Content uploaded by Nadia Siddiqui
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Nadia Siddiqui on Jun 18, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
CLIMATE CHANGE, ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES
AND VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES:
Assessing Legacies of the Past,
Building Opportunities for the Future
RESEARCH REPORT
FEBRUARY 2012
CLIMATE CHANGE, ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES AND VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES:
Assessing Legacies of the Past, Building Opportunities for the Future
II
CLIMATE CHANGE, ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES AND VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES:
Assessing Legacies of the Past, Building Opportunities for the Future
1
The Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies is grateful to the Texas Health
Institute (THI) for a partnership that enabled us to develop a framework for assessing
national research and programs on climate change and environmental priorities for
vulnerable populations, especially communities of color.
This report, Joint Center research project Climate Change, Environmental Challenges
and Vulnerable Communities: Assessing Legacies of the Past, Building Opportunities
for the Future, and its Executive Summary offer guidance to advocates, policymakers,
researchers and others who must set priorities, so that they can avoid duplication,
maximize the use of scarce resources and encourage the development of policies that
engage diverse populations while bringing environmental justice to their communities.
The report was prepared for the Joint Center by THI with project support from the U.S.
Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
We offer special thanks to members of the THI Project Team who prepared this report:
Dennis Andrulis, Ph.D., M.P.H., Nadia Siddiqui, M.P.H. and Maria Rascati Cooper, M.A. We
also are grateful to Gina E. Wood, Kellee James and Clori Jones of the Joint Center for their
guidance and support.
Finally, we want to offer our appreciation to members of the Commission to Engage
African Americans on Climate Change who have provided content recommendations,
direction and support throughout all phases of this project.
Ralph B. Everett
President and CEO
Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies
FOREWORD
CLIMATE CHANGE, ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES AND VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES:
Assessing Legacies of the Past, Building Opportunities for the Future
2
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The members of the Texas Health Institute Project Team are
Dennis Andrulis, Ph.D., MPH, Nadia Siddiqui, MPH and Maria
Rascati Cooper, M.A. The Project Team acknowledges and
thanks the U.S. Forest Service and the Joint Center for Political
and Economic Studies for supporting this project. We also are
grateful to Gina Wood and Kellee James of the Joint Center
for their guidance in preparation of this report. Finally we
want to offer our appreciation to members of the Commission
to Engage African Americans on Climate Change who, with
Center staff through their invaluable contributions, have
provided content recommendations, direction and support
throughout all phases of this project.
Prepared for:
The Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies
Prepared by:
Texas Health Institute
Project Support by:
U.S. Forest Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture
CLIMATE CHANGE, ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES AND VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES:
Assessing Legacies of the Past, Building Opportunities for the Future
3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 7
INTRODUCTION 7
RESEARCH DESIGN 8
MAJOR FINDINGS 9
RECOMMENDATIONS 15
INTRODUCTION 17
I. BACKGROUND 18
CLIMATE CHANGE AND VULNERABLE POPULATIONS 18
II. METHODOLOGY 22
REGION SELECTION 22
REGIONAL STUDY DESIGN 24
III. REGIONAL DATA FINDINGS 28
DEMOGRAPHIC FACTORS 28
HEALTH AND HEALTH CARE MEASURES 46
CLIMATE CHANGE CONCERNS AND IMPACTS 51
IV. STATE, LOCAL, AND REGIONAL PROGRAMS & POLICIES 69
ARIZONA 70
ARKANSAS 74
LOUISIANA 77
NEW MEXICO 80
OKLAHOMA 83
TEXAS 86
REGIONAL PROGRAMS AND POLICIES 92
V. DISCUSSION 95
PART I: VULNERABLE POPULATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF CLIMATE CHANGE 95
PART II: STATE OF CLIMATE CHANGE PROGRAMS AND POLICIES ACROSS THE REGION 98
PART III: ADDITIONAL BARRIERS TO CLIMATE CHANGE PROGRESS 99
VI. RECOMMENDATIONS 100
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR STATE LEVEL ACTIONS 100
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR COMMUNITY AND LOCAL PROGRAMS 101
VII. CONCLUSION 103
BIBLIOGRAPHY 104
APPENDIX A: SITE SELECTION DATA 108
APPENDIX B: KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEW PROTOCOL 112
APPENDIX C: NATIONAL COMPENDIUM OF LITERATURE ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND DIVERSE POPULATIONS 114
APPENDIX D: REGIONAL COMPENDIUM OF LITERATURE ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND DIVERSE POPULATION 174
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CLIMATE CHANGE, ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES AND VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES:
Assessing Legacies of the Past, Building Opportunities for the Future
4
TABLE 1. INDICATORS OF VULNERABILITY TO CLIMATE CHANGE 23
FIGURE 1. SELECTED REGION FOR STUDY 24
TABLE 2. NUMBER OF KEY INFORMANTS INTERVIEWED PER STATE 27
TABLE 3. TOTAL POPULATION AND CHANGE IN POPULATION BY STATE AND REGION, 2000 AND 2010 28
MAP 1. TOTAL POPULATION BY COUNTY, 2010 29
MAP 2. CHANGE IN TOTAL POPULATION BY COUNTY, 2000 - 2010 29
TABLE 4. TOTAL, PERCENT AND PERCENT CHANGE IN BLACK OR AFRICAN AMERICAN POPULATION
BY STATE, 2000- 2010 30
MAP 3. PERCENT BLACK OR AFRICAN AMERICAN BY COUNTY, 2010 31
MAP 4. PERCENT CHANGE IN BLACK OR AFRICAN AMERICAN POPULATION BY COUNTY, 2000-2010 31
TABLE 5. TOTAL NUMBER, PERCENT AND PERCENT CHANGE IN AMERICAN INDIAN (AI) POPULATION
BY COUNTY, 2000-2010 32
MAP 5. PERCENT AMERICAN INDIAN POPULATION BY COUNTY, 2010 33
MAP 6. PERCENT CHANGE IN AMERICAN INDIAN POPULATION BY COUNTY, 2000-2010 33
TABLE 6. NUMBER, PERCENT AND PERCENT CHANGE IN ASIAN-AMERICAN POPULATION BY COUNTY, 2000-2010 34
MAP 7. ASIAN-AMERICAN POPULATION BY COUNTY, 2010 35
MAP 8. PERCENT CHANGE IN ASIAN-AMERICAN POPULATION BY COUNTY, 2010 35
TABLE 7. NUMBER, PERCENT AND PERCENT CHANGE IN HISPANIC/LATINO POPULATION
(OF ANY RACE) BY COUNTY, 2000-2010 36
MAP 9. PERCENT HISPANIC OR LATINO POPULATION (OF ANY RACE) BY COUNTY, 2010 37
MAP 10. PERCENT CHANGE IN HISPANIC OR LATINO POPULATION (OF ANY RACE) BY COUNTY, 2000-2010 37
TABLE 8. NUMBER AND PERCENT OF POPULATION WITH LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENCY, BY COUNTY, 2009 38
MAP 11. TOTAL POPULATION WITH LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENCY BY COUNTY, 2009 39
MAP 12. PERCENT OF POPULATION WITH LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENCY BY COUNTY, 2009 39
TABLE 9. ESTIMATED NUMBER OF PEOPLE AND PERCENT OF PEOPLE (ALL AGES) IN POVERTY BY COUNTY, 2010 40
MAP 13. PERCENT POPULATION (ALL AGES) IN POVERTY BY COUNTY, 2010 41
MAP 14. NUMBER OF PEOPLE (ALL AGES) IN POVERTY BY COUNTY, 2010 41
TABLE 10. TOTAL AND PERCENT OF POPULATION UNDER 5 YEARS AND 65 YEARS AND
OLDER BY STATE AND REGION, 2010 42
MAP 15. PERCENT OF POPULATION UNDER 5 YEARS IN AGE BY COUNTY, 2010 43
MAP 16. PERCENT OF POPULATION 65 YEARS OR OVER IN AGE BY COUNTY, 2010 43
MAP 17. PERCENT RURAL POPULATION BY COUNTY, 2009 44
TABLE 11. PERCENT RURAL POPULATION BY STATE AND REGION, 2009 44
MAP 18. PERCENT OF HOUSEHOLDS WITH FEMALE HEADS BY COUNTY, 2010 45
TABLE 12. NUMBER AND PERCENT OF HOUSEHOLDS WITH FEMALE HEADS, BY STATE AND REGION, 2010 45
TABLE 13. HEALTH STATUS MEASURES BY STATE AND REGION 46
MAP 19. PERCENT SELF-REPORTING FAIR OR POOR HEALTH STATUS, BY COUNTY, 2007 47
MAP 20. PERCENT OBESE BY COUNTY, 2007 47
LIST OF TABLES, FIGURES AND MAPS
CLIMATE CHANGE, ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES AND VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES:
Assessing Legacies of the Past, Building Opportunities for the Future
5
MAP 21. PERCENT LIVE BIRTHS WITH LOW BIRTH WEIGHT (<2500 GRAMS), 2001-2007 48
TABLE 14. HEALTH CARE ACCESS MEASURES BY STATE 49
MAP 22. PERCENT UNINSURED BY COUNTY, 2007 50
MAP 23. NUMBER OF PRIMARY CARE PROVIDERS PER 100,000 POPULATION, BY COUNTY, 2008 50
TABLE 15. TOTAL GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS (CO2, CH4, N20, F-GASES), 2000 AND 2007 51
MAP 24. ANNUAL NUMBER OF UNHEALTHY AIR QUALITY DAYS DUE TO OZONE BY COUNTY, 2006 52
MAP 25. ANNUAL NUMBER OF UNHEALTHY AIR QUALITY DAYS DUE TO OZONE, 2006 AND
PERCENT NON-WHITE POPULATION, 2010, BY COUNTY 53
MAP 26. ANNUAL NUMBER OF UNHEALTHY AIR QUALITY DAYS DUE TO OZONE, 2006 AND
PERCENT HISPANIC OR LATINO POPULATION, 2010, BY COUNTY 53
MAP 27. ANNUAL NUMBER OF UNHEALTHY AIR QUALITY DAYS DUE TO FINE PARTICULATE MATTER
BY COUNTY, 2006 54
MAP 28. ANNUAL NUMBER OF UNHEALTHY AIR QUALITY DAYS DUE TO FINE PARTICULATE MATTER,
2006 AND PERCENT NON-WHITE POPULATION, 2010, BY COUNTY 55
MAP 29. ANNUAL NUMBER OF UNHEALTHY AIR QUALITY DAYS DUE TO FINE PARTICULATE MATTER,
2006 AND PERCENT HISPANIC OR LATINO POPULATION, 2010, BY COUNTY 55
MAP 30. MEDIAN EXPOSURE TO INDUSTRIAL AIR TOXICS 56
MAP 31. DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RACIALLY/ETHNICALLY DIVERSE COMMUNITIES’ SHARE OF HEALTH RISK
FROM INDUSTRIAL AIR TOXICS AND RACIALLY/ETHNICALLY DIVERSE COMMUNITIES’ SHARE
OF POPULATION BY STATE 57
TABLE 16. WATER SHORTAGE RISK VALUE IN AT-RISK COUNTIES, BY STATE 58
FIGURE 2. NUMBER OF WILDFIRES BY STATE AND REGION, 2005-2010 59
FIGURE 3. NUMBER OF ACRES BURNED DUE TO WILDFIRES BY STATE AND REGION, 2005 - 2010 59
MAP 32. WATER SUPPLY SUSTAINABILITY INDEX, 2050 60
MAP 33. TOTAL NUMBER OF DROUGHT IMPACTS BY STATE, 2010 61
MAP 34. DROUGHT VULNERABILITY, 2000-2009 AVERAGE NUMBER OF EXTREME LOW FLOW DAYS,
BY WATERSHED 62
MAP 35. EXTREME HEAT VULNERABILITY, 2000-2009 AVERAGE NUMBER OF EXTREME HEAT DAYS 63
MAP 36. FLOOD VULNERABILITY IN THE U.S., 2000-2009 AVERAGE NUMBER OF EXTREME HIGH FLOW DAYS
AND RECORDED FLOODS, BY WATERSHED 64
TABLE 17. TOTAL CASES OF DENGUE FEVER, WEST NILE VIRUS AND LYME DISEASE 65
MAP 37. WEST NILE VIRUS (WNV), BY COUNTY, UNITED STATES, 2010 66
MAP 38. WEST NILE VIRUS HUMAN INFECTION INCIDENCE AND PERCENT NON-WHITE RACE BY COUNTY, 2010 67
MAP 39. WEST NILE VIRUS HUMAN INFECTION INCIDENCE AND PERCENT HISPANIC OR LATINO BY COUNTY, 201 67
MAP 40. AREAS VULNERABLE TO DENGUE FEVER, 1995-2005 68
TABLE 18. SUMMARY OF CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION AND ADAPTATION STRATEGIES 69
MAP 41. REGIONAL GREENHOUSE GAS INITIATIVES 93
CLIMATE CHANGE, ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES AND VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES:
Assessing Legacies of the Past, Building Opportunities for the Future
6EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CLIMATE CHANGE, ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES AND VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES:
Assessing Legacies of the Past, Building Opportunities for the Future
7EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
Vulnerability to climate change differs substantially across
regions, communities and even households, and the
communities that are most vulnerable to climate change also
face poverty, health disparities, and other social inequities.
