.0%; Bexar County — 7.2%; United States — 6.2%. Persons under 18 years (2015): Philadelphia County — 22.1%; Bexar County — 26.0%; United States — 22.9%. Persons 65 years and over (2015): Philadelphia County — 12.7%; Bexar County — 11.5%; United States — 14.9%. Female persons (2015): Philadelphia County — 52.7%; Bexar County — 50.7%; United States — 50.8%.

Race and Hispanic Origin

White alone (2015): Philadelphia County — 45.1%; Bexar County — 84.9%; United States — 77.1%. Black or African American alone (2015): Philadelphia County — 44.0%; Bexar County — 8.4%; United States — 13.3%. American Indian and Alaska Native alone (2015): Philadelphia County — 0.8%; Bexar County — 1.2%; United States — 1.2%. Asian alone (2015): Philadelphia County — 7.4%; Bexar County — 3.0%; United States — 5.6%. Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone (2015): Philadelphia County — 0.1%; Bexar County — 0.2%; United States — 0.2%. Two or More Races (2015): Philadelphia County — 2.6%; Bexar County — 2.2%; United States — 2.6%. Hispanic or Latino (2015): Philadelphia County — 14.0%; Bexar County — 59.5%; United States — 17.6%. White alone, not Hispanic or Latino (2015): Philadelphia County — 35.4%; Bexar County — 28.7%; United States — 61.6%.

Population Characteristics

Veterans (2011–2015): Philadelphia County — 66,590; Bexar County — 153,129; United States — 20,108,332. Foreign-born persons (2011–2015): Philadelphia County — 12.7%; Bexar County — 13.1%; United States — 13.2%.

Housing

Housing units (2015): Philadelphia County — 672,588; Bexar County — 684,164. Owner-occupied housing unit rate (2011–2015): Philadelphia County — 52.6%; Bexar County — 58.5%; United States — 63.9%. Median value of owner-occupied housing units (2011–2015): Philadelphia County — $145,300; Bexar County — $129,400; United States — $178,600. Median gross rent (2011–2015) and building permits (2015) are also noted in source data.

Families and Living Arrangements

Households (2011–2015): Philadelphia County — 581,050; Bexar County — 618,831; United States — 117,000,000. Persons per household: Philadelphia County — 2.59; Bexar County — 2.90; United States — 2.64. Living in same house 1 year ago: Philadelphia County — 85.8%; Bexar County — 81.3%; United States — 85.1%. Language other than English spoken at home: Philadelphia County — 22.1%; Bexar County — 40.8%; United States — 21.0%.

Education

High school graduate or higher (persons age 25+): Philadelphia County — 82.0%; Bexar County — 83.3%; United States — 86.7%. Bachelor's degree or higher: Philadelphia County — 25.4%; Bexar County — 26.7%; United States — 29.8%.

Health

With a disability, under age 65: Philadelphia County — 12.4%; Bexar County — 9.9%; United States — 8.6%. Persons without health insurance, under age 65: Philadelphia County — 14.4%; Bexar County — 18.7%; United States — 10.5%.

Economy

In civilian labor force (age 16+): Philadelphia County — 59.7%; Bexar County — 63.7%; United States — 63.3%. Median household income (2015 dollars, 2011–2015): Philadelphia County — $38,253; Bexar County — $51,150; United States — $53,889. Per capita income (2015 dollars): Philadelphia County — $22,919; Bexar County — $24,735; United States — $28,930. Persons in poverty: Philadelphia County — 25.4%; Bexar County — 15.6%; United States — 13.5%.

Businesses

Total employer establishments (2014): Philadelphia County — 27,395; Bexar County — 34,489; United States — 7,563,085. Total employment (2014): Philadelphia County — 594,334; Bexar County — 688,074. Total annual payroll (2014): Philadelphia County — $32,447,004,000; Bexar County — $29,659,119,000. All firms (2012): Philadelphia County — 104,439; Bexar County — 147,956; United States — 27,626,360. Women-owned firms (2012): Philadelphia County — 40,906; Bexar County — 55,036. Minority-owned firms (2012): Philadelphia County — 48,743; Bexar County — 85,682.

Geography

Population per square mile (2010): Philadelphia County — 11,379.5; Bexar County — 87.4. Land area in square miles (2010): United States — 3,531,905. FIPS Codes: Philadelphia County — 42101; Bexar County — 48029.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau

Social Vulnerability Index Comparison

Social vulnerability takes into account the socioeconomic and demographic factors that influence the resilience of populations. Research has shown that in disaster events, socially vulnerable groups are more likely to be adversely affected — they are less likely to recover and more likely to die. Effectively addressing social vulnerability reduces both human suffering and the economic costs associated with social services and public assistance following a disaster (Flanagan et al., 2011).

