A GIS Based Comparison of Social Vulnerability Indices Público

Abstract

Social vulnerability indices have been used to characterize community level risk to hazards but little research has been conducted to explore the utility of using such indices in public health practice. Additionally there is no consensus regarding the best methodology for producing social vulnerability indices. This study compared three social vulnerability indices produced using three distinct structural designs and the same set of indicators to help explain the impact structural design has during the production of social vulnerability indices. This research was guided by the following research questions (operationalized as testable null hypothesis):

1. Social vulnerability indices produced by the deductive, hierarchical and inductive methods will yield the same spatial distributions of social vulnerability at the county level for each state (New Jersey and Florida).

2. ED visit rates are not spatially correlated with measures of social vulnerability or exposure to air pollution at the county level for each state (New Jersey and Florida).

The 32 Variable SoVI from 2000 was extracted from the Hazard and Vulnerability Research Institute, located on the University of South Carolina's website ¹ . Rather than perform our own factor analysis, we chose to use this social vulnerability index as our inductive index. Using the same set of variables, we developed two comparison indices (the deductive and hierarchical indices). Spatial and statistical analysis was employed to compare indices both with each other and with health and exposure data. Results confirmed that indices produced by the three different structural designs produced different spatial distributions of vulnerability at the county level with the hierarchical and deductive indices being most similar. Additionally results suggested evidence of spatial correlation between social vulnerability and asthma ED visit rates in both Florida and New Jersey although the spatial relatedness was different in each state. Results did not suggest a relationship between ED visit rates and exposure to PM 2.5.

This study suggests that social vulnerability indices could be useful in the field of public health, but more research into optimal construction and implementation should be employed to ensure correct interpretation, use and applicability.

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Introduction................................................................................................................................................................................... 1

Vulnerability............................................................................................................................................................................ 1

Social Vulnerability Indices........................................................................................................................................ 2

Air Pollution and Asthma ........................................................................................................................................... 5

Study Purpose and Aims.............................................................................................................................................. 5

Methods............................................................................................................................................................................................. 7

Study Area................................................................................................................................................................................. 7

Data and Measurements.............................................................................................................................................. 7

Data Analysis....................................................................................................................................................................... 11

Results............................................................................................................................................................................................. 15

Discussion..................................................................................................................................................................................... 26

Limitations............................................................................................................................................................................. 29

Conclusion and Recommendations....................................................................................................................... 34

Tables and Figures............................................................................................................................................................... 37

Figures....................................................................................................................................................................................... 37

Figure 1: Index Creation: Structural Designs⁶................................................................................ 37

Tables and Graphs......................................................................................................................................................... 38

Table 1: 32 Indicators and Corresponding Dimensions of Vulnerability Explained 38

Table 2: Social Vulnerability Scores by Index for New Jersey.......................................... 39

Table 3: Social Vulnerability Scores by Index for Florida..................................................... 40

Table 4: Exploratory Analysis of Variables and Indices (New Jersey)..................... 41

Table 5: Exploratory Analysis of Variables and Indices (Florida)................................ 41

Table 6: Spearman's Correlation Coefficients to Compare Indices (for both New Jersey and Florida) 42

Table 7: Spearman's Correlation Coefficients to Compare Significant Clusters (for both New Jersey and Florida) 42

Table 8: Poisson Model Comparison (New Jersey).................................................................... 43

Table 9: Poisson Model Comparison (Florida)............................................................................... 43

Graph 1: ED Visit Rates Compared to PM 2.5 Exposure (New Jersey).................... 44

Graph 2: ED Visit Rates Compared to the Deductive Measure of Social Vulnerability (New Jersey) 44

Graph 3: ED Visit Rates Compared to the Hierarchical Measure of Social Vulnerability (New Jersey) 45

Graph 4: ED Visit Rates Compared to the Inductive (SoVI) Measure of Social Vulnerability (New Jersey) 45

Graph 5: ED Visit Rates Compared to PM 2.5 Exposure (Florida)............................... 46

Graph 6: ED Visit Rates Compared to the Deductive Measure of Social Vulnerability (Florida) 46

Graph 7: ED Visit Rates Compared to the Hierarchical Measure of Social Vulnerability (Florida) 47

Graph 8: ED Visit Rates Compared to the Inductive (SoVI) Measure of Social Vulnerability (Florida) 47

New Jersey Maps................................................................................................................................................................... 48

Map 2: Average PM 2.5 Exposure for New Jersey displayed in Tertiles................ 49

