Taking Disproportionality in Natural Disasters From a Within the Country to Across Countries

On February 16, 2021, over 3 million Texans slept in their 20-degree homes; the destruction of the winter storm in Texas filled every news headline in the following days. Four years ago, Hurricane Harvey and the damage it left behind for Houstonians dominated those same headlines. So, it’s no secret that Houston is at the heart of natural disasters especially in recent years due to climate change. While the natural disasters affect every Houstonian, not every Houstonian gets the same treatment when the city picks up the broken pieces.

At first glance, you would only see the Houston diversity present in the variety of cultural cuisines to your diverse neighbors every time you walk down the street. However, if you look a little deeper into the Houston culture, the rundown and ragged homes of the minority communities become clearer. With an already large wealth gap, natural disasters widen this gap for minority communities. Wealthier communities receive care and treatment first after every natural disaster; during the winter storm, they are the first ones to get their power back and after hurricanes, they are the first ones whose lives fully recover its destruction. Conversely, the low-income communities, mainly filled with minorities struggling to make a living, are forgotten and as a result continue to suffer from disasters four years later. During the winter storm, the minority communities lived in the cold weather without power during the three days that high-income houses ran their bright lights. After the hurricanes, homes in minority communities continue rebuild years after the incident. So, what accounts for this extreme difference in disaster relief?

From my research, I realized that while prevalent racial discrimination partly attributes to this inequity, the main issue lies in the local and federal government’s disproportionate allocation of disaster relief resources. Both local and federal disaster plans follow the traditional cost-benefit analysis in which the government spends relief funds for flood protection on higher-valued properties first as it returns a greater investment (Flavelle). With the federal government, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) distribute the main disaster relief funds for those affected by natural disasters; however, FEMA unevenly disperse these funds. According to “As Disaster Costs Rise, So Does Inequality”, a sociological research by Junia Howell and James R. Elliot, from 1999 to 2013, black and Latino homeowners with a high school education in counties with over $50 million in disaster damage lose $25,000 in wealth after a natural disaster while white homeowners with a high school education in the same situation increase their net worth by $75,000 (Howell and Elliot). In other words, on average, black and Latino homeowners receive less relief funds from FEMA, resulting in a wealth loss while white homeowners gain wealth after a natural disaster. Based on these statistics, it is evident that FEMA disproportionately allocates their disaster relief funds to predominantly white areas, leaving the minority communities with less than enough aid to recover from a hurricane or a winter storm. The inequitable dispersion of FEMA funds deepens the already large wealth gap present in Houston communities. But it begs the question, how did this distribution get so inequitable?

While a multitude of reasons, such as discrimination or monetary greed, can explain this inequity, it truly trickles down to the process of getting federal aid; the disproportionate allocation of federal money starts at a family’s success in getting federal aid in the first place. NPR authors Rebecca Hersher and Robert Benincasa focus on this difficulty of getting federal relief funds for those who can’t easily meet FEMA’s rigid application requirements by recounting the experiences of the Papadopoulos and Evans families after Hurricane Harvey (Hersher and Benincasa). The hurricane hit both the Papadopoulos and the Evans hard as their homes filled with 3 inches of rainwater. Both families started with nothing after the disaster, yet the Papadopoulos family financially recovered from the effects of the hurricane while the Evans family continue to struggle years later. It is important to note that while both families only lived a few miles from each other, the Papadopoulos have a higher income and lived in a higher valued neighborhood as opposed to the Evans who lived in a low-income neighborhood. The Papadopoulos recovered from the hurricane because of how easy it was for them to apply and receive federal relief as FEMA gave them $30,000 in relief and the IRS sent them $100,000 in the form of refunded taxes (Hersher and Benincasa). Unlike the Papdopoulos, the Evans struggled to recover as they only received $2,500 of federal relief from FEMA, their income wasn’t high enough for money from refunded taxes and were denied a low-interest loan because of a low credit score (Hersher and Benincasa). When comparing the federal relief process of both families, the Evans, clearly, struggled to get aid from the federal government all because of circumstances that they can’t control or change without any real help. The current FEMA application process make the rich richer and the poor poorer, therefore “disasters exacerbate wealth inequality”, a claim that Hersher and Benincasa support and that I agree with. So, when federal relief is no help, you turn to local government aid thinking it might be better since their purpose is to serve you, their constituents.

