- The pandemic presidential election: An investigation of voter behavior during the Covid-19 pandemic (Under review)
- Oasis of resilience? An empirical investigation of rain water harvesting systems in a high poverty, peripheral community (Economics of Disasters and Climate Change)
- Protective policies for all? An analysis of Covid-19 deaths and protective policies among low-, medium-, and high-vulnerability groups (Disasters)
- Social capital and natural hazards governance (Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Natural Hazard Science)
- Social capital and participation in climate change adaptation (Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Climate Science)
THE PANDEMIC PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION:
AN INVESTIGATION OF VOTER BEHAVIOR DURING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC
Under Review
Abstract
COVID-19 presented significant barriers to voting in the 2020 general elections. In response, states enacted emergency voting laws that extended early voting days and made absentee ballots to reduce the barriers to voters in the pandemic. With a mixed-methods design, this study explores how safety concerns related to the COVID-19 pandemic impacted nontraditional voting behavior in the 2020 general election. Findings from a logistic regression (N=151) suggest that urban voters from the Greater Boston area who expressed safety concerns related to voting in the 2020 elections were more likely to be nontraditional voters in the general election. We found further evidence of this from follow-up one-on-one interviews with our survey participants. The implications of this research place importance on state election law and election administration in a time of crisis. We expect that in a future crisis, nontraditional voting options may reduce barriers to voting experienced in unsafe conditions.
COVID-19 presented significant barriers to voting in the 2020 general elections. In response, states enacted emergency voting laws that extended early voting days and made absentee ballots to reduce the barriers to voters in the pandemic. With a mixed-methods design, this study explores how safety concerns related to the COVID-19 pandemic impacted nontraditional voting behavior in the 2020 general election. Findings from a logistic regression (N=151) suggest that urban voters from the Greater Boston area who expressed safety concerns related to voting in the 2020 elections were more likely to be nontraditional voters in the general election. We found further evidence of this from follow-up one-on-one interviews with our survey participants. The implications of this research place importance on state election law and election administration in a time of crisis. We expect that in a future crisis, nontraditional voting options may reduce barriers to voting experienced in unsafe conditions.
Citation: Page, Tan, C., Bourdeau, M., and Fraser, T. The pandemic presidential election: An investigation of voter behavior during the Covid-19 pandemic. Under Review.
Oasis of resilience?
An empirical investigation of rain water harvesting systems in a high poverty, peripheral community
Abstract
The southeastern mayorality of Mexico City known as Xochimilco has some of the highest poverty, unemployment, male suicide, and illegal land use rates in the region. Lakes and aquifers have dried up due to mismanagement and overall water quality is poor. NGOs and governments have sought to increase the water resilience of residents through policy interventions such as the installation of rainwater harvesting systems. Using geocoded, quantitative data on more than 700 residential households (half of which have rain water harvesting systems) and qualitative interviews with 40 households collected after the earthquake we seek to understand the relationship between demographic, environmental, and technical factors and water related outcomes in Xochimilco. We illuminate what drives demand for market-based water purchasing, the speed of diffusion of rainwater harvesting systems, and the drivers of adoption in this peripheral community. Our results show that vulnerable populations are on the whole less likely to receive rainwater harvesting systems than similar but better-resourced communities. Our findings bring with them a number of policy recommendations for residents, NGOs, and disaster managers.
The southeastern mayorality of Mexico City known as Xochimilco has some of the highest poverty, unemployment, male suicide, and illegal land use rates in the region. Lakes and aquifers have dried up due to mismanagement and overall water quality is poor. NGOs and governments have sought to increase the water resilience of residents through policy interventions such as the installation of rainwater harvesting systems. Using geocoded, quantitative data on more than 700 residential households (half of which have rain water harvesting systems) and qualitative interviews with 40 households collected after the earthquake we seek to understand the relationship between demographic, environmental, and technical factors and water related outcomes in Xochimilco. We illuminate what drives demand for market-based water purchasing, the speed of diffusion of rainwater harvesting systems, and the drivers of adoption in this peripheral community. Our results show that vulnerable populations are on the whole less likely to receive rainwater harvesting systems than similar but better-resourced communities. Our findings bring with them a number of policy recommendations for residents, NGOs, and disaster managers.
Citation: Aldrich, Daniel P, and Page-Tan, C. (2020). Oasis of Resilience? An Empirical Investigation of Rain Water Harvesting Systems in a High Poverty, Peripheral Community. Economics of Disasters and Climate Change, 4(1), 129-144. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41885-019-00050-2
PROTECTIVE POLICIES FOR ALL?