Recognizing that these socio-economic challenges impede
the resilience, health, and prosperity of communities, the
recent Progress Report of the Interagency Climate Change
Adaptation Task Force: Recommended Actions in Support of
a National Climate Change Adaptation Strategy sets forth
as one of its guiding principles that policymakers should
prioritize helping the people, places and infrastructure
that are the most vulnerable to climate impacts, and
meaningfully involve these same communities in designing
and implementing adaptation plans.
As the Progress Report notes, helping vulnerable people
and places reduce their exposure and sensitivity to climate
change and improve their capacity to predict, prepare for, and
avoid adverse impacts requires thoughtful planning. Such
planning, in turn, requires a comprehensive understanding
of the status and scope of research, programs and actions on
climate change and environmental challenges for vulnerable
communities, particularly as they relate to eliminating
disparities and advancing health equities across the range of
climate and environmental issues. Notwithstanding recent
research and advocacy in the field, this kind of comprehensive
assessment has not been undertaken, leaving policymakers
with insufficient data with which to implement the Progress
Report’s recommendations and other policy priorities.
As such, this research offers direction and guidance to
advocates, policymakers, scholars and others on priorities and
gaps that leverage limited resources, prevent unnecessary
duplication, and encourage the development and consistent
implementation of policies and programs that appropriately
engage racially and ethnically diverse populations in climate
change and bring environmental justice to communities.
A growing body of evidence suggests that certain populations
are more vulnerable to the effects of a changing climate.
Specifically, these individuals and their communities—due to
socioeconomic status, geography, racial and ethnic health
disparities and lack of access to care—are likely to face
greater susceptibility to such events. Moreover, the resultant
frequency and intensity of impact from storms, wildfires,
pollution, drought and other events that have been related to
a changing climate will differ across areas where they reside.
This report draws from social vulnerability models and other
resources to examine the effects of extreme weather events
and climate-related challenges among vulnerable populations
and highlights opportunities for future focus. The intent of
this research is to provide an inventory of available baseline
data and prior research as well as a compendium of resources
on policies and programs to inform public health practitioners,
policymakers, advocates, and others. Drawing from these
findings, this report also offers recommendations to develop
future policies and priorities that incorporate vulnerable
populations into both their scope and goals.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CLIMATE CHANGE, ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES AND VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES:
Assessing Legacies of the Past, Building Opportunities for the Future
8EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
RESEARCH DESIGN
The geographic focus for this report was a six state region
of the southern United States: Arizona, Arkansas, Louisiana,
New Mexico, Oklahoma and Texas. In selecting this region, the
project team developed an analytical framework drawing from
peer-review research, seminal reports and publicly available
data from national, state and local sources. It applied a
vulnerability framework specific to climate change around four
dimensions: hazard, temporal reference, system and attribute
of concern. This vulnerability framework guided the analysis of
16 indictors selected and categorized according to: social and
economic factors (e.g. poverty); climate and environmental
concerns (e.g. air quality); health disparities in exposure to
environmental hazards (e.g. difference in racial and ethnic
populations share of health risk from exposure to air toxins
versus their share of the population); and adaptation programs
and policies (e.g. states with a climate change action plan).
A weighted analysis of these indicators revealed a cluster of
southern states as, collectively, among the most at-risk to
climate change. With valuable input from the Joint Center for
Political and Economic Studies as well as the members of the
Commission to Engage African Americans on Climate Change,
the project team decided to focus on the southern states
within the EPA’s Region 6 and to include Arizona due to its
high level of diversity, especially in Native American/American
Indian populations.
The project team undertook a review of literature for this
region to identify prior resources describing climate change
effects among diverse and low income communities. To
complement this information, the project team identified
current programs and policies within the six states using
a systematic search strategy. Key informants were sought
throughout the region to complement findings from data
and existing research, providing perspective on program
effectiveness, leading climate challenges in their state and
region, as well as suggesting future climate change priorities.
Publicly available data measures on demography, climate
and extreme weather events, health and health access
were overlayed using Geographic Information Systems (GIS)
tools and presented in a series of regional maps. Climate
events that were examined included: air pollution (ozone,
particulate matter and industrial toxins) and extreme weather
events (wildfires, water shortage, drought, extreme heat,
hurricanes and flooding).
CLIMATE CHANGE, ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES AND VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES:
Assessing Legacies of the Past, Building Opportunities for the Future
9EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
MAJOR FINDINGS
Common climate threats and population vulnerability.
Our review provided a socio-demographic and health/health
care portrait of the region and states within it, revealing both
the nature and extent of vulnerable populations and their
vulnerability to environmental challenges. The data-based
findings revealed multiple commonalities across states. Poor air
quality, drought and water shortages affect residents across the
region. Other threats such as sea level rise, extreme heat and
wildfires present major multi-state, cross-border consequences.
We further identified emerging challenges around infectious
diseases, which are increasingly manifest due to a warmer
and wetter climate. As one-fourth of the region is considered
rural, these events and threats have potentially significant
consequences for urban areas, but also for the agricultural
industry and those whose livelihood depends on it.
At risk populations in each state, by poverty or other socio-
demographic vulnerabilities, face climate change vulnerabilities
as well. For example, there are high levels of poverty virtually
across all six states with pockets of poverty concentrated
around urban cores and other non-urban areas such as the
Texas-Mexico border and Eastern Arkansas (Map 13). Hispanic/
Latino and other diverse populations—many of whom are also
low income and reside in areas with significant climate change
concerns— are significant and growing in all states across the
region. Over one in 10 residents in these states is limited in
English proficiency.
Compounding the effects of socio-demographic vulnerability
are challenges to health and access to health care that
can influence an individual’s ability to cope, plan for and
mitigate the adverse effects of climate change. Almost one
in five adults across the region (18.2%) self-reports their
health status as fair or poor. Poor health status, obesity,
uninsurance, and a low rate of primary care providers may
further disadvantage populations during or after extreme
weather events or in the face of environmental challenges.
Additionally, effects related to climate, such as extreme heat,
may exacerbate pre-existing conditions already prevalent in
a community. In this region, health and health care concerns
intersect with the previously cited climate change concerns:
rates of obesity and uninsurance are widespread and are
higher than the national average across states in this region
(Maps 20 and 22). With higher rates, these conditions and
circumstances are significant barriers especially for low income
and racially and ethnically diverse communities.
Map 13. percent population (all ages) in poverty by county, 2010
Source: U.S. Census Bureau’s Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates (SAIPE) with estimates derived from the 2010 Decennial Census
CLIMATE CHANGE, ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES AND VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES:
Assessing Legacies of the Past, Building Opportunities for the Future
10 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Map 20. percent obese by county, 2007
Source: National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, 2008
CLIMATE CHANGE, ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES AND VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES:
Assessing Legacies of the Past, Building Opportunities for the Future
11EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The climate change threat for most vulnerable
communities. Our analysis generally revealed that
populations in some areas within all states are especially
susceptible to climate change threats. For example, as
illustrated in Map 25, without exception, elevated unhealthy
air quality days due to ozone overlap with many diverse areas
in these states. And virtually all states in the region have
among the greatest racial and ethnic disparities in health risks
from industrial air toxins (Map 31).
However, for certain communities and states the convergence
of these challenges further elevates their risk to create the
potential for a climate change-related “perfect storm.”
For example, Louisiana’s strikingly high rate of obesity and
poverty as well as challenges in access to health care, coupled
with several climate-related events such as sea level rise, an
increased frequency and intensity of storms and poor air
quality could lead to possibly devastating effects for these
vulnerable communities. But other areas are also alarmingly
susceptible: extreme water shortages along the Texas-New
Mexico border and eastern Arkansas could have profound
effects on these communities who are both among the
poorest, the most diverse and report the poorest health status.
Map 22. percent uninsured by county, 2007
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Small Area Health Insurance Estimates, 2007
CLIMATE CHANGE, ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES AND VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES:
Assessing Legacies of the Past, Building Opportunities for the Future
12 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Map 25. annual nuMber of unhealthy air Quality days due to ozone, 2006 and
percent non-White population, 2010, by county
Map 31. difference betWeen Minority share of health risk froM industrial air toxics and
Minority share of population by state
Source: Data on air quality were obtained from the 2011 County Health Rankings.
Demographic data were obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2010 Decennial Census.
Source: Ash M, Boyce JK, Chang G, Pastor M, Scoggins J and Tran J. Justice in the Air:
Tracking Toxic Pollution from America’s Industries and Companies to our States,
Cities and Neighborhoods. April 2009.
CLIMATE CHANGE, ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES AND VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES:
Assessing Legacies of the Past, Building Opportunities for the Future
13EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Questionable and varied progress in state and local
mitigation and adaptation. This six state region faces
significant challenges related to planning and mitigating the
effects of climate change (Table 18). As a whole, the region
is lacking in statewide policies. Only 3 states had written,
established climate change action plans; and implementation
of recommended actions from those plans in many cases has
progressed slowly or not at all. Our review found that none
of the states in the region have formal and comprehensive
adaptation plans in place, nor do they include communities of
color or economically disadvantaged populations.
There is some variation in state legislative progress to mitigate
the effects of climate change in the region, however. For
example, New Mexico and Arkansas have taken some actions
to implement emission targets. But Texas, Louisiana and
Oklahoma have not passed significant legislation to promote
a statewide goal or plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
According to our review, virtually none of the state laws include
vulnerable populations in climate change mitigation strategies.
table 18. suMMary of cliMate change Mitigation and adaptation strategies
Active Climate
Legislative
Commissions
And Executive
Advisory Groups
Climate
Change Action
Plan
States with
Greenhouse
Gas Emissions
Targets
Range of
Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Targets
Regional
Greenhouse
Gas Initiatives
State
Greenhouse
Gas Reporting
and Registries
Renewable
Portfolio
Standard
State Adaptation
Plan
Arizona Yes Yes Yes 2000 levels by
2020, 50%
below 2000 by
2040
No Climate
Registry
Yes Recommended
in climate
action plan but
not adopted
Arkansas Yes Yes No Recommended
in climate
change action
plan but not
adopted
No No No No
Louisiana No No No __ No No No No
Oklahoma No No No __ No Climate
Registry
No No
New Mexico No Yes Yes 2000 levels by
2012, 10%
below 2000
by 2020, 75%
below 2000 by
2050
No Climate
Registry and
Mandatory
Reporting
Yes No
Texas No No No __ No Independent
Voluntary
Registry
Yes No
Source: Center for Climate and Energy Solutions’ U.S. Climate Policy Maps
CLIMATE CHANGE, ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES AND VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES:
Assessing Legacies of the Past, Building Opportunities for the Future
14 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This lack of attention to vulnerable communities among state
legislative actions is also reflected in local and community level
initiatives. A number of cities in all states have undertaken
initiatives to address issues specific to climate change after
recognizing the need to address local priorities and/or
acknowledging the lack of state leadership; however, there is
little focus on the circumstances and threat-related needs of
vulnerable populations in these city or area plans, initiatives or
task forces. There is also little attention devoted at the state
or local level to profiling the challenges or issues specific to
vulnerable populations in reports and other publications such
as those involving limited English proficiency or immigrant
workers. Key informants confirmed these findings as they
had difficulty citing current efforts or progress. Finally, there
is a general lack of awareness of information and resources
to document degree and extent of vulnerability in the context
of climate change. Informants also acknowledged that little
documentation is available that links poverty and diversity in
the context of climate change vulnerability.
Other potential barriers to progress. Our review
and interviews revealed other barriers contributing
to and compounding progress toward incorporating
vulnerable populations into climate change initiatives,
including political opposition, skepticism of climate
change effects and influence from industry. Political
realities have restricted both development and expansion
of these programs and policies in virtually all states in
the region. Key informants also cited skepticism about
climate change and its causes as a major barrier. This
perpetuation of the concept of global warming as a myth
has created widespread doubt on the topic that reaches
deeply into many communities, including low income
and racially and ethnically diverse populations. Across
states, there is a strong opposition to climate change
policies by industry (including fossil fuel and electricity
companies) and its lobbying efforts. This opposition
extends to communities who may be concerned around
threat of job losses and economic impact.