Before Hurricane Harvey, Houston officials proceeded with the same federal traditional cost-benefit analysis for disaster recovery that I previously mentioned. This process emphasized high-valued communities that leads to not only federal funding on flood projects, but also basic infrastructure that mitigates flooding in neighborhoods; wealthier communities have multiple gutters and drains that reduce flooding while poorer communities rely on front yard ditches to drain excess water (Flavelle). As mentioned above, this kind of emphasis puts minority and low-valued communities at risk for more damage as disasters continue to be more frequent. Luckily, officials of Houston recognize the wealth disparity that comes from following tradition after natural disasters. They threw out their old approach and began prioritizing the disadvantage communities (mainly filled with people of color) that have the hardest disaster recovery.

The New York Time author Christopher Flavelle explores the criticisms of Houston’s new disaster plan. Flavelle is in favor of the new plan as it approached flood recovery because of its new prioritization; however, he points out the political resistance derived from such a plan. The new disaster plan contained $2.5 billion bond fund to be allocated to flood control projects around the Houston area by the Harris County commission; because of changing demographics, the Democrats gained control of said commission giving them the chance to decide where and how the bond should be spent. Since the Democrats have more liberal ideals, it is evident that the commission will allocate the bond fund to flood control projects in poor and low-income neighborhoods. Given the political divide present in Texas, with Houston being primarily Democratic in a Republican state, it is no surprise that there is some political resistance from a disaster plan put forth by a Democratic relief commission; people can easily disregard a disaster plan to be in favor of a political party instead of for the vulnerable of Houston. Flavelle reports that those living in wealthier neighborhoods oppose the new disaster and believe that Houston’s disaster plan should follow the traditional government cost-benefit analysis in which prioritizes the (predominantly white) communities whose homes are valued higher and generate more tax revenue that provide for the city. While this new implemented disaster plan reduces flood risks for the low-income and minority communities, the political pushback by those who believe they are not receiving the same fair treatment will widen the political divide and possibly cause some other communities to be ignored. Despite the structural improvements on the local level, the political barrier demonstrates a lack of unity that renders disaster recovery less effective for all; so, what level of disaster relief improves the situation for low-income and minority neighborhoods, local or federal?

Before deciding which response fairs better for the minority communities in need of disaster relief, both responses must present advantages for the vulnerable to fairly compare which solution is best to implement. Houston’s new disaster plan already presents a step in the right direction to relieve disproportionate allocation of local relief, but the federal aid continues to be unevenly allocated. While Hersher and Benincasa explored the issue of disproportionate allocation, they never explicitly stated a solution. Urban Sustainability Directors Network Director for Climate Resilience, Kristin Baja, suggested that the federal relief programs should shift from its “current reactive cookie-cutter structure” to a design that considers the cultural and unique community characteristics, trauma, and racism and prejudice towards the community (Martin et al.). All those hardships make applying for a strict federal relief application much harder than those who don’t face the same struggles, financially and mentally. Therefore, I agree with Baja’s suggestion as it ensures that the minority communities that cannot meet the current FEMA structure receive the funding they desperately need.

With an idea of both federal and local solutions to the disproportionality issue, a comparison of both solutions can determine the best overall solution. Because most of people’s disaster recovery heavily relies on receiving enough money to rebuild their lives, the reconstruction of the distribution of federal money should be the priority. Focusing on the reconstruction of federal relief also calls for more unity as the solution is universal and has little to no political resistance; the federal response demonstrates a broad and more widespread solution that can be implemented not just by the local Houston government, but local governments across the United States. The lack of unity in the Houston disaster plan, while a great local solution that prioritizes the local minority community possibly better than the federal one, adds another issue onto the already growing issue of disproportionate allocation of disaster relief. Opposition response prevents the Houston disaster plan from achieving its full effectiveness, and thus would make fair allocation even more difficult to achieve.

