I. Introduction
Current estimates reveal that approximately 1.2 billion people reside in areas susceptible to flooding. However, due to human-inflicted changes to the environment, it is predicted that within the next 30 years, this number will increase by at least 400 million. (Campbell et al, 2019; Deria et al, 2020; Rezende et al, 2020) Despite the prevailing belief that the effects of flooding are diminutive, catastrophic destruction is possible, especially when victims belong to vulnerable populations (i.e. the elderly, the sick, the uneducated, immigrants, etc). (Becker et al, 2015) Aside from physical damage, severe flooding often prevents individuals from securing the bare necessities- water, food, shelter, and medical attention- leading to health crises and social segregation. (Flores et al, 2020) Following Hurricane Sandy, these adverse effects devastated communities on the East Coast, namely those in New York City and Long Island. (Martins et al, 2019) To mitigate complications during recuperation, researchers proposed updating strategies and policies (i.e. Flood Risk Management Policy) to take into account factors such as social capital and economic vulnerability. (Chakraborty et al, 2020) Doing so may ensure that all communities have equal access to ample resources and services, regardless of demographic composition. Therefore, this study investigated the role of community support, as opposed to socioeconomic status, in the vulnerability and resiliency of New York residents (NYC and Long Island) to flooding from Hurricane Sandy.
Aside from providing support, a strong community is imperative for circulating potentially life-saving information, such as emergency protocol, which is particularly beneficial in low-income areas. (Clay et al, 2016; Martins et al, 2019) Any social connection can be valuable to recovery as people repeatedly reported receiving the majority of their information from peers (more so than new outlets/media), especially in urban areas where news spreads quickest. (Becker et al, 2015; Fujimi & Fujimura, 2020; Hamilton et al, 2020; Morss et al, 2016; Wang et al, 2019) Further, nearly one-third of people surveyed in Sandy-affected areas shared that they primarily relied on “family, friends, and neighbors'' or coworkers for assistance. (Clay et al, 2016) Because human interaction is such a pivotal part of survival, the connectedness of a community may be a feasible option for measuring resiliency.
Similar to community support, an individual’s involvement in politics is indicative of his/her vulnerability and resilience. Those who follow politicians are more likely to be engaged in social media where national agencies and political figures can share the most recent information and warnings. (Pourebrahim et al, 2019) Consequently, these individuals are better informed about proper protocol as well as government-funded programs that could help them recover from any damage. (Bukvic et al, 2018) There is strong evidence to support a positive relationship between individuals’ level of preparedness and political activity. (Martins et al, 2019)
Apart from being better informed about safety precautions, those who are more engaged in politics also tend to be more vigilant about the efforts of their local government. If local politicians are unjustly favoring a certain demographic and neglecting the needs of others, people who pay attention to politics are able to identify the problem and understand how it can be rectified. Furthermore, people who pay attention to the workings of their government are more inclined to address social issues. (Martins et al, 2019) For vulnerable families, this is relevant because an unsupportive, inept government is frequently the root of problems including forced evacuation/homelessness, poverty, inaccessible resources, etc. (Bukvic et al, 2018; Graham et al, 2016; Thistlethwaite et al, 2017) If political attentiveness could be quantified, policymakers and community organizations would be able to ascertain which populations are less educated about flooding preparation/reconstruction and which populations can assist the former.
II. Data and Methodology
Survey Dissemination
The online survey was first disseminated through email and social media (i.e., Facebook). The survey sample consisted of adults (at least 18 years old) living in the five boroughs of New York City and two counties of Long Island, which were highly affected areas on the East Coast. Prior to completing the survey, participants were required to complete an informed consent form. After the initial distribution of surveys, participants were primarily recruited by snowball sampling. That is, participants were encouraged to invite their acquaintances and family to respond to the survey. Between July 17, 2020, and August 7, 2020, 74 responses were collected.
Data Analysis
Of the 74 responses, results from three surveys were excluded from the analysis. This accounted for blank responses (1), as well as responses from outside of the region of interest (2). Data from the remaining 71 surveys were transferred to spreadsheets on Microsoft Excel. Univariate data (composed of answers to primarily demographic questions) was assessed, though the study intended to concentrate on bivariate relationships. While these relationships had limited correlations, the similar means and standard deviation suggested that none were significant. Nonetheless, graphs and tables were developed to present the information from the survey.