CLIMATE CHANGE, ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES AND VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES:
Assessing Legacies of the Past, Building Opportunities for the Future
15EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
RECOMMENDATIONS
State level initiatives. Our review has documented and
affirmed many of the significant challenges that lie ahead
in mitigating the effects of climate change for vulnerable
communities in this region. Nonetheless, efforts to date,
data, and research offer guidance for integrating diverse, low
income and other vulnerable population priorities into state
climate change policies, programs and strategies. As such,
recommendations build on existing state efforts and suggest
new initiatives to document populations and their needs;
and to take action to redress longstanding absence in state
climate change goals.
• Review and renew existing current state climate
change efforts and work to include vulnerable
populations within them. Our review found that all
states have passed climate change legislation but with
little attention to vulnerable populations each state
should identify and consider revising current laws and
regulations to include these communities; Examples of
information for potential inclusion into existing climate
change policies and actions are: degree of vulnerability
to climate change threat; plans for event response; and
community engagement in the context of programs
and policies. Such a review may serve an important
secondary purpose. Reinvigorating previously fallow
efforts through reassessing original intent in the context
of vulnerable populations and seeking support may offer
renewed opportunity within existing policy.
• Coordinate and communicate promising climate
change related priorities and actions across states
and regionally, and integrate vulnerable priorities
into these cross state initiatives. When addressing
cross-border priorities, states in the region can benefit
from sharing data, coordinating and monitoring efforts,
and developing mutually beneficial policies. Multistate
partnerships could also be developed in planning for
drought, preparing for wildfires and sea level rise, and
creating sustainable strategies in agricultural farming.
• Integrate vulnerable population concerns and
representation into task forces and advisory groups.
Many states have created and convened commissions,
expert panels and other advisory bodies. Current and
future groups should include vulnerable population
representation. They should also assure that addressing
related circumstances and concerns such as assessing
vulnerable populations’ needs and priorities and
developing recommendations to promote equity in action
are among their core objectives.
• Develop data that targets climate change
priorities to inform programs and state actions.
States should consider developing data sets and
measures not only addressing climate change concerns
such as degree of temperature rise and number of poor
air quality days but also extend and link such data to
demographic and health care dimensions that may
influence resiliency and vulnerability.
Community level initiatives. As communities have taken
on responsibility for mitigating and adapting to climate
change, they offer important opportunities to promote
actions that can engage and positively affect their most
vulnerable. Such efforts include sharing local resources
across states, building messages that are acceptable and
understandable to vulnerable populations, engaging
communities in a meaningful way, and tapping into the
strengths of both academic institutions and foundations.
• Make available local climate change actions
occurring across the region. Counties and cities
have undertaken local efforts to target climate change
priorities. Their programs, reports and lessons learned
could serve as a resource, providing opportunities to
transfer knowledge and tap into expertise for other areas
seeking to mitigate climate change effects. At the same
time such resource development and discussion will need
to assure representation of vulnerable populations.
• Work to assure that vulnerable populations can
accept and understand messages about climate
change. Effective outreach, education as well as
information development and dissemination to racially,
ethnically and linguistically diverse residents around
climate change require tailoring health messages to
build trust, facilitate understanding, participation
and adherence to recommended actions. Involving
known cultural “references”, including knowledgeable
representatives from these communities, is key to
developing culturally competent health communication.
• Community engagement is essential to advancing
climate change strategies for vulnerable
populations. Communities bring assets, knowledge
and experience that can be invaluable in providing
important input to program planning and policy, by
assuring that results will be of value to residents and
building trust. Strategies to engage communities will
need to recognize the circumstances and challenges
that they face in their lives in the context of climate
change actions.
CLIMATE CHANGE, ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES AND VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES:
Assessing Legacies of the Past, Building Opportunities for the Future
16 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
• Leverage academic institutions, to include Minority-
Serving Institutions for advancing vulnerable
population climate change research, outreach and
education. These entities can offer attention through
academic grantmaking capacity, ability to offer expertise
and, for faculty with community-based experience,
through Community Based Participatory Research
initiatives, for example. Their research can foster action,
while for those who focus on the needs of vulnerable
communities, faculty participation in climate change task
forces and advisory groups can add substance to related
deliberations. University expertise and experience may
also serve as a resource for states in assessing threats and
developing and evaluating policies to address them.
• Elevate the presence of foundations and the private
sector in developing and advancing vulnerable
population climate change programs and policies.
Foundation leadership, their ability to adapt their
objectives to meet area priorities and their capacity for
grantmaking can offer valuable resources in: raising
the importance of climate change as a state or local
priority; supporting research that targets critical issues of
concern; and advancing legislative agendas. Corporate
commitments to related local priorities can provide
additional resources for populations most likely to be
adversely affected.
While environmental challenges such as wildfires, coastal
change and floods may demonstrate the consequences of
inattention to climate change, one of the major challenges
is to expand awareness, engagement and action to address
the underlying causes. Policymakers, agencies, researchers,
advocates and community based organizations can take
advantage of “windows of opportunity” emerging from tragic
events to bring attention to both targeted need and broader
climate change priorities—and to take actions before events
occur. The energy behind these tragedies should not dissipate
as they recede from today’s headlines. Communities and
their governments in this region, as well as the nation have
a responsibility to foster broader awareness, understanding
and involvement of how vulnerability and climate change are
integrally linked. In so doing those committed to redressing
legacies of the past can work to promote a healthier
environment for the future.
CLIMATE CHANGE, ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES AND VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES:
Assessing Legacies of the Past, Building Opportunities for the Future
17INTRODUCTION
To this end, with initial funding from the U.S. Forest
Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Joint
Center for Political and Economic Studies (Joint Center)
partnered with the Texas Health Institute (THI) to develop
a framework to assess and document the status and
progress of data, research and programs across the nation
in addressing climate change and environmental priorities
for vulnerable populations, including in particular,
communities of color. Utilizing Southern U.S. as a case
study, this report highlights the impact of climate change
and environmental challenges on vulnerable communities
in Arizona, Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma,
and Texas, and discusses program and policy related
progress and challenges. As such, it offers direction and
guidance to advocates, policymakers, researchers and
others on priorities and gaps to leverage limited resources,
prevent unnecessary duplication, and encourage the
development and consistent implementation of policies
and programs that appropriately engage diverse
populations in climate change and bring environmental
justice to communities. We note that hereafter our use of
the term climate change is also intended to encompass
environmental issues as well; and that our reference to
“states” includes tribal communities.
This effort represents a unique attempt to develop a status
report and establish a baseline of current data, research,
resources, programs and policies as they relate to vulnerable
communities of color and climate change priorities.
BOARD OF GOVERNORS
Vulnerability to climate change and adverse environmental
events differs substantially across regions, communities
and even households, and the communities that are most
vulnerable also face poverty, health disparities, and other
social inequities. Recognizing that these socio-economic
challenges impede the resilience, health, and prosperity of
communities, the recent Progress Report of the Interagency
Climate Change Adaptation Task Force: Recommended
Actions in Support of a National Climate Change Adaptation
Strategy sets forth as one of its guiding principles that
policymakers should prioritize helping the people, places
and infrastructure that are the most vulnerable to climate
impacts, and meaningfully involve these same communities
in designing and implementing adaptation plans.
As the Progress Report notes, helping vulnerable people
and places reduce their exposure and sensitivity to climate
change and improve their capacity to predict, prepare
for, and avoid adverse impacts requires thoughtful
planning. Such planning, in turn, requires a comprehensive
understanding of the status and scope of research,
programs and actions on climate change and environmental
challenges for vulnerable communities, particularly as
they relate to eliminating disparities and advancing health
equities across the range of climate and environmental
issues. Notwithstanding recent research and advocacy in the
field, this kind of comprehensive assessment has not been
undertaken, leaving policymakers with insufficient data with
which to implement policy and program priorities, such as
recommendations embedded within the Progress Report.
INTRODUCTION
i. background This section summarizes the current
literature related to climate change, environmental hazards
and extreme weather events as it applies to vulnerable
populations.
ii. Methodology This section describes the
methodology used to select the six state region, literature
searches and key informant interviews.
iii. regional data findings This section
provides a comprehensive look at demographic, health,
and weather-related data mapped to the county level for
the six state region.
THIS REPORT IS ORGANIZED INTO THE FOLLOWING PARTS:
iv. regional, state and local prograMs
and policies An overview of current literature on
climate change and environmental hazards as it applies to the
six state region as well as a review of the current mitigation
and adaptation policies and programs by state and region.
v. discussion This section provides an in-depth
analysis of the regional data and policy findings.
vi. recoMMendations This portion includes next
steps and recommendations for future actions.
vii conclusion
CLIMATE CHANGE, ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES AND VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES:
Assessing Legacies of the Past, Building Opportunities for the Future
18 I. BACKGROUND
In their 2002 assessment of studies conducted under the
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change,
Burton et al. describe climate vulnerability as a function of
impacts (or a system’s sensitivity and exposure to climate-
related events) and adaptation (referring to a system’s
capacity to plan, respond and adapt to reduce vulnerability).
(Burton, Huq, Lim, Pilifosova, & Schipper, 2002). As research
suggests, the impacts of climate change will differ across
communities and regions, and some may be more at risk to
its stresses and impacts, such as the poor, the elderly, people
living alone, people with poor health status, indigenous
populations and individuals with limited power and rights
(Gamble, Ebi, Sussman, & Wilbanks, 2008; Karl, Melillo, &
Peterson, 2009)
In addition, the impact of climate change should not be
considered confined to any specific population or even
jurisdiction, geographic area, political boundary, or time.
Rather, with tourism, migration and immigration, the
impacts and stresses of climate change often flow across
communities. Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans illustrates
this point as cited in Gamble et al.’s 2008 report:
As Hurricane Katrina made clear, impacts felt in
one community ripple throughout the region and
nation. Many of the persons made homeless in New
Orleans resettled in Baton Rouge, Lafayette, and
Houston, creating stresses on those communities.
Vulnerable groups migrate from stricken areas
to more hospitable ones, taking their health,
economic, and educational needs and problems
with them across both national and state lines
[Gamble et al. 2008: 123].
Following is a summary of what research and literature
say about factors which contribute to vulnerability
generally and especially for racially/ethnically diverse
communities to climate change and their ability to adapt
and respond to its effects.
CLIMATE CHANGE AND VULNERABLE POPULATIONS
There is growing recognition that vulnerable populations,
and especially racially/ethnically diverse communities
(also referred to as “communities of color” in this report)
will suffer disproportionately from the earth’s changing
climate. This impact is likely to be compounded by factors
associated with low socioeconomic status, discrimination
and disparities in access to health care and essential social
services. While some recent literature has drawn attention
to the potentially unequal burden and impact of climate
change, research on this topic is still under-developed and
piecemeal. For example, reports such as The Climate Gap
and Justice in the Air, serve as seminal pieces of work that
draw attention to this issue, however, are limited in focus
and scope—i.e., the former focuses on California, while the
latter on air pollution. In an exploratory report in 2004, the
Congressional Black Caucus Foundation developed a report
titled Black Americans and Global Warming: An Unequal
Burden detailing the disproportionate health effects this
community suffers from events such as air pollution, heat
waves, drought, and flooding. Though this report was crucial
to building a case for groups more vulnerable to climate
change impacts, its focus did not include other racially and
ethnically diverse populations.
Nonetheless, researchers focused on “social vulnerability”
issues have played a somewhat leading role to begin to paint
a fuller portrait of the vulnerability of communities of color
to climate change (Lynn, MacKendrick, & and Donoghue,
2011). As defined by the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC), an international scientific body
of the World Meteorological Organization and the United
Nations Environment Programme, vulnerability to climate
change is “the degree to which a system is susceptible to,
or unable to cope with, adverse effects of climate change…
vulnerability is a function of the character, magnitude and
rate of climate change and variation to which the system is
exposed, its sensitivity, and its adaptive capacity” (Lynn et al.,
2011). Social vulnerability offers the ability to understand
the types of populations that suffer increased impacts from
extreme events related to climate change based on limited
capacity (Lynn et al., 2011).
I. BACKGROUND
CLIMATE CHANGE, ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES AND VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES:
Assessing Legacies of the Past, Building Opportunities for the Future
19I. BACKGROUND
Socioeconomic Status
The impacts from a changing climate will not affect all
communities equally. Low socioeconomic status is considered
a component of vulnerability as these individuals, due to
low literacy, poverty or underinsurance, are more susceptible
to both the damages and risks associated with extreme
weather events (Shonkoff, Morello-Frosch, & Pastor, 2009).
Furthermore, low income populations are overburdened by
events such as drought due to the overall lack of resources,
both financial and informational, as well as more likely to
lack insurance coverage (Liverman & Merideth, 2002).The
Oxfam Report also suggests that several different factors
associated with poverty make these particular communities
more vulnerable than wealthy communities to environmental
hazards. Substandard housing as well as poor access to
transportation and communication further compounds the
ability of low income persons to survive disasters (Cutter,
Emrich, Webb & Morath, 2009).
Race, Ethnicity and Immigrant Status
Peacock (2000) relates increased vulnerability of racially
and ethnically diverse communities to hazards due to their
greater likelihood to be in poverty. Furthermore, real estate
discrimination may lead these populations to live in subpar or
even hazard-prone housing (Peacock & Girard, 1997).