While the local and federal response to disproportional allocation mends the struggles of the minority communities, I argue that the best way to combat the disproportionate allocation of disaster relief in Houston is to prioritize the federal response as it ensures that the minority communities receive an equitable process when applying for federal assistance, specifically federal money which has proven to be the most helpful aid. It is important to note that the federal solution fairs better, if and only if, the federal government follows the response explained above or some form of it. If the federal response does not involve a reconstruction of their disaster relief structure in a way that aids the minority communities, then I believe that a whole new solution should be discovered and considered instead of relying on the local response as the best solution after the federal one. As seen from research and analysis, there are many ways in which disaster relief is disproportionately allocated, but all it takes is a simple, but widespread solution to combat the disproportionality.

Although the solutions mentioned above potentially eliminates disproportionality in disaster recovery as it shifts the prioritization of who should receive the most aid, it remains as a short-term solution. Because of the increasing frequency of natural disasters across the world due to worsening climate change, those most vulnerable and susceptible to natural disasters continue to live in (poor conditions) poverty despite receiving aid from their local and federal governments because of the focus on the recovery process rather than natural disaster prevention. Hence, a long-term solution must be considered to truly combat wealth and racial inequality not just in Houston but in the world.

Without proper prevention to reduce the risks of natural disasters for the vulnerable, poor communities get trapped in a cycle of poverty. The first occurrence of disaster in a community pushes low-income neighborhoods (mainly filled with minorities) into the cycle of poverty due to inequitable aid; those households cannot “recover their pre-disaster level of consumption before the next disaster occurs” (Rentschler). In other words, low-income households lack resources typically provided by local and federal governments that allow them to recover to their original financial level in time before another disaster occurs which causes reduced income and assets. So, with a perpetuating poverty trap, what can we do to increase equity for low-income groups in Houston when a natural disaster occurs, possibly with a more long-term solution?

To answer that question, I must explore the global issues and then delve into the global solutions and processes that make a long-term solution to wealth inequality as a result of natural disasters in Houston possible. While natural disasters reveal the extreme disaster recovery and prevention inequalities within the United States, the same relationship of disaster inequality is presented across the globe as well. In America, the disproportionate allocation of relief resources demonstrates the country’s extreme wealth inequality as lower-income and minority communities received little to no aid in terms of disaster recovery and prevention; hence, natural disasters occurring in the US exacerbate wealth inequality. However, this aggravation of wealth inequality isn’t solely present in the US, rather it expands to a global wealth inequity because of inequitable prevention and recovery in countries of different wealth.

Based on my research, low-income countries obviously suffer tremendously more from natural disasters than higher-income countries. Similar to the prioritization of wealthy neighborhoods in the allocation of disaster relief, high-income countries with a high and growing GDP tend to have more resources allocated to combat natural disasters whether it is through recovery or prevention. Low-income countries severely suffer from natural disasters more than high-income countries because of their higher susceptibility to damage from natural disasters and lower capability to cope with damage from natural disasters (Nazrul Islam and Winkel). For example, while the Netherlands and tropical island countries, such as Fiji, have low lying elevation causing more exposure to rising sea levels, the Netherlands — a high-income country — built sea walls as well as other structures that lowers its susceptibility to damages from flooding in a rising sea level as opposed to those low-income tropical island countries that economically suffer greatly from flooding (Nazrul Islam and Winkel). Unlike high-income countries, low-income countries don’t have the money or resources to prevent damage from natural disasters.

If we take a closer look into the global wealth inequality, low-income countries and their population get trapped in that poverty trap that I previously mentioned. With little to no money to recover their financial status pre-natural disaster, the people of those low-income countries live in continuous poverty as they are negatively impacted even more by repeated crises; they “lack coping capacity, (receive) more severe consequences, (endure) longer recovery periods, leading to persistently reduced income” which reinforces the declining spiral of poverty (Rentschler). By extension, low-income countries can’t escape their poverty trap after natural disasters, no matter how small or large, continually impact their homes without aid in building “resilience” for those countries. But what exactly does it mean to build resilience within a country in the context of natural disasters?

