Search results

This paper aims to determine household perceptions of disaster recovery plan development and implementation, and to identify groups that may be less aware of the recovery planning process to provide recommendations to officials for improving participation in planning and resident support of implementation priorities.

Face-to-face interviews were conducted with 194 residents of a US Atlantic coast county impacted by Hurricane Irene. Respondents were selected via a two-stage cluster sampling method automated through the use of a Geographic Information Systems toolkit.

Although few households reported participation in the county’s recovery planning process, a majority felt that the plan would be better if it incorporated input from a wide range of stakeholders. The number one reason residents did not participate was the lack of knowledge that they could. Some vulnerable populations were less aware of the recovery plan, including the elderly and those living in poverty, while others were more aware, including those with children and those without access to a working vehicle. Respondents prioritized recovery activities around infrastructure and public safety, yet ranked activities related to public information and housing as less important.

This paper highlights potential successes of emergency management outreach and identifies groups that are not being reached during recovery planning. The paper provides insight on resident priorities for recovery after disaster.

There has been little research on the implementation of recovery plans and few studies that have examined the behaviors and opinions of households with regard to recovery plan development and implementation.

Participatory action research can improve scientific knowledge and community capacity to address disaster resilience and environmental justice. Evidence from the literature suggests that resident participation enhances assessment of environmental risks, raises awareness and empowers residents to fight for equitable distribution of hazard and climate risk adaptations. Yet, risk assessment and urban planning processes still frequently operate within expertise-driven groups without significant community engagement. Such fragmentation results in part from a lack of appreciation for community expertise in built environment adaptations and educational tools to support resident involvement in the often technical built environment planning processes.

A participatory research and place-based education project was developed that enhanced co-learning between residents and researchers while collecting and analyzing local data on flood resilience in the built environment. Five research activities constitute the curriculum of resilience education on stormwater infrastructure: establishment of partnership agreement/memorandum of understanding, participatory GIS to identify flooding issues, water quality testing and health survey, stormwater infrastructure assessment and urban/landscape design. Partners included high school and college students, residents and environmental justice organizations.

Outcomes include a stakeholder-approved infrastructure assessment smartphone application, neighborhood maps of drainage issues, a report of water containments and neighborhood-scaled green infrastructure provisions and growth plans. Findings indicate that participatory research positively contributed to resilience knowledge of participants.

This paper outlines an interdisciplinary pedagogical strategy for resilience planning that engages residents to assess and monitor the performance of stormwater infrastructure and create resilience plans. The paper also discusses challenges and opportunities for similar participatory projects.

Little attention has been given to the mental and physical health impacts of COVID-19 on the academic public health workforce. Academic public health is an important support mechanism for public health practice, providing expertise and workforce training, conducting research, disseminating evidence-based scientific information to both public health and lay audiences, and serving as a supplementary workforce when additional resources are needed. These roles become more important during a public health emergency, particularly during a prolonged public health crisis like the COVID-19 pandemic. As a result of the COVID-19 response, the roles of academic public health have expanded to include developing and implementing contact tracing, surveillance, testing, and vaccination programs for universities and their surrounding communities, all while continuing to prepare students and support the public health practice workforce in their ongoing efforts. As in other responder groups, this has resulted in significant mental health effects and burnout among public health academicians. The authors suggest important steps that can be taken to improve the resilience of the academic public health workforce and to support their contributions during prolonged public health emergencies.

The COVID-19 pandemic, and the measures implemented to control it, collided with another public health emergency – the opioid crisis – with dire consequences. In October of 2017, the Secretary of the US Department of Health and Human Services declared the opioid crisis a public health emergency. That declaration has been renewed several times, including during the COVID-19 pandemic, with the latest renewal set to go into effect on July 4, 2022. The overlap of individual, environmental, and social risk factors for substance use disorder (SUD) and COVID-19 present major challenges to those working as part of the response to both pandemics. The severity of the implications of this dual pandemic – an estimated 100,000 people in the United States died from a drug overdose during the first year of the pandemic – make this an area of the pandemic response where lessons learned had to be rapidly implemented to save lives. Identifying ways in which those lessons can be expanded to other populations at risk, including those with other pre-existing mental disorders, will be important to reducing the inequitable impacts of the pandemic on mental health.

The governmental public health workforce provides essential public health services to communities from public health agencies operations at the local, state, and federal levels of government. The roles and duties of public health workers range from infectious disease tracking and control to healthy eating promotion to checking food service establishments for safety. Unfortunately, most of the time, the general public is unaware of, and unconcerned with, public health’s primary mission of disease prevention. This behind-the-scenes, service-oriented workforce has responded to the COVID-19 pandemic by working long hours, extra days, and ever-changing job roles, all while becoming targets of political attacks and enduring substantially elevated psychological distress and burnout. Though this workforce is not well enumerated, existing studies indicate that public health workers face higher anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, and burnout than other frontline healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic response. Several strategies have been suggested to address these vulnerabilities, including increasing the amount and stability of available funding, implementing organizational-level policies and programming to boost resilience, and providing individual-level social support, both instrumental and emotional, to protect against burnout and other psychological distresses.

Since the development of the COVID-19 vaccinations, questions surrounding race have been prominent in the literature on vaccine uptake. Early in the vaccine rollout, public health officials were concerned with the relatively lower rates of uptake among certain racial/ethnic minority groups. We suggest that this may also be patterned by racial/ethnic residential segregation, which previous work has demonstrated to be an important factor for both health and access to health care.

In this study, we examine county-level vaccination rates, racial/ethnic composition, and residential segregation across the U.S. We compile data from several sources, including the American Community Survey (ACS) and Centers for Disease Control (CDC) measured at the county level.

We find that just looking at the associations between racial/ethnic composition and vaccination rates, both percent Black and percent White are significant and negative, meaning that higher percentages of these groups in a county are associated with lower vaccination rates, whereas the opposite is the case for percent Latino. When we factor in segregation, as measured by the index of dissimilarity, the patterns change somewhat. Dissimilarity itself was not significant in the models across all groups, but when interacted with race/ethnic composition, it moderates the association. For both percent Black and percent White, the interaction with the Black-White dissimilarity index is significant and negative, meaning that it deepens the negative association between composition and the vaccination rate.

The analysis is only limited to county-level measures of racial/ethnic composition and vaccination rates, so we are unable to see at the individual-level who is getting vaccinated.

We find that segregation moderates the association between racial/ethnic composition and vaccination rates, suggesting that local race relations in a county helps contextualize the compositional effects of race/ethnicity.

The COVID-19 pandemic, and the responses to it that were required from frontline healthcare providers and others working in healthcare settings including environmental, clerical, and security staff, has challenged our healthcare systems in unprecedented ways. The threats to the financial, physical, and psychological well-being of healthcare professionals – many of whom entered the field due at least in part to a deep commitment to caring for and helping others – will have profound and long-lasting personal and professional impacts. Early in the pandemic response, healthcare professionals knew little about the risks they, their patients, and their loved ones faced from COVID-19 as they operated under crisis standards of care and without adequate supplies of personal protective equipment. As the pandemic response progressed, the lack of clear, science-based guidance, and the politicization of the pandemic presented new medical, ethical, and moral dilemmas. New psychological support mechanisms, including crisis counseling and evidence-based interventions, are needed for all workers in healthcare settings, regardless of their job role.