III. Results and Discussion
Civic Infrastructure
Civic infrastructure, which describes the strength and unity of a community, is a crucial indicator of an individual’s preparedness and resiliency to natural disasters. Based on the results of this survey, there were no significant results between the amount of social capital and other tested factors. However, several relationships had limited correlations including that between community support and physical damage. The severity of physical damage was assessed by ratings of property destruction and street flooding. Counterintuitively, individuals receiving the most assistance from their community (5 on the Likert scale 1-5) reported more extreme results. (Fig. 2) Over half of respondents who rated their community “very helpful” (5), encountered street flooding while just over a quarter of respondents who rated their community “not helpful” communicated the same problem. Moreover, among those with the worst reported damage (5) to their property, the participants with the weakest civic infrastructure were not represented. (Fig. 2) These results can be attributed to two possibilities. For one, many people are more responsive to tangible damage rather than warnings, regardless of the source of information. Seeing the destruction of property firsthand may prompt members of a community to intervene and help one another, as undergoing a traumatic event can serve as a connection between neighbors. Alternatively, a community may have been supportive both prior to and following the intense flooding. However, many towns, despite extensive preparations and an abundance of services, are susceptible to damage due to being located in an unfavorable area such as on a waterfront.
Financial Influence and Future Improvements
Until recently, socioeconomic status was regarded as the most accepted measure of limitations to preparation and recovery. However, Figure 4 demonstrates that the distribution of preparation methods for Hurricane Sandy is comparable regardless of income. While financial status may not have regulated how participants plan to minimize damage, it did influence which services the participants preferred. Namely, individuals with lower incomes appeared to favor local programs. Furthermore, these same participants had a stronger opinion about the topic than those making more than $275,000, as only 12.9% declined to answer as opposed to 23.1% among the latter group. Wealthier respondents may favor government programs over local alternatives because damage to their property is more significant. (Figure 4) 80% of participants earning greater than $275,000 yearly on average described the flooding as more extreme (total slightly more extreme and significantly more extreme) than they had anticipated. Additionally, zero members of this demographic reported significantly less extreme flooding than expected. Meanwhile, only about 54.8% of individuals with an average salary of less than or equal to $150,000 recounted having more extreme damage. (Figure 5) Therefore, the theory that affluent families experience harsher damage due to the luxurious nature of their property may hold. However, because of a plethora of resources at hand including insurance, larger budgets for reconstruction, and government assistance, recovery from such traumatic events is possible. This may demonstrate that community support and economic strength are related such that the lack of one can be compensated for by the other.
IV. Conclusion and Future Research
The objective of this study was to identify which factors are the best indicators of preparedness, vulnerability, and resiliency. There was no significant distinction between the influence of financial wellbeing versus community support on enhancing preparation, limiting vulnerability, or benefiting resilience to flooding. Therefore, the hypothesis that a stronger civic infrastructure is more conducive to better preparation and an easier recovery was not supported. Rather, it appeared that possessing wealth and community support were equally essential, and the lack of one can be compensated for by the other. Because of this, participants with a higher income often reported weaker civic infrastructure. Likewise, participants with lower incomes held their communities in higher regard. Both wealthier individuals and individuals with more helpful neighbors cited slightly more extensive damage than their peers; however, this relationship was not significant.
Consistently, the participants in the study acknowledged that the damage resulting from flooding during Sandy was worse than anticipated. Despite this, the vast majority refused to modify their preparation methods to accommodate what was learned in their experiences with Sandy. This may be due to the infrequency of flooding and tropical cyclones in the area. Since participants had the same amount of exposure to these extreme weather events, regardless of their background, reactions to the damage were similarly moderate. Further, volunteers were not apt to anticipate a tropical cyclone with the same caliber of severity in the future explaining their lackadaisical, passive responses. These results demonstrated the need for access to better education and resources in areas where personal flooding precautions are not a primary concern.
Given more time, a larger sample size could have been obtained, allowing for a better representation of all demographics in New York City and Long Island. Additionally, to account for initial reactions to flooding, as opposed to reliance on distant memories, the survey could have been redistributed following a tropical cyclone of similar severity in the area. Results can also be compared to the experiences of participants residing in flooding-prone areas, such as Texas or Louisiana, where factors including socioeconomic status have a greater, well-established effect on survival.
As the population continues to increase, engendering changes to the environment, severe flooding is likely to become more frequent in countries throughout the world. Identifying the recurring characteristics of those who constitute vulnerable populations will enable more individuals to receive the education, services, and support necessary to prepare for and recover from flooding. Importantly, the ability to recover from trauma and misfortune is not limited to exclusively natural disasters. Recovering from the COVID-19 pandemic and its residual issues, including unemployment and exacerbated mental illness, will require resiliency. Fortunately, further research can inform changes in policies, resource distribution, and communication, allowing for obstacles ranging from flooding to illness to be managed without causing poverty, homelessness, irreparable damage, permanent health issues, and other problems associated with poor resiliency.
References
NYCSEA