According to the UN, resilience is “the ability of a system, community, or society exposed to hazards to resist, absorb, accommodate to and recover from the effects of a hazard in a timely and efficient manner, including the preservation and restoration of its essential basic structures and functions.” Resilience is simply how well a community/group can come back from being hit with a hazard, typically including more than just natural disasters, but in this case, I will focus on resilience in natural disasters. From this definition, we can see that low-income countries won’t have the resources or funds to recover and preserve their community well enough from damages of a natural disaster better than a high-income country would; this lack of resources to ameliorate how well low-income countries can come back from natural disasters trickles down to how little aid they receive in preventing natural disasters in the first place. Simply, if a low-income country has better means to stop or lower the damage risk from every next disaster, little or large, then they wouldn’t be trapped in the cycle of perpetuating poverty; low risks in a low-income country allows for that country to cope with the next disasters and recover from the next disasters better economically and better for the well-being of their population.

Despite having a simple idea of ending the poverty cycle, building resilience as of right now is just a mere theoretical plan; in practicality, building resilience in countries and communities of poverty is extremely harder to execute, especially if government and international aid, currently, have either disproportionate plans or no plans at all that focus on low-income communities. Therefore, more and more international humanitarian organizations and government bodies call on and propose plans and systems as a foundation in ensuring that such equitable aid gets distributed. In a World Bank and the GFDRR report, both programs call for action at a governmental national level as a commitment to improve outcomes for low-income people after natural disasters; they propose there be global resilience policy packages administered at the national level that aims to reduce asset loses in natural disasters as well as increase resilience (World Bank, 2016). In such packages, the action “reduce exposure of the poor” for example, includes outlines of policies to “upgrade slums with improved drainage” or “undertaking ecosystem conservation and management” (Hallegatte et al.). Not only do these packages allow for countries to take a step forward in helping their population in an equitable manner regarding damages of a natural disaster, but these resilience packages can also be tailored appropriately for the nation’s specific population. This is important because by making resilience plans adjustable towards the specific demographic within each country, aid properly meet the needs that achieve equality for all before and after natural disasters.

By following and implementing the resilience packages custom tailored to the population in the United States, low-income communities such as the ones in Houston receive better care due to the allocation of disaster prevention funds done in the global package. Because the package suggests outlines and foundations on how to include low-income communities when thinking about disaster risk management, it is harder for a government to just reduce the risk of damages in wealthier communities rather than thinking about the population as whole. With this, there is more inclusion of low-income communities which mainly includes minorities. Since the package put forth by the World Bank mainly implements actions for reducing risk to reduce the vulnerability of low-income communities most susceptible to disasters, it builds resilience for these communities. Hence, a greater increase in the poorer communities’ ability to deal and recover from natural disasters and any impacts of imminent future disasters allows them to escape from a spiraling decline.

As a result of the packages’ adjustability, all countries can benefit from implementing these plans when a natural disaster occurs in their area; this ensures that higher-income countries don’t have an increased advantage in disaster recovery and prevention since it is tailored for the specific population of the country. For instance, since the United States prioritize disaster recovery by trying to make financial and reserve funds more equitable, their global resilience package will focus more on reducing exposure for the vulnerable in America rather than receiving more relief to provide for post disaster support. However, this package might not work for a country such as Bangladesh were enhancing the Bangladeshi government’s ability to provide more post disaster support becomes necessary and crucial for the population of Bangladesh, a low-income country. Because of the different demographics of each individual countries, there can’t be one “size fit all” plan in disaster recovery and prevention; each country has a different socioeconomic status not just within the country but in comparison to the whole world. Therefore, a global package such as that of the World Bank would decrease that wealth inequality for everyone around the globe as it ensures that the low-income population are not forgotten.