AN ANALYSIS OF COVID-19 DEATHS AND PROTECTIVE POLICIES AMONG LOW, MEDIUM, AND HIGH VULNERABILITY GROUPS
Abstract
Protective policies have been unequally and inconsistently applied in the United States throughout the Covid-19 pandemic. This study investigates the relationship between state and local policies and Covid-19 deaths, combining three datasets: the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Social Vulnerability Index; local laws and regulations from the COVID Analysis and Mapping of Policies (AMP) database; and Covid-19 deaths by county reported by The New York Times. It examines, using propensity score matching, local policies and regulations as treatments during the crisis, and assesses how, inter alia, face mask requirements, gathering restrictions, stay-at-home orders, and social distancing mandates enacted at the county level altered Covid-19 deaths. The results indicate that the first three variables reduced average Covid-19 deaths in high-vulnerability communities. Despite clear gaps in federal policy guidance and coordinated policies, some efforts led by local and state governments promoted safer behaviour and lessened the impact of Covid-19 in communities, especially those with higher social vulnerability rates.
Protective policies have been unequally and inconsistently applied in the United States throughout the Covid-19 pandemic. This study investigates the relationship between state and local policies and Covid-19 deaths, combining three datasets: the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Social Vulnerability Index; local laws and regulations from the COVID Analysis and Mapping of Policies (AMP) database; and Covid-19 deaths by county reported by The New York Times. It examines, using propensity score matching, local policies and regulations as treatments during the crisis, and assesses how, inter alia, face mask requirements, gathering restrictions, stay-at-home orders, and social distancing mandates enacted at the county level altered Covid-19 deaths. The results indicate that the first three variables reduced average Covid-19 deaths in high-vulnerability communities. Despite clear gaps in federal policy guidance and coordinated policies, some efforts led by local and state governments promoted safer behaviour and lessened the impact of Covid-19 in communities, especially those with higher social vulnerability rates.
Citation: Page-Tan, C. & Corbin, T. B. (2021). Protective policies for all? An analysis of Covid-19 deaths and protective policies among low-, medium-, and high-vulnerability groups. Disasters, 45(S1), S119-S145. https://doi.org/10.1111/disa.1252
Social capital and natural hazards governance
Abstract
The impact of disasters continues to grow in the early 21st century, as extreme weather events become more frequent and population density in vulnerable coastal and inland cities increases. Against this backdrop of risk, decision-makers persist in focusing primarily on structural measures to reduce losses centered on physical infrastructure such as berms, seawalls, retrofitted buildings, and levees. Yet a growing body of research emphasizes that strengthening social infrastructure, not just physical infrastructure, serves as a cost-effective way to improve the ability of communities to withstand and rebound from disasters. Three distinct kinds of social connections, including bonding, bridging, and linking social ties, support resilience through increasing the provision of emergency information, mutual aid, and collective action within communities to address natural hazards before, during, and after disaster events. Investing in social capital fosters community resilience that transcends natural hazards and positively affects collective governance and community health.
Social capital has a long history in social science research and scholarship, particularly in how it has grown within various disciplines. Broadly, the term describes how social ties generate norms of reciprocity and trust, allow collective action, build solidarity, and foster information and resource flows among people. From education to crime, social capital has been shown to have positive impacts on individual and community outcomes, and research in natural hazards has similarly shown positive outcomes for individual and community resilience. Social capital also can foster negative outcomes, including exclusionary practices, corruption, and increased inequality. Understanding which types of social capital are most useful for increasing resilience is important to move the natural hazards field forward.
Many questions about social capital and natural hazards remain, at best, partially answered. Do different types of social capital matter at different stages of disaster—e.g., mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery? How do social capital’s effects vary across cultural contexts and stratified groups? What measures of social capital are available to practitioners and scholars? What actions are available to decision-makers seeking to invest in the social infrastructure of communities vulnerable to natural hazards? Which programs and interventions have shown merit through field tests? What outcomes can decision-makers anticipate with these investments? Where can scholars find data sets on resilience and social capital? The current state of knowledge about social capital in disaster resilience provides guidance about supporting communities toward more resilience.
The impact of disasters continues to grow in the early 21st century, as extreme weather events become more frequent and population density in vulnerable coastal and inland cities increases. Against this backdrop of risk, decision-makers persist in focusing primarily on structural measures to reduce losses centered on physical infrastructure such as berms, seawalls, retrofitted buildings, and levees. Yet a growing body of research emphasizes that strengthening social infrastructure, not just physical infrastructure, serves as a cost-effective way to improve the ability of communities to withstand and rebound from disasters. Three distinct kinds of social connections, including bonding, bridging, and linking social ties, support resilience through increasing the provision of emergency information, mutual aid, and collective action within communities to address natural hazards before, during, and after disaster events. Investing in social capital fosters community resilience that transcends natural hazards and positively affects collective governance and community health.