Hoerner and Robinson (2008) provide in-depth insight into
the impacts that African Americans suffer as a consequence
from climate change. Their contribution to greenhouse gases
has been measured to be less than the white population.
However, despite contributing less to these environmental
changes, African Americans are more susceptible to its impact
on housing, the economy, and health. Compounding these
effects is the fact that African Americans are more likely to
have higher energy bills and suffer directly from recessions
and unemployment. Among the public health concerns,
Africans Americans suffer disproportionately from heat-related
deaths during heat waves. In addition, due to their likelihood
to live within counties violating air pollution standards or in
close proximity to industrial plants, African Americans are
particularly susceptible to respiratory illness, such as asthma.
As Hoerner and Robinson (2008) cite, the rate of asthma
among African Americans is 36% higher than whites.
The high price of energy bills is a significant barrier for
many African Americans, and energy rates are increasing
with changes in climate patterns. African Americans spend
a higher proportion of their income on energy costs than
whites. Additionally, food supply will be impacted from
climate change (resulting from damage to crops from
extreme weather events) and food costs are expected to
increase. African Americans are also expected to feel the
burden of rising health problems associated with climate
change as they lack health insurance at a significantly higher
rate than whites (Hoerner & Robinson, 2008).
Hispanic/Latino populations are also expected to experience
disproportionate effects from climate change. At increasing
numbers, they are living in poverty, experience reduced
access to services such as health care due to their high
uninsurance rate and are more likely to live in substandard
housing. Impacts are broad based on this community
and include not only health, but economy and jobs. The
agricultural industry, which employs a large number of
Hispanics/ Latinos, suffers due to extreme weather events.
Additionally, an overwhelming 72 percent of the Hispanic/
Latino population within the U.S. lives in an area that is
not compliant with federal air pollution standards. This
alarming number indicates that Hispanics/Latinos are at
a higher risk for respiratory diseases associated with air
pollutants (National Hispanic Environmental Council, 2010).
Keating (2004) further corroborates the barriers that Latino
populations face which heighten their sensitivity to the
impacts of climate change. The most significant barriers are
poverty and limited English proficiency which further add
to this group’s vulnerability to the impacts from toxic air
(Keating, 2004).
American Indian populations are also vulnerable to the effects
of climate change on the environment for several reasons.
Their culture, which is deeply connected to the environment
and its resources, is threatened in the face of the scarcity of
water, especially in the Southwest. merican Indian nations
rely on treaties with the federal government whereby the
government is expected to protect these resources. These
treaty rights, however, only apply to the tribe’s reservations
and lands, and in cases of diminishing resources, a tribe’s
right to these resources may be threatened (Lynn et al.,
2011). In addition, American Indians are more likely to live
in poverty than the general U.S. population (Ogunwole,
2006). They also live in poorer housing conditions, often
times lacking amenities such as electricity (Houser, Teller,
MacCracken, Gough, & Spears, 2000). Geographic
location of many tribes places them at an increased risk for
environmental-related changes. For example, several non-
federally recognized tribes fled to the bayous of Louisiana to
avoid persecution more than two hundred years ago. This
land, however, is now one of the foremost concerns for sea
level rise in the U.S., and relocation has become a reality for
these tribes (Lydersen, 2009).
CLIMATE CHANGE, ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES AND VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES:
Assessing Legacies of the Past, Building Opportunities for the Future
20 I. BACKGROUND
Geographic Disparities
Health impacts resulting from climate change are often
associated with geographic conditions such as availability of
resources, nearby water sources, elevation level as well as
baseline climate. Communities that populate the Gulf Coast,
especially those in low-lying regions, are more susceptible to
health effects resulting from a changing climate (Gamble et
al, 2008).
Especially vulnerable due to their geographic location are
the “suburban poor” or populations who live in poverty
among older suburbs, typically closer to the city’s center.
These areas have a high immigrant and elderly population
and their homes may be outdated providing a poor barrier to
the environment and comprising an increased risk factor for
indoor toxins such as lead or mold (Gamble et al, 2008).
Rural populations, who already experience challenges such
as limited access to health care and emergency services and
high unemployment rates, face disproportionate effects of
climate change due to the these factors. Especially in the
Midwest, increasing temperatures adversely affect these
communities as their economies are closely linked to the
environment. Due to limited resources, rural communities
spend a larger portion of their income on necessities such
as food and travel, the cost of which is expected to increase
both with a changing climate and its respective mitigation
strategies (Keller Jensen, 2009). Adaptive measures
undertaken in respect to this population have been limited
in scope, and only sector-specific. For example, planting
with drought resistant seeds may help reduce impacts from
a changing climate, but a multi-pronged approach designed
to address multiple underlying factors of vulnerability is
preferred (Eriksen & Kelly, 2007).
Health Disparities
Air pollution, both in industrial zones as well as in urban
areas, has health consequences that vary among different
populations. Ozone exposure has been shown to poorly
affect lung health as well as worsen respiratory illness.
California, a state with a grave air pollution concern, will
experience a worsening of effects due to changes in climate
and temperature (Morello-Frosch, Pastor, Saad, & Shonkoff,
2009). These effects do not fall solely on one group of
people, and are in fact distributed more amongst the poor
and communities of color Michael Ash and colleagues
(2009) mapped industrial air pollution throughout the U.S.
and determined that low income populations and diverse
populations including Hispanics/Latinos, American Indians,
African Americans and Asian Americans were most exposed
to this toxic air. This report concluded that essential factors
to consider when assessing vulnerability to air pollution are
race, ethnicity, and class.
Urban areas, where blacks are twice as likely to live
as whites, are susceptible to “heat island effects,” a
phenomenon that occurs as a result of dark-colored
structures absorbing more heat than vegetation such as
trees, soil, and grass. (Oke, 1973). It is agreed by many
that these heat islands, which are prominent in inner
city neighborhoods, impact low income persons and
communities of color more due to their inhabitance of
these areas (Schulz, Israel, & Lempert, 2002; Williams &
Collins, 2001; Levi, Vinter, Gratale, Juliano, & Segal, 2009).
It has also been shown that low income populations and
communities of color are less likely to have air conditioning,
a finding that has been shown to worsen the morbidity and
mortality of exposure to extreme heat (Morello-Frosch, et
al., 2009). Extreme heat is also known to exacerbate the
health risks of individuals with diabetes with events such as
kidney stones or heat exhaustion. The increasing prevalence
of diabetes in the U.S. is higher among communities of color
than White populations (Karl et al., 2009).
Other Demographic Variables
Both race and age are important demographic factors to
include when assessing the vulnerability of populations.
For various reasons, women are at a higher risk to climate-
related hazards. They are more likely to live in poverty
(Bianchi & Spain, 1996), more likely to have a low-paying
job such as the service industry which is particularly affected
after a disaster (Morrow, 2008) and may be limited in their
evacuation capacity due to caring for young children. Both
the very young and the elderly are considered more at risk
when extreme events and disasters occur. Children without
strong familial ties will be more affected during extreme
weather events (Phillips & Hewett, 2005). The elderly
may experience health problems or have fewer economic
resources required for disaster preparedness hindering their
ability to respond to disasters (Ngo, 2001).
CLIMATE CHANGE, ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES AND VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES:
Assessing Legacies of the Past, Building Opportunities for the Future
21I. BACKGROUND
Models of Social Vulnerability in Climate Change Research
Social vulnerability has been explored extensively in the
literature and its definitions vary among theories and
frameworks. Cutter et al. (2009) use the following definition:
Vulnerability is the susceptibility of a given
population, system or place to harm from
exposure to hazard and directly affects the ability
to prepare for, respond to, and recover from
hazards and disasters.
The variables included within the concept of social
vulnerability are those that worsen or diminish the impacts
of such hazards on the affected communities (Oxfam
America, 2008). These have been compiled into a model
for determining social vulnerability. In 2003, the Social
Vulnerability Index (SoVI) was developed to explore the
effects of climate change amongst different populations.
The model uses a summation of 32 variables (wealth,
age, race, gender, ethnicity, etc.) to determine an overall
reference measure of vulnerability. In a study commissioned
by Oxfam America, this model was applied to states in
the southeastern United States. As such, the study has
generated a series of maps overlaying demographic data
from the 2000 U.S. Census with data on extreme weather
events such as drought, floods, and sea level rise among
others (Oxfam America, 2008).
The Hazards of Place (HOP) model differs from the SoVI
in that rather than assuming social vulnerability as a
predisposing condition for which to overlay environmental
hazards, it incorporates the idea of place into the model.
This framework is especially appropriate for assessing
a population’s vulnerability to climate-related hazards
because it incorporates both demographic information and
information related to physical and environmental hazards
(Cutter et al, 2009).
This report’s methodology for assessing vulnerability draws
from these resources, among others, and is described in
detail in the following section.
CLIMATE CHANGE, ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES AND VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES:
Assessing Legacies of the Past, Building Opportunities for the Future
22 II. METHODOLOGY
policies that may impact a local community or extreme
weather patterns.
Our study builds on these concepts in an attempt to select
a “system” or geographic region most vulnerable to climate
change based on a set of attributes of concern and hazards,
while also considering issues of time and scope. As such,
we selected 16 indicators to assess the vulnerability of states
and their racially/ethnically diverse communities to climate
change-related events. These indicators were categorized
into four groups:
• Social and Economic Factors: These include
internal attributes or socioeconomic characteristics
of states, such as population race, ethnicity,
language and poverty.
• Climate and Environmental Concerns: These are
hazards faced by states related to the environment,
topography, and weather. Many of these measures
are also intended to capture the “time” factor—e.g.,
frequency or intensity of event over short or long
time periods.
• Health Disparities in Exposure to Environmental
Hazards: These are the internal attributes of states
related to environmental disparities measures.
• Adaption Programs and Policies: Internal (state/local)
or external (national/global) policies and programs which
promote adaptation to climate change.
Table 1 outlines each of the 16 indicators and their data source.
Appendix A provides state-based data across the 16 indicators.
We established thresholds for each indicator based on national
averages or rates and weighted data accordingly within each
group so that the maximum score for each group was 1.0
(i.e., being most “vulnerable” or “at risk”). Group scores were
aggregated to generate a composite score (maximum possible
was 4.0) by which states were rank-ordered. States most
“vulnerable” or “at risk” to climate change were those with a
higher composite score and generally characterized as having:
This section describes the methodology for the selection of
the study’s region of focus and review of existing research,
information and resources for this region. In so doing, it
describes the design for performing literature reviews and
key informant interviews, and procedures for mapping and
compiling publicly available data.
REGION SELECTION
THI was commissioned by the Joint Center to develop an
analytical framework to select a region to serve as a case
study and prototype for assessing status and progress in
addressing climate change for diverse communities across
the U.S. To this end, an extensive review of national literature
and data sets was conducted, including major national
reports, peer review research and publicly available data
sources on climate change, social vulnerability and racial/
ethnic diversity.
Vulnerability is equated with concepts such as “resilience,
marginality, susceptibility, adaptability, fragility and risk”.1
In context of climate change, more specifically, scholars have
described vulnerability in terms of at least the following four
dimensions.2,3
• System: a population group or geographical region
that is potentially threatened by a hazard.
• Attribute of Concern: the attributes of the system,
such as health, cultural identity, and income, that is/
are threatened by exposure to a hazard.
• Hazard: a potentially damaging event that may
cause loss of life, injury, property damage, social and
economic disruption or environmental degradation.
• Temporal Reference: the point in time, period of
reference or frequency.
More recently, scholars also emphasize the need to identify
internal and external scope of vulnerability. Internal
factors are those that are endogenous to a system, such as
population characteristics and topography, whereas external
factors are beyond the scope of a system, such as national
II. METHODOLOGY
1 Fussel HM. Vulnerability: A Generally Applicable Conceptual Framework for Climate Change Research. Global Environmental Change, 2007: 17; pgs. 155-167.
2 Metzger MJ, et al. A Multidisciplinary Multi-Scale Framework for Assessing Vulnerabilities to Global Change. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and
Geoinformation, 2005: 7; 253-267.
3 Downing TE and Patwardhan A. Assessing Vulnerability for Climate Adaptation. In: Lim B and Spanger-Siegfried E (Eds.), Adaptation Policy Frameworks for Climate
Change: Developing Strategies, Policies and Measures, 2004: Cambridge University Press (Cambridge), Chapter 3.
CLIMATE CHANGE, ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES AND VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES:
Assessing Legacies of the Past, Building Opportunities for the Future
23II. METHODOLOGY
• A large percentage of poor and racially, ethnically, or
linguistically diverse population;
• The greatest level of risk or impact from various
environmental, extreme weather and climate change
issues, taking into account event frequency and
intensity;
• Large racial, ethnic and/or income disparities in health
risk from environmental hazards (in this case toxic air
exposures); and
• Little or no state or local planning, funding or
programming related to climate change.