The Social Vulnerability Index (SoVI) is a relative metric that provides a portrait of an area's comparative social vulnerability to a range of hazards. The index is generated by combining socioeconomic variables through a procedure called principal components analysis. The variables used to form the index were selected on the basis of broad disaster and social science research (Dunning and Durden, 2013). The following table presents the SoVI at the county level for both Bexar and Philadelphia Counties. Two elements are reported:

1. SoVI Score (06–10): The score using the most recent version of SoVI, based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau's American Community Survey.

2. National Percentile (06–10): Where the county's SoVI Score ranks in comparison with the rest of the nation (Hazards and Vulnerability Research Institute, 2013).

Bexar County, Texas: SoVI Score — 0.230416; National Percentile — 56.82%.

Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania: SoVI Score — 3.418284; National Percentile — 91.06%.

The SoVI for Bexar County is 0.230416, whereas that for Philadelphia County is 3.418284. This indicates that Philadelphia County has a substantially higher vulnerability and susceptibility to environmental and public health hazards.

Historical events support this finding. A notable example is Hurricane Agnes, which struck in 1972. The magnitude of this hurricane set records in the United States. The massive storm moved across the Florida panhandle and up the eastern seaboard, devastating the Northeast — a region typically considered relatively safe from hurricane-season impacts. Pennsylvania, where Philadelphia County is located, suffered the worst devastation of any state, with torrential rainfall and dramatic flooding from the Susquehanna and Lackawanna Rivers. Ultimately, over 220,000 people were displaced from their homes (Chavi, 2015).

There is also an intricate relationship between environmental risk, social vulnerability, and poverty. A major environmental risk in Philadelphia County is flooding. A key socioeconomic correlation is that households with lower incomes and less access to productive natural assets experience greater exposure to flood risk. Income and asset inequality within communities also tends to be greatest at higher risk-exposure levels, suggesting that individually vulnerable households are simultaneously more vulnerable as a collective (Brouwer et al., 2007). A parallel pattern is observed in Bexar County with respect to drought: households with lower incomes are more susceptible and face greater exposure to drought risk. Population levels — including the number of women, children, and elderly individuals — also correlate with vulnerability in both counties. Higher populations mean more individuals are exposed to hazards such as drought, flooding, tornadoes, and hurricanes. During emergencies and disasters, elderly individuals, women, and children are consistently the most vulnerable (Brouwer et al., 2007).

References

Bexar County Emergency Management. (2016). The mission and vision of the OEM. Retrieved from http://www.bexar.org/675/OEM-Mission-Vision

Brouwer, R., Akter, S., Brander, L., & Haque, E. (2007). Socioeconomic vulnerability and adaptation to environmental risk: A case study of climate change and flooding in Bangladesh. Risk Analysis, 27(2), 313–326.

Chavi. (2015). Here are the 10 worst disasters to occur in Pennsylvania history. Only in Your State. Retrieved from http://www.onlyinyourstate.com/pennsylvania/pa-disasters/

City Data. (2016). Philadelphia: Geography and climate. Retrieved from http://www.city-data.com/us-cities/The-Northeast/Philadelphia-Geography-and-Climate.html

Dunning, C. M., & Durden, S. (2013). Social vulnerability analysis: A comparison of tools. Institute for Water Resources.

Flanagan, B. E., Gregory, E. W., Hallisey, E. J., Heitgerd, J. L., & Lewis, B. (2011). A social vulnerability index for disaster management. Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, 8(1).

Hazards and Vulnerability Research Institute. (2013). Social Vulnerability Index (SoVI®) for the United States — 2006–10 data. University of South Carolina. Retrieved from http://webra.cas.sc.edu/hvri/products/sovi.aspx

Hoogeveen, J., Tesliuc, E., Vakis, R., & Dercon, S. (2004). A guide to the analysis of risk, vulnerability and vulnerable groups. World Bank, Washington, DC.

National Weather Service. (2014). Top ten highest historical crests: Schuylkill River at Philadelphia. Retrieved from http://www.weather.gov/media/marfc/Top20/SEPA/Philadelphia.pdf

Red Cross. (2016). Emergency services. Retrieved from http://www.redcross.org/local/pennsylvania/eastern-pennsylvania/local-services/emergency-services

San Antonio Office of Emergency Management. (2014). City of San Antonio and Bexar County: Hazard identification, risk assessment and consequence analysis. Retrieved from http://saoemprepare.com/Portals/0/HIRA%20Plan.pdf

United States Census Bureau. (2016). Profile of general population and housing characteristics: 2010 demographic profile data — Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania.

USA.com. (2016). Philadelphia, PA natural disasters and weather extremes. Retrieved from