Author
Abstract
The Community Disaster Resilience Zones Act of 2022 directed the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to designate 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 FEMA’s National Risk Index mapping tool and disadvantaged based on the White House Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool. FEMA also followed the CDRZ Act’s 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 this 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 requirement 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 CDRZs 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 disadvantaged 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 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 compare 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 knowledge 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 communities in gathering knowledge about CDRZs and accessing federal funding for resilience.
Suggested Citation
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:rff:report:rp-24-18. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Resources for the Future (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/rffffus.html .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.