While this framework does not capture all the possible
factors associated with vulnerability to climate change, it is
intended to offer a useful tool for assessing racial, ethnic,
and linguistic diversity of states in relation to their climate
change challenges, progress and opportunities.
Based on findings from the application of this framework,
a cluster of Southern states were identified as being
most “at risk” or “vulnerable” to climate change: Texas,
Arizona, Louisiana, and New Mexico (refer to Appendix A).
The Project Team shared findings with the Joint Center’s
Commission to Engage African Americans in Climate Change
(CAEC) for feedback on site selection. The Commission
voiced almost unanimous agreement that the study focus
on at least these four Southern states, while also considering
the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) designation of
regions. As EPA’s Region 6 is comprised of Texas, Louisiana
and New Mexico, along with Arkansas and Oklahoma (two
additional states with high vulnerability based on our data),
the region and states within were selected and included in
this study. The Commission also agreed to add Arizona given
the high level of vulnerability identified through our initial
data analysis and also its large American Indian population.
Category IndICators data sourCes
Social and Economic
Factors:
3 Indicators; 40% of
Composite Score
• Percent Non-White Population [1]
• Percent Population with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) [2]
• Percent Below Poverty Level [2]
[1] 2010 Decennial Census, U.S. Census
Bureau
[2] 2005-2009 5-Year American
Community Survey Estimates,
US Census Bureau
Climate &
Environmental
Concerns:
6 Indicators; 25% of
Composite Score
• Air Quality: Median Exposure to Industrial Air Toxins, 2006 [3]
• Heat: Number of Deaths due to Exposure to Excessive Natural
Heat, 2007 [4]
• Hurricanes: Number of Major Direct Hurricane Strikes 1854-
2009 (Major is defined as Category 3, 4, or 5). This measure
intends to capture both intensity and frequency of hazard.[5]
• Floods: Significant Floods of the 20th Century (Significant
defined in terms of number of lives lost and/or property
damage). This measure intends to capture both intensity and
frequency of hazard.[6]
• Wildfires: Number of Wildfires by State, 2010 [7]
• Drought: Number of Reported Drought Impacts (on agriculture,
water/energy, environment, fire or other), July 2011. [8]
[3] Justice in the Air, 2009
[4] CDC National Center for Health
Statistics
[5] NOAA Atlantic Oceanographic and
Meteorological Laboratory
[6] U.S. Geological Survey
[7] National Interagency Fire Center
[8] National Drought Mitigation Center,
University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Health Disparities
in Exposure to
Environmental Hazards:
2 Indicators; 10% of
Composite Score
• Difference between the Racially/Ethnically Diverse Communities’
Share of Health Risk from Industrial Air Toxics and the Racially/
Ethnically Diverse Communities’ Share of the Population [9]
• Difference between the Low-Income Share of Health Risk
from Industrial Air Toxics and the Low-Income Share of the
Population [9]
[9] Justice in the Air, 2009
Adaption, Programs
and Policies:
5 Indicators; 25% of
Composite Score
• States with Strategic Climate Change Plan [10]
• States with Climate Commission or Advisory Panel [10]
• States with NACCHO or ASTHO funding for pilot projects on
climate change (FY 09) [10]
• States with CDC Environmental Public Health Tracking
Program Grant (FY 09) [10]
• States demonstrating inter-agency collaboration with public
health sector [10]
[10] Health Problems Heat Up: Climate
Change and the Public’s Health, Trust for
America’s Health, October 2009
table 1. indicators of vulnerability to cliMate change
CLIMATE CHANGE, ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES AND VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES:
Assessing Legacies of the Past, Building Opportunities for the Future
24 II. METHODOLOGY
REGIONAL STUDY DESIGN
The Project Team used complementary data sources and
research methodologies. From this review and analysis
we developed a portrait of research findings to date,
baseline state of vulnerability, and programs and policies
for addressing climate change in racially/ethnically diverse
communities of the selected study region—i.e., Southern
U.S., including the states of Arizona, Arkansas, Louisiana,
New Mexico, Oklahoma and Texas.
We first conducted a comprehensive review of literature
for the region to identify and understand the status of
existing research and resources. Building on this work,
and to paint a data-based portrait of the region’s baseline
vulnerability to climate change, we identified and analyzed
publicly available data on demographic, health, climate and
environmental measures. Where possible and appropriate,
we utilized Geographic Information System (GIS) mapping to
geographically overlay demographic measures (such as race
and ethnicity) with climate-sensitive measures.
To understand where the region is in terms of programs
and policies to address vulnerability and climate change,
we conducted an extensive review of federal, state and
local mitigation and adaption policies and actions, including
identifying leading models and best practices. Finally, realizing
the limitations of literature, data and other web-based sources,
we incorporated key informant interviews into the study design
to fill informational gaps and add depth and dimension to study
findings. Interviews were conducted with leading professionals
from state and local agencies, academicians, and community
advocates on climate, public health and environmental justice.
The following narrative describes the design, methodology
and sources of data for the major components of this study:
(1) literature review; (2) public data, analysis and mapping;
(3) program and policy review; and (4) key informant
interviews.
Literature Review
Through a multi-step process, we identified and conducted
a review of literature focusing on climate change, racially/
ethnically diverse communities, and social vulnerability. We
identified peer-reviewed literature through a search of the
PubMed/MEDLINE database for English language articles for
1980-2010 using combinations of key terms such as: race,
ethnicity, immigrant, language, culture, Hispanic, Latino,
African American, Asian, American Indian, climate change,
social vulnerability, extreme heat, air pollution, flood,
hurricane, and wildfire.
We also searched major government, for-profit, not-
for profit, community-based, academic, and foundation
Web sites for relevant reports and publications. The
bibliographies of resources identified as relevant to the
theme and focus of our study were reviewed for additional
references. Our literature review only included publications
and peer-reviewed studies that explicitly addressed
vulnerable communities within the context of climate change
and related environmental concerns nationally, and in the
selected study region.
Appendices C and D include a compendium of national
literature and compendium of regional literature,
respectively.
figure 1. selected region for study
CLIMATE CHANGE, ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES AND VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES:
Assessing Legacies of the Past, Building Opportunities for the Future
25II. METHODOLOGY
Public Data, Analysis and Mapping
We obtained data on measures of demographics, health,
and climate change through various publicly available data
sources. The following describes the data sources, measures
and analyses we conducted.
Demographic Data. We extracted data on select
population characteristics concerned with the project focus
on climate change vulnerability and adaptive capacity. These
measures were selected based on past research and studies
that have suggested or shown that there is a relationship
between certain demographic measures and vulnerability to
climate change or ability to adapt to climate change. (See
Background section of this report for further information
on demographic factors which contribute to vulnerability to
climate change).
We thus obtained data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2000
and 2010 Decennial Census at the state and county levels
for Arizona, Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma
and Texas for the following measures and years:
• Total population (2000, 2010)
• Population by race (2000, 2010), including the following
categories:
• White
• Black or African American
• American Indian
• Asian-American
• Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander
• Some Other Race
• Two or More Races
• Population by Hispanic or Latino ethnicity (of any race)
(2000, 2010)
• Total female population (2010)
• Total population under the age of 5 years (2010)
• Total population 65 years or older (2010)
• Total number of households with female head of
household (2010)
In addition, we obtained estimates for the number and percent
of poor by state and county from the U.S. Census Bureau’s
Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates (SAIPE). Estimates for
2010 were derived from the 2010 Decennial Census.
Data on total population 5 years and older, who speak English
less than very well—or have Limited English Proficiency (LEP)—
and total rural population were obtained from the 2011
County Health Rankings. Total population with LEP was based
on 2009 data from U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community
Survey (ACS) 5-Year Estimates. Total rural population was
based on data from ACS 2009 1-Year Estimates.
The Project Team analyzed all demographic data descriptively
by state and county—e.g., we calculated percents to
describe the proportion of the population that belonged to
a certain demographic category. In addition, for measures
of total population, race and ethnicity, we calculated percent
change between 2000 and 2010. Finally, we used Microsoft
Map Point 2011 software to geographically map select
demographic measures by region, state and county (alone,
as well as in combination with other measures on health and
climate change).
Health and Health Care Access. The 2011 County Health
Rankings were a main source of data on key health and
health care access measures at the state and county levels.
The following list identifies measures included in this study,
along with their original sources of data as analyzed and
provided through the 2011 County Health Rankings website.
Health Status
• Percent of adults self-reporting fair or poor health status
(Original Data Source: Centers for Disease Control (CDC)
and Prevention, Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance
System (BRFSS), 2003-2009)
• Percent of live births with low birth weight (National
Center for Health Statistics, 2001-2007)
• Percent of adults who are obese (or report a BMI greater
than or equal to 30) (Original Data Source: National
Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health
Promotion, 2008)
Health Care Access
• Primary Care Provider Rate (Original Data Source: Health
Resources and Services Administration, Area Resource
File, 2008)
• Percent of population under 65 years without health
insurance (Original Data Source: U.S. Census Bureau,
Small Area Health Insurance Estimates, 2007)
In addition, we obtained state and local-area data on the
prevalence of asthma from CDC/BRFSS. The Selected
Metropolitan/Micropolitan Area Risk Trends (SMART)
database offered by BRFSS was utilized to obtain asthma
data by the metropolitan areas in our study region for 2010.
Prevalence of asthma was based on self-reports of adults
who have “ever been told they have asthma”.
Data on health status and health care access measures were
analyzed descriptively at the state-level and where possible
by county. As noted, data were mapped by county—both
alone, and in combination with race and ethnicity.
CLIMATE CHANGE, ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES AND VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES:
Assessing Legacies of the Past, Building Opportunities for the Future
26 II. METHODOLOGY
Climate Change Impact Measures. The following section
summarizes the data sources and measures used to develop
a regional profile of potential climate change impacts.
Measures of climate change and impact were descriptively
analyzed and presented in tabular form in this report, as
well as where possible, have been geographically mapped.
We discuss findings at the county level, both broadly and in
context of race and ethnicity.
Air Pollution
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions. We obtained data on
total Greenhouse Gas Emissions by state and region for
2000 and 2007 from the Climate Analysis Indicators Tool
of the World Resources Institute. Specifically included
in this report are measures of total emissions—provided
in metric tons for carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4),
nitrous oxide (N2O), and the F Gases, also known as
hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs),
and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6)—and emissions per capita.
In addition, a rank of states is provided along with the
percentage of emissions the state contributes toward
the U.S. total. Finally, we calculated change in total
emissions and emissions per capita for each state and
the region for the period 2000-2007.
• Annual Number of Unhealthy Air Quality Days.
Data on annual number of unhealthy air quality days
due to ozone and fine particulate matter were obtained
from the 2011 County Health Rankings for each
state and counties within for 2006. The original data
sources for these measures is the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC) and Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) Collaboration, 2006. Data were
analyzed descriptively and mapped, both alone and in
combination with measures of race and ethnicity (i.e.,
Non-White race and Hispanic/Latino ethnicity).
• Industrial Air Toxics. Finally, we drew secondary data
and maps on racial/ethnic disparities in exposure to
industrial air toxics from the recent research report
entitled, Justice in the Air. We specifically include in
this report the following two maps with state-level
data: (1) Median exposure to industrial air toxics;
and (2) Difference between racially/ethnically diverse
communities’ share of health risk from industrial air
toxics and racially/ethnically diverse communities’ share
of population.
Extreme Weather Events
• Wildfires. Data on wildfires were acquired from the
National Interagency Fire Center. Specifically, we include
two measures related to wildfires: (1) Number of fires
burned by state for the period 2005-2011; and (2)
Number of acres burned of wildland fires by state for
2005-2011. State-level data are provided in tabular form.
• Water Shortage. The National Resources Defense
Council (NRDC) developed a new Water Sustainability
Index (WSI) to capture projected impacts of climate
change at the county-level across the country in 2050.
Data and maps from NRDC on WSI and water shortage
are included in the report. According to NRDC, level
of risk to water sustainability is based on the following
criteria: (1) Projected water demand as a share of
available precipitation; (2) Groundwater use as a share
of projected available precipitation; (3) Susceptibility
to drought; (4) Projected increase in freshwater
withdrawals; and (5) Projected increase in summer
water deficit. Counties with “extreme” risk to water
sustainability are those meeting four or more of the
aforementioned criteria, while counties meeting two or
three of the criteria are classified as having “moderate”
or “high” risk, respectively. Counties meeting less than
two criteria are at low risk.
• Drought Impacts. We obtained data and maps on
number of drought impacts in 2010 from the National
Drought Mitigation Center. Drought impact is defined
as any “observable losses or changes that occurred
at a specific place and time because of a drought.”
These impacts are identified and categorized as being
related to agriculture, business or industry, energy, fires,
plants or wildlife, response or restrictions, public health,
tourism or recreation and water supply or quality.
