The Inequality in the Impacts of Natural Disasters: Locally and Globally

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 (Merchant). 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. Unfortunately, this inequity transcends beyond the Houston borders and even that of the United States; with the current way disaster relief and disaster risk management around the world is set up, natural disasters aggravate the wealth inequality between the poor and the rich. In the United States, an inequitable recovery process fails to protect the low-income communities, usually made up of minorities. Nevertheless, making the recovery process equitable in the US only serves as a short-term solution as the wealth gap remains at large, thus, we can ultimately reduce this gap, long-term, by adapting the disaster prevention process in favor of the low-income communities most vulnerable and susceptible to the damages of natural disasters through resilience packages presented at a global scale.

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 (2). 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. Therefore, I believe that 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. Both the Papadopoulos and the Evans 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 (Hersher and Benincasa). 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). This is important because already based on a few statistics of just only two families, we can see the unevenness of the distribution for disaster funding. 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 and disagree with. 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. For example, wealthier communities have multiple gutters and drains that reduce flooding while poorer communities rely on front yard ditches to drain excess water (Flavelle). This is important because 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.

While I believe that this change is a step in the right direction, its positive impact depends on the reactions and effectiveness of the plan when put into practicality. 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 (Smith and Collier). Since the Democrats have more liberal ideals, many people assume that the commission might want to allocate the bond fund to flood control projects in poor and low-income neighborhoods and ignore other communities that still need the same level aid. Given the political divide present in Texas, with Houston being primarily Democratic in a Republican state, it is important to note that it is no surprise that there is some political resistance from a disaster plan put forth by a Democratic relief commission; unfortunately, 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, I believe that the political barrier from outraged reactions demonstrates a lack of unity that renders disaster recovery less effective for all; so, what level of disaster relief truly 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, I believe that both responses must present advantages for the vulnerable to fairly compare which solution is best to implement. Based on previous research, 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 in federal aid, 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.). I think with the current allocation of federal relief, those who face more hardships, financially and mentally, than others can’t easily meet the requirements during the application process. 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 to reduce the wealth gap in Houston as a result of natural disasters. Although the local solution adds more focus towards the local community which benefits the low-income Houstonians, I believe that we should prioritize the reconstruction of the distribution of federal money because most of people’s disaster recovery heavily relies on receiving enough money to rebuild their lives. 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. While the great local solution prioritizes the local minority community possibly better than the federal one, the lack of unity in the Houston disaster plan 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, p.15). 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. This is important because it demonstrates how even with the proper aid in the recovery journey, low-income communities still struggle at or below the poverty line since natural disaster prevent them from gaining any positive impacts.

Before I go into depth on the poverty trap and its consequences around the globe, I must define what it means to be stuck in the poverty trap. The poverty trap occurs typically post-disaster when “those who are already surviving on income and assets close to or below the poverty line…[are] forced to sell off productive assets… in order to afford the basic minimum of essential consumption,” (Rentschler, p.13). To put it another way, the people who are already in the poorest state must sacrifice assets that they can profit from just to barely obtain food and shelter. Jun E. Rentschler also mention that those people lock themselves in long-term poverty by compromising “their ability to sustain their pre-disaster income levels” because they have depleted “[their] productive assets in order to subsist during transitory shocks”, or in other words, they can never recover or get out of poverty because they’ve lost the assets that provide financial stability (Rentschler, p.13). This is significant because the poverty trap keeps people in poverty and further widens the wealth gap since the poor people can’t get out of their low-income neighborhoods while the rich still live in their luxury. For instance, low-income neighborhoods (mainly black and Latino communities) in Houston struggled to recover from the winter storm a few months ago because they are still repairing their homes from the damage of Hurricane Harvey; they can’t even leave those worn-down and compromised homes because they have nowhere else to go (Trovall and Vasquez). 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? It is possible that by looking at the consequences of the poverty trap in a global angle, we can discover a global solution that translate locally.

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, p.15). 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,” (“Disaster Risk and Resilience” United Nations, p.3). 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, I believe that 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 (Hellegate et al.). 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 (“Unbreakable” World Bank, p. 179). 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, I believe that 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 and proves to fair better for the vulnerable over all other suggested solutions. Unfortunately, the global resilience packages have only been theoretically applied and not truly implemented by international governments. However, with such implementations — post- and pre-disaster, what would that mean for the future of the ever-growing global wealth gap?