Map 3: Asthma Emergency Department Visit Rates per 10,000 by County for New Jersey 50

Map 4: The Deductive Index of Social Vulnerability Displayed in Tertiles for New Jersey 51

Map 5: The Hierarchical Index of Social Vulnerability Displayed in Tertiles for New Jersey 52

Map 6: The Inductive Index of Social Vulnerability Displayed in Tertiles for New Jersey 53

Map 8: Bivariate LISA results comparing PM 2.5 to Asthma Emergency Department Visit Rates in New Jersey 55

Map 9: Bivariate LISA results comparing the Deductive Measure of Social Vulnerability to Asthma Emergency Department Visit Rates in New Jersey.................................................................................................................................................................................... 56

Map 10: Bivariate LISA results comparing the Hierarchical Measure of Social Vulnerability to Asthma Emergency Department Visit Rates in New Jersey....................................................................................................................................................................... 57

Map 11: Bivariate LISA results comparing the Inductive (SoVI) Measures of Social Vulnerability to Asthma Emergency Department Visit Rates in New Jersey................................................................................................................................................. 58

Map 12: Conditional Choropleth Map Showing Asthma Emergency Department Visit Rates compared to PM 2.5 levels and the Deductive Measure of Social Vulnerability.................................................................................................................... 59

Map 13: Conditional Choropleth Map Showing Asthma Emergency Department Visit Rates compared to PM 2.5 levels and the Hierarchical Measure of Social Vulnerability.................................................................................................................... 60

Map 14: Conditional Choropleth Map Showing Asthma Emergency Department Visit Rates compared to PM 2.5 levels and the Inductive (SoVI) Measure of Social Vulnerability.................................................................................................. 61

Florida Maps.............................................................................................................................................................................. 62

Map 16: Average PM 2.5 Exposure for Florida displayed in Tertiles........................ 63

Map 17: Asthma Emergency Department Visit Rates per 10,000 by County Florida 64

Map 18: The Deductive Index of Social Vulnerability Displayed in Tertiles for Florida 65

Map 19: The Hierarchical Index of Social Vulnerability Displayed in Tertiles for Florida 66

Map 20: The Inductive (SoVI) Index of Social Vulnerability Displayed in Tertiles for Florida 67

Map 22: Bivariate LISA results comparing PM 2.5 to Asthma Emergency Department Visit Rates in Florida 69

Map 23: Bivariate LISA results comparing the Deductive Measure of Social Vulnerability to Asthma Emergency Department Visit Rates in Florida.................................................................................................................................................................................. 70

Map 24: Bivariate LISA results comparing the Hierarchical Measure of Social Vulnerability to Asthma Emergency Department Visit Rates in Florida.................................................................................................................................................................................. 71

Map 25: Bivariate LISA results comparing the Inductive (SoVI) Measure of Social Vulnerability to Asthma Emergency Department Visit Rates in Florida........................................................................................................................................................................... 72

Map 26: Conditional Choropleth Map Showing Asthma Emergency Department Visit Rates compared to PM 2.5 levels and the Deductive Measure of Social Vulnerability.................................................................................................................... 73

Map 27: Conditional Choropleth Map Showing Asthma Emergency Department Visit Rates compared to PM 2.5 levels and the Hierarchical Measure of Social Vulnerability.................................................................................................................... 74

Map 28: Conditional Choropleth Map Showing Asthma Emergency Department Visit Rates compared to PM 2.5 levels and the Inductive (SoVI) Measure of Social Vulnerability.................................................................................................. 75

References................................................................................................................................................................................... 76

About this Master's Thesis

Rights statement

• Permission granted by the author to include this thesis or dissertation in this repository. All rights reserved by the author. Please contact the author for information regarding the reproduction and use of this thesis or dissertation.

School	Rollins School of Public Health
Department	Environmental Health
Degree	MPH
Submission	Master's Thesis
Language	English
Research Field	Health Sciences, Public Health
Palavra-chave	GIS Social Vulnerability
Committee Chair / Thesis Advisor	Strickland, Matthew J, Emory University
Committee Members	Strosnider, Heather Marie, Emory University
Partnering Agencies	Does not apply (no collaborating organization)

Última modificação

Primary PDF

Thumbnail	Title	Date Uploaded	Actions
	A GIS Based Comparison of Social Vulnerability Indices ()	2018-08-28 14:04:47 -0400	Press to Select an action Download

Supplemental Files

Thumbnail	Title	Date Uploaded	Actions