Degree and direction of overlap between social vulnerability and community resilience measurements.

An ongoing debate in academic and practitioner communities, centers on the measurement similarities and differences between social vulnerability and community resilience. More specifically, many see social vulnerability and community resilience measurements as conceptually and empirically the same. Only through a critical and comparative assessment can we ascertain the extent to which these measurement schemas empirically relate to one another. This paper uses two well-known indices-the social vulnerability index (SoVI) and the Baseline Resilience Indicators for Communities (BRIC) to address the topic. The paper employs spatio-temporal correlations to test for differences or divergence (negative associations) and similarities or convergence (positive associations), and the degree of overlap. These tests use continental U.S. counties, two timeframes (2010 and 2015), and two case study sub-regions (to identify changes in measurement associations going from national to regional scales given the place-based nature of each index). Geospatial analytics indicate a divergence with little overlap between SoVI and BRIC measurements, based on low negative correlation coefficients (around 30%) for both time periods. There is some spatial variability in measurement overlap, but less than 2% of counties show hot spot clustering of correlations of more than 50% in either year. The strongest overlap and divergence in both years occurs in few counties in California, Arizona, and Maine. The degree of overlap in measurements at the regional scale is greater in the Gulf Region (39%) than in the Southeast Atlantic region (21% in 2010; 28% in 2015) suggesting more homogeneity in Gulf Coast counties based on population and place characteristics. However, in both study areas SoVI and BRIC measurements are negatively associated. Given their inclusion in the National Risk Index, both social vulnerability and resilience metrics are needed to interpret the local community capacities in natural hazards risk planning, as a vulnerable community could be highly resilient or vice versa.

Business recovery from disasters: Lessons from natural hazards and the COVID-19 pandemic.

This paper compares economic recovery in the COVID-19 pandemic with other types of disasters, at the scale of businesses. As countries around the world struggle to emerge from the pandemic, studies of business impact and recovery have proliferated; however, pandemic research is often undertaken without the benefit of insights from long-standing research on past large-scale disruptive events, such as floods, storms, and earthquakes. This paper builds synergies between established knowledge on business recovery in disasters and emerging insights from the COVID-19 pandemic. It first proposes a disaster event taxonomy that allows the pandemic to be compared with natural hazard events from the perspective of economic disruption. The paper then identifies five key lessons on business recovery from disasters and compares them to empirical findings from the COVID-19 pandemic. For synthesis, a conceptual framework on business recovery is developed to support policy-makers to anticipate business recovery needs in economically disruptive events, including disasters. Findings from the pandemic largely resonate with those from disasters. Recovery tends to be more difficult for small businesses, those vulnerable to supply chain problems, those facing disrupted markets, and locally-oriented businesses in heavily impacted neighborhoods. Disaster assistance that is fast and less restrictive provides more effective support for business recovery. Some differences emerge, however: substantial business disruption in the pandemic derived from changes in demand due to regulatory measures as well as consumer behaviour; businesses in high-income neighborhoods and central business districts were especially affected; and traditional forms of financial assistance may need to be reconsidered.

Urban-rural differences in COVID-19 exposures and outcomes in the South: A preliminary analysis of South Carolina.

As the COVID-19 pandemic moved beyond the initial heavily impacted and urbanized Northeast region of the United States, hotspots of cases in other urban areas ensued across the country in early 2020. In South Carolina, the spatial and temporal patterns were different, initially concentrating in small towns within metro counties, then diffusing to centralized urban areas and rural areas. When mitigation restrictions were relaxed, hotspots reappeared in the major cities. This paper examines the county-scale spatial and temporal patterns of confirmed cases of COVID-19 for South Carolina from March 1st-September 5th, 2020. We first describe the initial diffusion of the new confirmed cases per week across the state, which remained under 2,000 cases until Memorial Day weekend (epi week 23) then dramatically increased, peaking in mid-July (epi week 29), and slowly declining thereafter. Second, we found significant differences in cases and deaths between urban and rural counties, partially related to the timing of the number of confirmed cases and deaths and the implementation of state and local mitigations. Third, we found that the case rates and mortality rates positively correlated with pre-existing social vulnerability. There was also a negative correlation between mortality rates and county resilience patterns, as expected, suggesting that counties with higher levels of inherent resilience had fewer deaths per 100,000 population.

Spatial Disparities of COVID-19 Cases and Fatalities in United States Counties.

This paper examines the spatial and temporal trends in county-level COVID-19 cases and fatalities in the United States during the first year of the pandemic (January 2020-January 2021). Statistical and geospatial analyses highlight greater impacts in the Great Plains, Southwestern and Southern regions based on cases and fatalities per 100,000 population. Significant case and fatality spatial clusters were most prevalent between November 2020 and January 2021. Distinct urban-rural differences in COVID-19 experiences uncovered higher rural cases and fatalities per 100,000 population and fewer government mitigation actions enacted in rural counties. High levels of social vulnerability and the absence of mitigation policies were significantly associated with higher fatalities, while existing community resilience had more influential spatial explanatory power. Using differences in percentage unemployment changes between 2019 and 2020 as a proxy for pre-emergent recovery revealed urban counties were hit harder in the early months of the pandemic, corresponding with imposed government mitigation policies. This longitudinal, place-based study confirms some early urban-rural patterns initially observed in the pandemic, as well as the disparate COVID-19 experiences among socially vulnerable populations. The results are critical in identifying geographic disparities in COVID-19 exposures and outcomes and providing the evidentiary basis for targeting pandemic recovery.