Social capital has a long history in social science research and scholarship, particularly in how it has grown within various disciplines. Broadly, the term describes how social ties generate norms of reciprocity and trust, allow collective action, build solidarity, and foster information and resource flows among people. From education to crime, social capital has been shown to have positive impacts on individual and community outcomes, and research in natural hazards has similarly shown positive outcomes for individual and community resilience. Social capital also can foster negative outcomes, including exclusionary practices, corruption, and increased inequality. Understanding which types of social capital are most useful for increasing resilience is important to move the natural hazards field forward.
Many questions about social capital and natural hazards remain, at best, partially answered. Do different types of social capital matter at different stages of disaster—e.g., mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery? How do social capital’s effects vary across cultural contexts and stratified groups? What measures of social capital are available to practitioners and scholars? What actions are available to decision-makers seeking to invest in the social infrastructure of communities vulnerable to natural hazards? Which programs and interventions have shown merit through field tests? What outcomes can decision-makers anticipate with these investments? Where can scholars find data sets on resilience and social capital? The current state of knowledge about social capital in disaster resilience provides guidance about supporting communities toward more resilience.
Citation: Aldrich, D.P., Meyer, M. and Page-Tan, C. (2018). Social capital and natural hazards governance. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Natural Hazard Science. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199389407.013.254
Social capital and climate change adaptation
Abstract
Anthropogenic climate change increasingly disrupts livelihoods, floods coastal urban cities and island nations, and exacerbates extreme weather events. There is near-universal consensus among scientists that in order to reverse or at least mitigate climate disruptions, limits must be imposed on anthropogenic sources of climate-forcing emissions and adaptation to changing global conditions will be necessary. Yet adaptation to current and future climate change at the individual, community, and national levels vary widely from merely coping, to engaging in adaptive change, to transformative shifts. Some of those affected simply cope with lower crop yields, flooded streets, and higher cooling bills. Others incrementally adapt to new environmental conditions, for example, by raising seawalls or shifting from one crop to another better suited for a hotter environment. The highest—and perhaps least likely—type of change involves transformation, radically altering practices with an eye toward the future. Transformative adaptation may involve a livelihood change or permanent migration; it might require shuttering whole industries and rethinking industrial policy at the national level. Entire island nations such as Fiji, for example, are considering relocating from vulnerable locations to areas better suited to rising sea levels.
A great deal of research has shown how social capital (the bonding, bridging, and linking connections to others) provides information on trustworthiness, facilitates collective action, and connects us to external resources during disasters and crises. We know far less about the relationship between social capital and adaptation behaviors in terms of the choices that people make to accommodate changing environmental conditions. A number of unanswered but critical questions remain: How precisely does social capital function in climate change adaptation? To what degree does strong bonding social capital substitute for successful adaptation behaviors for individuals or groups? Which combinations of social factors make coping, adapting, and transforming most likely? How can social capital help migrating populations maintain cultural identity under stress? How can local networks be integrated into higher-level policy interventions to improve adaptation? Which political and social networks contribute to transformative responses to climate change at local, regional, and international levels? This article serves as a comprehensive literature review, overview of empirical findings to date, and a research agenda for the future.
Anthropogenic climate change increasingly disrupts livelihoods, floods coastal urban cities and island nations, and exacerbates extreme weather events. There is near-universal consensus among scientists that in order to reverse or at least mitigate climate disruptions, limits must be imposed on anthropogenic sources of climate-forcing emissions and adaptation to changing global conditions will be necessary. Yet adaptation to current and future climate change at the individual, community, and national levels vary widely from merely coping, to engaging in adaptive change, to transformative shifts. Some of those affected simply cope with lower crop yields, flooded streets, and higher cooling bills. Others incrementally adapt to new environmental conditions, for example, by raising seawalls or shifting from one crop to another better suited for a hotter environment. The highest—and perhaps least likely—type of change involves transformation, radically altering practices with an eye toward the future. Transformative adaptation may involve a livelihood change or permanent migration; it might require shuttering whole industries and rethinking industrial policy at the national level. Entire island nations such as Fiji, for example, are considering relocating from vulnerable locations to areas better suited to rising sea levels.
A great deal of research has shown how social capital (the bonding, bridging, and linking connections to others) provides information on trustworthiness, facilitates collective action, and connects us to external resources during disasters and crises. We know far less about the relationship between social capital and adaptation behaviors in terms of the choices that people make to accommodate changing environmental conditions. A number of unanswered but critical questions remain: How precisely does social capital function in climate change adaptation? To what degree does strong bonding social capital substitute for successful adaptation behaviors for individuals or groups? Which combinations of social factors make coping, adapting, and transforming most likely? How can social capital help migrating populations maintain cultural identity under stress? How can local networks be integrated into higher-level policy interventions to improve adaptation? Which political and social networks contribute to transformative responses to climate change at local, regional, and international levels? This article serves as a comprehensive literature review, overview of empirical findings to date, and a research agenda for the future.
Citation: Aldrich, D.P., Page-Tan, C., and Paul, C. (2016). Social capital and climate change adaptation. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Climate Science. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.013.342