• Drought Vulnerability. In addition, a geographic map
and related data on drought vulnerability were acquired
from NRDC. Drought vulnerability was measured as the
average number of extreme low flow days as reported
by watersheds in each state. Extreme Low Flow Days
are defined as the average number of days annually
(2000-2009) that are below the 5th percentile relative to
a 1961-1990 reference period.
• Extreme Heat. A map of extreme heat vulnerability by
county for the period 2000-2009 was obtained from
NRDC. Extreme heat vulnerability was measured as
days with daily maximum temperatures above the 90th
percentile June-July-August temperature relative to a
1961-1990 reference period.
CLIMATE CHANGE, ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES AND VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES:
Assessing Legacies of the Past, Building Opportunities for the Future
27II. METHODOLOGY
• Flooding. A map of flood vulnerability, measured as the
average number of extreme high flow days and recorded
floods, by watershed, was obtained from NRDC for the
period 2000-2009. Extreme high flow days are defined
as the average number of days annually (2000-2009)
that are above the 95th percentile relative to 1961-1990
reference period.
Infectious Diseases
• West Nile Virus (WNV). We acquired data and maps
on the total number of cases and incidence of WNV
from the following sources:
• CDC, Division of Vector-Borne Diseases. The
total number of cases and deaths from WNV
Human Infection were obtained from the CDC for
each state in the region for 2005 and 2010.
• United States Geological Survey (USGS).
County-level data on WNV cases for each state
within the selected region were obtained from
USGS for 2005 and 2010. The 2000 Census was
utilized to calculate incidence for 2005 and the
2010 Census was used to calculate incidence
for 2010. Incidence was calculated per 1 million
population and mapped alone as well as with
Non-white race and Hispanic/Latino ethnicity.
• National Resources Defense Council (NRDC).
Additional state-level data on total cases of WNV
for the period 1999-2010 were obtained from the
National Resources Defense Council.
• Dengue Fever. We procured state-level data and a
map of Dengue fever Vulnerability from NRDC. State-
level data were provided for total cases of Dengue
fever for the period1995-2005. A map of areas
vulnerable to Dengue fever was also obtained from
NRDC for 1995-2005.
• Lyme Disease. Total number of cases of Lyme disease
by state were also acquired from NRDC for 1990-2008.
Program and Policy Review
We reviewed national and regional resources identifying
and abstracting policies and programs related to the six
state region. To identify additional resources, we conducted
internet searches with a combination of the following search
terms: weather, climate, mitigation, adaptation, policy,
programs, state law, energy, water management, air quality,
ecosystems, coastal, transportation, and public health.
Key Informant Interviews
We conducted 11 semi-structured telephone-based key
informant interviews between November 2011 and January
2012 to elicit information on: (1) leading climate change
or environmental-related challenges affecting the region/
state; (2) climate change-related vulnerabilities associated
with racially/ethnically diverse populations; (3) federal, state
or local actions for adaptation and mitigation; (4) future
priorities to effectively prepare, adapt and respond to
vulnerable populations, including racially/ethnically diverse
communities in climate change.
Key informants were identified through recommendations
made by the Joint Center’s Commission to Engage African
Americans in Climate Change, as well as contacts we
identified through our extensive review of the field and
recommendations that our interviewees suggested for follow
up. We used the following criteria for interview selection:
1. Knowledge or experience related to key climate change
issues affecting the region/state and progress toward
mitigation and adaptation, including funded initiatives
(and where possible, their status or outcomes), policies,
programs, challenges and successes; and/or
2. Knowledge and understanding of social vulnerability
issues, particularly those affecting racially, ethnically diverse
populations generally; and any actions, plans or progress
toward addressing their needs in the region/state.
Eleven individuals completed the interview process. They
represented one state climatology office, two academicians,
two state environmental quality agencies, two community
organizers, and two environmental non-profit leaders. The
following table lists the number of respondents per state.
A review of the literature guided the development of a semi-
structured interview protocol (see attached Appendix B).
Qualitative data from each interview were manually coded,
sorted and analyzed in two stages. The first round involved
the extraction of overarching and reoccurring themes
expressed within the aforementioned four areas of inquiry.
The second round of analysis identified sub-themes.
state no. Key Informants
Arizona 2
Arkansas 2
Louisiana 2
New Mexico 2
Oklahoma 1
Texas 2
Total 11
table 2. nuMber of key inforMants
intervieWed per state
CLIMATE CHANGE, ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES AND VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES:
Assessing Legacies of the Past, Building Opportunities for the Future
28 III. REGIONAL DATA FINDINGS
based on the 2010 National Census. As expected,
metropolitan areas within the states were home to the
greatest concentrations of people. Harris County (Houston
area) in Texas, Maricopa County (Phoenix area) in Arizona,
and Dallas County in Texas had the largest populations
(approximately 4.0 million, 3.8 million, and 2.4 million,
respectively). In addition, Tarrant County (Fort Worth area),
along with Bexar (San Antonio area) and Travis (Austin area)
counties in Texas, each had between one to two million
people according to the 2010 Census. Other counties with
500,000 to one million people in 2010 included: Pima in
Arizona; El Paso, Collin, Hidalgo, Denton, and Fort Bend
in Texas; Oklahoma and Tulsa in Oklahoma; and Bernalillo
in New Mexico. Parishes with the largest population in
Louisiana included East Baton Rouge and Jefferson (with
approximately, 440,000 and 430,000 people, respectively).
Pulaski County had the largest population in Arkansas, with
just over 380,000 people.
Change in Total Population
Map 2 shows the change in total population by county for
the region between 2000 and 2010. Generally, the greatest
growth in population was seen in counties surrounding the
largest cities. Specifically, 341 of the 518 counties in the
region (or two-thirds) witnessed an increase in population.
Thirty-nine of these counties saw a 25% or greater increase
in population, mainly in suburban counties. Pinal County,
just south of Phoenix, Arizona experienced the greatest
growth (109.1%). In addition, counties surrounding Dallas/
Fort Worth (Rockwall, Collin, Denton and Kaufman),
Houston (Fort Bend and Montgomery), and Austin
(Williamson and Hays) in Texas also experienced some of the
highest rates of population growth (i.e., between 44.9%
DEMOGRAPHIC FACTORS
This section describes the demographic composition of
the region to set the context for understanding the social
vulnerability of communities to climate change. Data for the
region and states are provided in tabular form and where
possible, mapped at the county level.
Total Population
As a growing body of evidence suggests, population and
climate change are inextricably linked. As populations
grow, they not only contribute to factors associated with
the earth’s changing climate (e.g., growing emissions),
but also bear the brunt of its negative impacts (e.g., poor
air quality, urban heat island effects and increased health
threats). Thus, knowing population size and growth rates
are important precursors for framing the discussion of
vulnerability to climate change.
According to the 2010 Census, the southern region,
including the states of Arizona, Arkansas, Louisiana, New
Mexico, Oklahoma and Texas, is home to a population of
nearly 44.8 million (see Table 3). Between 2000 and 2010,
the region’s population grew by 16.7% from 38.4 million.
Texas, by far, has the largest population (25.1 million in
2010) in the region. Arizona has the next largest population
(6.4 million in 2010) and has experienced the greatest
percentage growth in the region between 2000 and 2010
(24.6%). New Mexico has the smallest population (nearly
2.1 million), but has also witnessed some growth since 2000
(13.2%). Louisiana, on the other hand, has had a fairly
stable population between 2000 and 2010 (i.e., 4.5 million).
Map 1 displays total population by county for the region
III. REGIONAL DATA FINDINGS
state PoPulatIon 2000 PoPulatIon 2010 % Change In PoPulatIon
Arizona 5,130,632 6,392,017 24.6%
Arkansas 2,673,400 2,915,918 9.1%
Louisiana 4,468,976 4,533,372 1.4%
New Mexico 1,819,046 2,059,179 13.2%
Oklahoma 3,450,654 3,751,351 8.7%
Texas 20,851,820 25,145,561 20.6%
Region 38,394,528 44,797,398 16.7%
table 3. total population and change in population by state and region, 2000 and 2010
CLIMATE CHANGE, ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES AND VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES:
Assessing Legacies of the Past, Building Opportunities for the Future
29III. REGIONAL DATA FINDINGS
Map 1. total population by county, 2010
Map 2. change in total population by county, 2000 - 2010
CLIMATE CHANGE, ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES AND VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES:
Assessing Legacies of the Past, Building Opportunities for the Future
30 III. REGIONAL DATA FINDINGS
- 81.8%). In New Mexico, Sandoval County (just north of
Albuquerque) witnessed a 46.4% growth. In Arkansas,
Benton County experienced the greatest population increase
(44.3%), followed by Faulkner, Lonoke and Saline counties
(nearly 30%), all located around the city of Little Rock. In
Louisiana, Ascension and Livingston Parishes, near Baton
Rouge, saw a nearly 40% increase in population. Finally, in
Oklahoma, Canadian County, just west of Oklahoma City,
grew by 31.8% and Wagoner County, southeast of Tulsa
grew by 27.1%.
Population by Race, Ethnicity and Language Proficiency
Racially and ethnically diverse communities are more
vulnerable to environmental and weather-related hazards as
compared to whites for a variety of reasons. In particular,
diverse populations are more likely to live in poverty,
encounter discrimination (such as in real estate where
minorities are confined to certain hazard-prone areas), face
health and social disparities as well as language and cultural
barriers (Peacock W. G., 2000; Peacock & Girard, 1997;
Peguero, 2006; Leong K. J., et al., 2007; Leong K. J., Airriess,
Li, Chen, & Keith, 2007; Trujillo-Pagan, 2007). The following
sections offer a portrait of the region’s racial, ethnic and
language diversity to set the context for understanding
climate-related vulnerability of communities of color.
Blacks or African Americans.
A growing body of literature cites the disproportionate
impact that climate change will have on predominantly Black
or African American communities (Hoerner & Robinson,
2008). Thus, knowing where these populations are
concentrated and growing, both generally and in context
of climate change events, is critical to enabling these
communities to effectively plan, adapt and respond.
The six-state southern region saw a 15.5% increase in African
Americans, from approximately 4.7 to 5.5 million, between
2000 and 2010. Texas has the largest and steadily growing
Black or African American population (nearly 3 million in
2010, up from 2.4 million in 2000). Louisiana, however, has
the greatest proportion of African Americans (32%), and this
community is fairly stable—i.e., there were approximately
1.4 million Blacks or African Americans in the state in both
2000 and 2010. Similarly, Arkansas and Oklahoma only
saw marginal increases in this subgroup. Arizona, though
inhabiting a relatively small African American population,
experienced the greatest growth in this sub-group (63.0%),
with 158,873 in 2000 to 259,008 in 2010.
Map 3 displays the proportion of Blacks or African Americans
in 2010 by county for the six states in the Southern Region.
Counties in Louisiana and Arkansas have some of the
greatest proportions of Blacks or African Americans (i.e.,
50% or more). Specifically, eight parishes in Louisiana (East
Carroll, Madison, Orleans, Tensas, St. John the Baptist,
St. Helena, Claiborne and St. James) and six counties in
Arkansas (Phillips, Lee, Jefferson, Chicot, St. Francis, and
Crittenden) have a majority Black or African American
population. Furthermore, 68 of the 518 counties in the
region (or 13%) are comprised of at least one-fourth Black
or African American residents. These include 43 parishes in
Louisiana, 22 counties in Arkansas, and 3 counties in Texas.
Though many states and counties in the region have a small
number and proportion of Blacks or African Americans, as
Map 4 shows, this sub-group has grown and dispersed into
many of these regions. Between 2000 and 2010, African
Americans grew by 50% or more in population in 103 of
the 518 counties (nearly 20%) in the Southern Region.
Of particular note are suburban counties in Texas which,
while already home to a sizeable Black or African American
population, have seen steep growth. These include,
for example: Collin and Denton counties around Dallas/
state number 2010 PerCent 2010 number 2000 PerCent 2000
% Change
2000-2010
Arizona 259,008 4.1% 158,873 3.1% 63.0%
Arkansas 449,895 15.4% 418,950 15.7% 7.4%
Louisiana 1,452,396 32.0% 1,451,944 32.5% 0.0%
New Mexico 42,550 2.1% 34,343 1.9% 23.9%
Oklahoma 277,644 7.4% 260,968 7.6% 6.4%
Texas 2,979,598 11.8% 2,404,566 11.5% 23.9%
Region 5,461,091 12.2% 4,729,644 12.3% 15.5%
table 4. total, percent and percent change in black or african aMerican population by
state, 2000- 2010
CLIMATE CHANGE, ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES AND VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES:
Assessing Legacies of the Past, Building Opportunities for the Future
31III. REGIONAL DATA FINDINGS
Fort Worth which saw a 181.8% and 118.9% growth,
respectively; Williamson County, north of Austin, which more
than doubled; and Montgomery, Brazoria, and Fort Bend
counties around Houston, which each grew by approximately
80%. Other notable communities with large and expanding
African American populations include Maricopa County in
Arizona, which grew by 66.3%, and Ascension Parish in
Louisiana, which grew by 53.5%.