If we can apply what has been discovered and tested as successful global resilience packages for each individual country, I’d hope that this will ultimately reduce the wealth inequality. From these applications, we might see not only a decrease in the 689 million people living in poverty worldwide but start to see a balance in a structural system that accounts for everyone and not just a specific group of elites. By having Houston implement this way of solving the inequity in the impacts of natural disasters, those families such as the Evans family might be able to successfully recover from a tragedy to the same level that the Papadopoulos did. Black and Latino households in the Third Ward of Houston might actually not have to worry about the slightest flood damaging all their assets and belongings because the resilience package applied would increase the drainage system to decrease the frequency of flooding. Not only would implementing a custom global resilience package post-disaster relieve the stress of disaster recovery off the vulnerable, but also reduce the amount of money spent in reducing the impacts of a natural disaster. In my opinion, while many would focus on reducing the wealth gap, the reduction of government spending on natural disaster recovery and prevention incentivizes governments to utilize the global resilience packages.

With increasing frequency in natural disaster due to climate change, wealth inequality as a result of natural disasters will forever grow until we choose to do something about. By tackling the issue of inequity in the impacts of natural disasters on certain groups, we will be taking a step in the right direction towards overall tackling the issue of wealth inequality, one step at a time. Nevertheless, we mustn’t assume that a proposed solution can change the whole world; by realizing that regulation of such funds and packages is also necessary in ensuring that governments implement the solution properly. However, if we DON’T do anything about it, then wealth inequality continues to persist for as long as it takes until we wake up realize that change is needed.

Works Cited

Collier, Kiah, and Morgan Smith. “Harris County Voters Pass Historic $2.5 Billion for Flood Control.” The Texas Tribune, The Texas Tribune, 26 Aug. 2018, www.texastribune.org/2018/08/25/Harris-County-flood-control-vote/.

“Disaster Risk and Resilience” United Nations. https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/untaskteam_undf/thinkpieces/3_disaster_risk_resilience.pdf

Flavelle, Christopher. “A Climate Plan in Texas Focuses on Minorities. Not Everyone Likes It.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 24 July 2020, www.nytimes.com/2020/07/24/climate/houston-flooding-race.html?auth=login-google.

Hallegatte, S., Vogt-Schilb, A., Bangalore, M., & Rozenberg, J. (2017). Climate Change and Development Series: Unbreakable; Building the resilience of the poor in the face of natural disasters. Washington, DC: World Bank. doi:10.1596/978–1–4648–1003–9

Hersher, Rebecca, and Robert Benincasa. “How Federal Disaster Money Favors The Rich.” NPR, NPR, 5 Mar. 2019, www.npr.org/2019/03/05/688786177/how-federal-disaster-money-favors-the-rich.

Howell, Junia, and James R. Elliott. “As Disaster Costs Rise, So Does Inequality.” Socius: Sociological Research for a Dynamic World, vol. 4, 2018, p. 237802311881679., doi:10.1177/2378023118816795.

Martin, Carlos, et al. “Improving the Disaster Recovery of Low-Income Families.” Urban Institute, 29 Oct. 2019, www.urban.org/debates/improving-disaster-recovery-low-income-families.

Merchant, Nomaan. “Power Failure: How a Winter Storm Pushed Texas into Crisis.” AP NEWS, Associated Press, 21 Feb. 2021, apnews.com/article/houston-football-storms-coronavirus-pandemic-hurricanes-5fd491ed5bfd9aa0ae08426c6078539e.

Rentschler, Jun E. “Why Resilience Matters — the Poverty Impacts of Disasters.” Policy Research Working Papers, 2013, doi:10.1596/1813–9450–6699.

Trovall, Elizabeth, and Lucio Vasquez. “Racial Inequities Emerge As Houston Recovers From Last Week’s Winter Storm.” Houston Public Media, 22 Feb. 2021, www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/news/weather/2021/02/22/391862/as-houston-area-folks-recover-from-the-winter-storm-racial-inequities-emerge/.

“Unbreakable: Building the Resilience of the Poor in the Face of Natural Disasters” World Bank Group. http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/512241480487839624/pdf/110618-PUB-Box396333B-PUBLIC-PUBDATE-11-24-16-UNIT-ITSKI.pdf