Map 3. percent black or african aMerican by county, 2010
Map 4. percent change in black or african aMerican population by county, 2000-2010
CLIMATE CHANGE, ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES AND VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES:
Assessing Legacies of the Past, Building Opportunities for the Future
32 III. REGIONAL DATA FINDINGS
American Indians.
American Indian populations are at-risk to the effects of a
changing climate due to their higher likelihood to live in
poverty and lack services such as electricity or running water.
In addition, a restriction in the supply of water adversely
affects their economic viability (Lynn et al., 2011). The six
states in this study’s Southern Region are home to over
1 million American Indians (AIs), and this population has
grown 19.8% since 2000. Oklahoma (321,687) and Arizona
(296,529) are home to the largest number of AI, followed by
New Mexico (193,222) and Texas (170,972). Between 2000
and 2010, Texas witnessed the greatest percentage growth
in this sub-group (44.4%).
Map 5 displays the percent of AI population in the region by
county. According to the 2010 Census, two counties in the
region have a majority AI population. This includes McKinley
County, New Mexico, where 75.5% of the population
identify as AI, and Apache County, Arizona, where 72.9% of
the population are AI. Another twelve counties in the region
have between 20-50% AIs. These include: Navajo and
Coconino counties in Arizona; Cibola and San Juan counties
in New Mexico; and Adair, Cherokee, Caddo, Delaware,
Mayes, Sequoyah, Latimer and Craig counties in Oklahoma.
In addition, while only 2.1% of Maricopa County in Arizona
is AI, the county is home to the largest number of AIs
(78,329) in the region.
Between 2000 and 2010, the AI population grew in many
counties across the Southern region, particularly in Texas,
Louisiana and Arkansas (see Map 6). However, counties
which saw a 100% or greater increase (i.e., doubled or
more) in the number of AIs are generally those with a small
AI population. Examples of counties with large AI population
and considerable growth between 2000 and 2010 include:
Harris County in Texas, which grew by 82.9% from 15,180
to 27,763; Pinal County in Arizona, which grew by 49.3%
from 14,034 to 20,949; and Maricopa County, also in
Arizona, which grew by 38.1% from 56,706 to 78,329.
state number 2010 PerCent 2010 number 2000 PerCent 2000
PerCent
Change
2000-2010
Arizona 296,529 4.6% 255,879 5.0% 15.9%
Arkansas 22,248 0.8% 17,808 0.7% 24.9%
Louisiana 30,579 0.7% 25,477 0.6% 20.0%
New Mexico 193,222 9.4% 173,483 9.5% 11.4%
Oklahoma 321,687 8.6% 273,230 7.9% 17.7%
Texas 170,972 0.7% 118,362 0.6% 44.4%
Region 1,035,237 2.3% 864,239 2.3% 19.8%
table 5. total nuMber, percent and percent change in aMerican indian (ai) population by
county, 2000-2010
CLIMATE CHANGE, ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES AND VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES:
Assessing Legacies of the Past, Building Opportunities for the Future
33III. REGIONAL DATA FINDINGS
Map 5. percent aMerican indian population by county, 2010
Map 6. percent change in aMerican indian population by county, 2000-2010
CLIMATE CHANGE, ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES AND VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES:
Assessing Legacies of the Past, Building Opportunities for the Future
34 III. REGIONAL DATA FINDINGS
Asian-American Population.
Foreign born Asian-Americans may having difficulty securing
health insurance due to limited English proficiency (Perkins,
2003) making them more susceptible to the adverse health
effects of environmental causes. The Asian-American
population in the six southern states is the fastest growing
racial sub-group. Between 2000 and 2010, number
of Asian-Americans grew by 68.5% from 795,555 to
1,340,809. States with the greatest growth rate include
Arizona (91.6%), Arkansas (78.5%) and Texas (71.5%).
Texas, however, has by far the largest Asian-American
population, reaching almost 1 million in 2010. As depicted
in Map 7, there are only three counties in the region where
more than one-tenth of the population is Asian-American.
These include: Fort Bend County in Texas, where 17.0%
of the population is Asian-American; Graham County in
Arizona, where 14.4% are Asian-American; and Collin
County in Texas where 11.2% belong to this sub-group. In
terms of number of people, according to the 2010 Census,
state number 2010 PerCent 2010 number 2000 PerCent 2000
% Change
2000-2010
Arizona 176,695 2.8% 92,236 1.8% 91.6%
Arkansas 36,102 1.2% 20,220 0.8% 78.5%
Louisiana 70,132 1.5% 54,758 1.2% 28.1%
New Mexico 28,208 1.4% 19,255 1.1% 46.5%
Oklahoma 65,076 1.7% 46767 1.4% 39.1%
Texas 964,596 3.8% 562,319 2.7% 71.5%
Region 1,340,809 3.0% 795,555 2.1% 68.5%
table 6. nuMber, percent and percent change in asian-aMerican population
by county, 2000-2010
Harris County in Texas has the most Asian-Americans
(253,032), followed by Maricopa County in Arizona
(132,225), and Dallas, Fort Bend, Collin, Tarrant and Travis
counties in Texas, where each is home to at least 50,000
Asian-Americans.
Furthermore, between 2000 and 2010, 146 of the 518
counties (28.2%) in the region doubled or more in its
Asian-American population (see Map 8). Of these counties,
80 were in Texas, 26 in Arkansas, 22 in Oklahoma, 7 in
Louisiana, 6 in Arizona and 5 in New Mexico. Several
metropolitan and suburban counties in Texas had both the
largest Asian-American population and also experienced
a sharp growth in this sub-group. These include: Brazoria
County, which grew from 4,842 to 17,227; Williamson
County, which grew from 6,595 to 20,433; Collin County,
which grew from 34,047 to 87,752; Fort Bend County,
which grew from 39,706 to 99,370; and Denton County,
which grew from 17,444 to 43,478.
CLIMATE CHANGE, ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES AND VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES:
Assessing Legacies of the Past, Building Opportunities for the Future
35III. REGIONAL DATA FINDINGS
Map 7. asian-aMerican population by county, 2010
Map 8. percent change in asian-aMerican population by county, 2010
CLIMATE CHANGE, ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES AND VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES:
Assessing Legacies of the Past, Building Opportunities for the Future
36 III. REGIONAL DATA FINDINGS
Hispanics or Latinos.
As with other communities of color, climate change is likely
to have a disproportionate impact on Hispanics/Latinos.
Factors such as poverty, lack of English proficiency, poorer
health status and access to health care resources, and others,
increase the vulnerability of Hispanics/Latinos to climate
change events and impacts (National Hispanic Environmental
Council, 2010). Following, we highlight population dynamics
and trends related to Hispanics/Latinos.
The Hispanic/Latino population (of any race) has been
steadily growing in the region. Between 2000 and 2010,
Hispanics/Latinos grew by 43.0% from approximately 9.1
to 13.0 million. In terms of number of Hispanics/Latinos,
Texas has the largest population reaching nearly 9.5 million
(37.6%) in 2010, and up from 6.7 million (32.0%) in 2000.
New Mexico, however, has the largest and a growing
proportion of Hispanics/Latinos. In 2010, 46.3% of the state
was Hispanic/Latino, up from 42.1% a decade earlier. While
home to the smallest number of Hispanics/Latinos in the
region, Arkansas has more than doubled in this population
over the past decade.
As Map 9 shows, the proportion of Hispanics/Latinos (of any
race) is highest in the Southwest region in Texas, New Mexico
and Arizona. Of the 518 counties in the region, 65 have
a majority Hispanic/Latino population (i.e., 50% or more).
Many of these counties are generally located near the Mexico
border. In terms of absolute numbers, three counties in the
region have at least 1 million Hispanics/Latinos—i.e., Harris
County (Houston area) and Bexar County (San Antonio area)
in Texas and Maricopa County (Phoenix area) in Arizona.
As shown in Map 10, 243 of 518 (46.9%) counties in the
region experienced at least a 50% increase in Hispanics/
Latinos, and 80 (15.4%) counties more than doubled in this
sub-population. Greatest percentage growth was generally
seen in counties in Louisiana, Arkansas and Oklahoma where
the Hispanic/Latino population was fairly small. However, in
Texas, suburban counties with already large Hispanic/Latino
populations have seen substantial growth as well. These
include, for example: Montgomery County (Houston area)
which grew by 154.9% from 37,150 to 94,698; Denton
County (Dallas area) which grew by 129.6% from 52,619 to
120,836; Collin County (Dallas area) which grew by 128.4%
from 50,510 to 115,354; and Williamson County (Austin
area) which grew by 128.0% from 42,990 to 98,034.
state number 2010 PerCent 2010 number 2000 PerCent 2000
% Change
2000-2010
Arizona 1,895,149 29.6% 1,295,617 25.3% 46.3%
Arkansas 186,050 6.4% 86,866 3.2% 114.2%
Louisiana 192,560 4.2% 107,738 2.4% 78.7%
New Mexico 953,403 46.3% 765,386 42.1% 24.6%
Oklahoma 332,007 8.9% 179,304 5.2% 85.2%
Texas 9,460,921 37.6% 6,669,666 32.0% 41.8%
Region 13,020,090 29.1% 9,104,577 23.7% 43.0%
table 7. nuMber, percent and percent change in hispanic/latino population (of any race)
by county, 2000-2010
CLIMATE CHANGE, ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES AND VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES:
Assessing Legacies of the Past, Building Opportunities for the Future
37III. REGIONAL DATA FINDINGS
Map 9. percent hispanic or latino population (of any race) by county, 2010
Map 10. percent change in hispanic or latino population (of any race) by county,
2000-2010
CLIMATE CHANGE, ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES AND VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES:
Assessing Legacies of the Past, Building Opportunities for the Future
38 III. REGIONAL DATA FINDINGS
Limited English Proficiency.
People with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) include persons
five years or older who speak English less than very well.
Nearly 4.9 million (7.9%) people in the Southern Region are
LEP and Texas has by far the largest LEP population (nearly
3.2 million or 14.5% of the population).
In 2009, there were 16 counties in the region where more
than 50,000 of the residents were LEP (see Map 11). Of
these counties, Harris County (Houston area) in Texas had
the largest LEP population (742,272), followed by Maricopa
County (Phoenix area) in Arizona (463,747) and Dallas
County (Dallas area) in Texas (443,819).
Of the 518 counties in the region, more than one-fifth of the
population in 35 of these counties were LEP. These counties
were generally located along the border of Mexico in Texas,
Arizona and New Mexico.
state number PerCent
Arizona 690,719 11.9%
Arkansas 80,750 3.1%
Louisiana 106,911 2.6%
New Mexico 184,528 10.1%
Oklahoma 121,687 3.6%
Texas 3,166,913 14.5%
Region 4,351,508,699 11.0%
table 8. nuMber and percent of
population With liMited english
proficiency, by county, 2009
CLIMATE CHANGE, ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES AND VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES:
Assessing Legacies of the Past, Building Opportunities for the Future
39III. REGIONAL DATA FINDINGS
Map 11. total population With liMited english proficiency by county, 2009
Map 12. percent of population With liMited english proficiency by county, 2009
CLIMATE CHANGE, ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES AND VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES:
Assessing Legacies of the Past, Building Opportunities for the Future
40 III. REGIONAL DATA FINDINGS
Population by Poverty
A large body of evidence suggests that in general, people
living in poverty are more vulnerable to losses and impacts
from climate, weather and disaster events (Fothergill & Peek,
2004). Poor and low-income people have fewer monetary
resources to spend on prevention, emergency supplies, and
recovery. They are also more likely to live in substandard
housing conditions and are less likely to have access to
critical resources, such as air-conditioners, transportation and
communication, often essential to adapting and responding
to climate-related events (Cutter et al., 2009). Across states,
the key informants interviewed continuously cited poverty
as an important component of vulnerability to climate
change. Thus an understanding of where poor populations
are located, concentrated and growing is important to
understanding which areas within the region are more
vulnerable to climate change.
Based on the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2010 Small Area Income
and Poverty Estimates (SAIPE), there are nearly 7.9 million
(18.3%) people in poverty in the six southern states of
Arizona, Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma and
Texas. Texas has the largest poor population (over 4.4
million), followed by Arizona (over 1.1 million). New Mexico,
however, has the greatest proportion of poor—i.e., nearly
20% of the entire population is in poverty.
Map 13 geographically displays the percent of population
in poverty by county for 2010 for the six states. At least
one-fourth of the population in approximately 75 of the 518
counties (14.5%) is poor. Counties with some of the highest
percentage of poor in the region are located in the border
region of Texas (e.g., Maverick, Starr, Zavala, Cameron and
Hidalgo) as well as East Louisiana (e.g., East Carroll and
Madison), East Arizona (e.g., Apache) and East Arkansas
(e.g., Lee and Phillips). As expected, poverty is generally
concentrated in urban cores (see Map 14).
state
number In
Poverty
PerCent In
Poverty
Arizona 1,105,075 17.6
Arkansas 529,710 18.7
Louisiana 831,512 18.8
New Mexico 400,779 19.8
Oklahoma 613,067 16.8
Texas 4,411,273 17.9
Region 7,891,416 18.3
table 9. estiMated nuMber of people and
percent of people (all ages) in poverty
by county, 2010
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Small Area Income and Poverty
Estimates (SAIPE), 2010
CLIMATE CHANGE, ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES AND VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES:
Assessing Legacies of the Past, Building Opportunities for the Future
41III. REGIONAL DATA FINDINGS
Map 13. percent population (all ages) in poverty by county, 2010
Map 14. nuMber of people (all ages) in poverty by county, 2010
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates (SAIPE), 2010
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates (SAIPE), 2010
CLIMATE CHANGE, ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES AND VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES:
Assessing Legacies of the Past, Building Opportunities for the Future
42 III. REGIONAL DATA FINDINGS
Population by Age
Given older adults and children are more susceptible to
changes in weather and climate, the following section
summarizes data for these two demographic groups.
Children: Under 5 Years
According to the 2010 Census, approximately 3.1 million or
6.9% of the population in the Southern Region are under
5 years of age. This percentage, on average, is reflective
of all six states in the region, however given its larger
population, Texas has the greatest number of children—i.e.,
over 1.9 million. Based on county level data (see Map 15),
two counties in Texas (Zapata and Gaines) have at least
10% children under 5 years. Furthermore, 202 of the 518
counties had a greater percentage of children under 5 years
as compared to the regional average (6.9%). Many of these
counties are located in the Mexico border region of Texas
and Arizona, as well as in metropolitan areas.
Seniors: 65 Years or Over
In 2010, 9.4% of the population or nearly 4.2 million people
in the region were 65 years or older. Arkansas had the
largest proportion of seniors (14.4%), followed by Oklahoma
(13.5%), Louisiana (12.3%) and Texas (10.3%). New Mexico
and Arizona had the lowest percentage of people 65 years
and older (approximately 6 percent). As displayed in Map 16,
77 of the 518 counties in the region have one-fifth or more
people 65 years or older. Counties with the greatest percentage
of seniors include: La Paz in Arizona (32.6%); Llano in Texas
(31.1%); Sierra and Harding in New Mexico (30.6% and
29.2%, respectively); and Baxter in Arkansas (28.1%). In terms
of numbers of seniors, Maricopa County (Phoenix area) has the
largest population in the region (462,631), followed by four
Texas counties—Harris County (Houston area) with 333,487
seniors, Dallas County (Dallas area) with 207,972, Bexar County
(San Antonio area) with 175,883, and Tarrant County (Fort
Worth area) with 161,385—as well as Pima County in Arizona
with 151,293 seniors.
state
total
< 5 years
PerCent
< 5 years
total
65+ years
PerCent
65+ years
Arizona 455,715 7.1% 401,695 6.3%
Arkansas 197,689 6.8% 419,981 14.4%
Louisiana 314,260 6.9% 557,857 12.3%
New Mexico 144,981 7.0% 122604 6.0%
Oklahoma 264,126 7.0% 506,714 13.5%
Texas 1,928,473 7.7% 2,601,886 10.3%
Region 3,107,555 6.9% 4,190,756 9.4%
table 10. total and percent of population under 5 years and 65 years and older by state
and region, 2010
CLIMATE CHANGE, ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES AND VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES:
Assessing Legacies of the Past, Building Opportunities for the Future
43III. REGIONAL DATA FINDINGS
Map 15. percent of population under 5 years in age by county, 2010
Map 16. percent of population 65 years or over in age by county, 2010
CLIMATE CHANGE, ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES AND VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES:
Assessing Legacies of the Past, Building Opportunities for the Future
44 III. REGIONAL DATA FINDINGS
Rural Population
Vulnerable populations in rural settings, particularly young
children, elderly, poor and communities of color, are at
increased risk from climate change given they often already
face limited access to health and social services, emergency
services and employment opportunities (Keller Jensen,
2009). In addition, mitigation and adaptation policies which
address climate change issues and impacts in urban settings
have the potential to adversely impact rural populations.
Thus, having a knowledge of the size and location of rural
populations is important to effective planning and response
to climate change.
According to the 2009 American Community Survey,
approximately one-fourth of the six-state southern region
is rural. Arkansas (47.5%), followed by Oklahoma (34.7%)
and Louisiana (27.4%) are home to the largest proportion of
people living in rural settings.
Map 17. percent rural population by county, 2009
state PerCent
Arizona 11.8%
Arkansas 47.5%
Louisiana 27.4%
New Mexico 11.8%
Oklahoma 34.7%
Texas 17.5%
Region 25.1%
table 11. percent rural population by
state and region, 2009
Over half the counties (i.e., 274 of the 518 counties in the region)
have a majority (greater than 50%) rural population (see Map
17). These include 136 counties in Texas, 58 in Arkansas, 56 in
Oklahoma, 32 in Louisiana, 9 in New Mexico and 4 in Arizona.
CLIMATE CHANGE, ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES AND VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES:
Assessing Legacies of the Past, Building Opportunities for the Future
45III. REGIONAL DATA FINDINGS
Households with Female Head
Women, particularly single mothers or female heads of
households, are disproportionately more likely to suffer
from adverse affects of extreme weather and climate
events. This is due, in large part, to the fact that women
are more likely to live in poverty: “Women are also more
vulnerable to disasters because of their roles as mothers
and caregivers: when disaster is about to strike, their ability
to seek safety becomes restricted by their responsibilities to
the very young and the very old, both of whom require help
and supervision” (Morrow, 2008).
Nearly 2.3 million households (13.9%) in the region are
female-headed. While Texas has the largest number of such
households (1.2 million), Louisiana has the greatest proportion
(17.2%), a rate higher than the region as a whole. Over
one-fifth of households in 26 counties in the region have
households with female heads (see Map 18). Among these
are eleven counties in Louisiana (East Carroll, Madison, Tensas,
Morehouse, Concordia, Orleans, St. John the Baptist, Caddo,
Iberville, St. James and Ouachita), seven counties in Arkansas
Map 18. percent of households With feMale heads by county, 2010
state
number of
households
PerCent of
households
Arizona 296,313 12.4%
Arkansas 153,323 13.4%
Louisiana 296,504 17.2%
New Mexico 110,936 14.0%
Oklahoma 179,308 12.3%
Texas 1,254,704 14.1%
Region 2,291,088 13.9%
table 12. nuMber and percent of
households With feMale heads, by state
and region, 2010
(Phillips, Crittenden, St. Francis, Lee, Desha, Jefferson, and
Chicot), five counties in Texas (Zavala, Webb, Brooks, El Paso
and Cameron), two counties in New Mexico (McKinley and
Cibola), and one county in Arizona (Apache).
CLIMATE CHANGE, ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES AND VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES:
Assessing Legacies of the Past, Building Opportunities for the Future
46 III. REGIONAL DATA FINDINGS
HEALTH AND HEALTH CARE MEASURES
This section focuses on the health and health care access
measures which are likely to place racially/ethnically diverse,
low income and other vulnerable communities in the region
at a greater risk to climate change impacts. While this
section does not include health impacts directly related
to climate change, such as deaths due to excessive heat,
unhealthy air quality days, and incidence of vector-borne
diseases, these are discussed in the next section in context of
“Climate Change Concerns and Impacts”.
Health Status
Individuals with pre-existing conditions or diseases such
as respiratory illness or diabetes are more vulnerable to
climate-related health effects. Weather-related events such
as rising heat and poor air quality are likely to worsen the
health status of these populations with potentially fatal
consequences (The Potential Effects of Climate Change in
New Mexico, 2005). In addition, individuals who are in poor
health will be more susceptible during emergencies due to a
reduced capacity to prepare for and respond to these events.
Fair or Poor Health
Approximately 18.2% of adults in the region self-reported
their health as fair or poor. The prevalence of fair/poor
health status was highest in Texas (19.3%) and Arkansas
(19.2%), and lowest in Arizona (15.6%). Map 19 displays
the prevalence of fair/poor health status by county in the
region. At least one-fourth of the population in 36 counties
self-reported their health as fair/poor. These include: 12
counties in Arkansas; 11 in Texas; 7 in Oklahoma; 5 in
Louisiana; and 1 in New Mexico. Nearly 1 in 3 persons in
three counties in Texas (Starr, Val Verde and Maverick), two
counties in Oklahoma (Latimer and Pushmataha), and one
county in Arkansas (Sharp) self-reported their health as
fair/poor. The three Texas counties have a predominantly
Hispanic/Latino population (i.e., greater than 80%), and the
two counties in Oklahoma have a sizeable proportion of AIs
(i.e., nearly 20%).
Obesity
The prevalence of obesity in the region is 27.6%. Louisiana
has the largest percentage of obese adults (31.5%), followed
by Arkansas and Oklahoma which each have approximately
30% obese adults. As depicted in Map 20, approximately
31 counties in the region have 35% or more people who
are obese, including 18 in Louisiana, 11 in Arkansas, 1 in
Oklahoma and 1 in New Mexico. Counties in Louisiana
and Arkansas with the highest prevalence of obesity have
disproportionately high percentages of African Americans.
For example, St. John the Baptist, Bienville and East Carroll
Parishes in Louisiana have between 42-69% African
Americans and a 36-39% prevalence of obesity. In Arkansas,
counties such as Phillips, Jefferson and Crittenden all have
a majority African American population (between 51-63%)
and 36-38% prevalence in obesity.
geograPhy
% faIr or Poor
health % obese
% low bIrth
weIght % asthma
Arizona 15.6 23.8 7.0 14.8
Arkansas 19.2 30.3 9.0 14.4
Louisiana 18.9 31.5 10.9 11.6
New Mexico 17.4 22.9 8.4 14.6
Oklahoma 18.5 30.2 8.0 14.2
Texas 19.3 27.0 8.1 12.8
Region 18.2 27.6 8.6 13.7
table 13. health status Measures by state and region
CLIMATE CHANGE, ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES AND VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES:
Assessing Legacies of the Past, Building Opportunities for the Future
47III. REGIONAL DATA FINDINGS
Map 19. percent self-reporting fair or poor health status, by county, 2007
Map 20. percent obese by county, 2007
Note: Gray areas denote missing data or counties with small sample sizes with unreliable estimates.
CLIMATE CHANGE, ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES AND VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES:
Assessing Legacies of the Past, Building Opportunities for the Future
48 III. REGIONAL DATA FINDINGS
Low Birth Weight
Approximately 8.6% of births in the region were low birth
weight. Louisiana had the highest percentage of births
with low weight (10.9%), followed by Arkansas (9.0%).
Twelve counties in the region had 13% or more low birth
weight infants, including 7 in Louisiana, 4 in Arkansas and
1 in Texas. Counties with the highest prevalence of low
birth weight infants were generally those with large racially/
ethnically diverse populations. For example, in Louisiana,
Concordia, Madison, East Carroll, Orleans and Caddo
Parishes had between 40-69% African Americans and a
prevalence of low birth weight infants between 13-14%.
Similarly, in Arkansas, Desha and Dallas counties had among
the highest prevalence of low birth weight infants and
between 42-48% African Americans.
Asthma
The prevalence of asthma in the region is 13.7%.
Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Arkansas all have a
prevalence rate between 14-15%. Approximately 12.8%
of Texas adults and 11.6% of Louisiana adults report ever
having asthma.
Map 21. percent live births With loW birth Weight (<2500 graMs), 2001-2007
CLIMATE CHANGE, ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES AND VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES:
Assessing Legacies of the Past, Building Opportunities for the Future
49III. REGIONAL DATA FINDINGS
Health Care Access
Those with limited monetary resources are frequently
unable to purchase medical insurance and access health
care resources (Physicians for Social Responsibility, 2000).
As a consequence, limited access to health care increases a
group’s vulnerability to climate challenges such as extreme
heat. In the U.S., the working poor may suffer most as
they are neither wealthy enough to purchase insurance nor
do their employers offer adequate coverage. In addition,
they may not earn little enough to qualify for government
subsidized health insurance.
Uninsured
Approximately 26.2% of the region is uninsured, a rate
significantly higher than the U.S. average of 16.7% (U.S.
Census Bureau, 2010). Texas and New Mexico have the
highest uninsured rates (30.4%), followed by Louisiana
where 26.4% of the population is uninsured. As depicted
in Map 22, there are 25 counties in Texas where between
40-54% of the population is uninsured. These are located
in West Texas, near the border of Mexico and also in the
northwest region, where Hispanics/Latinos represent the
dominant ethnicity.
geograPhy % unInsured
PCP rate
Per 100,000
PoPulatIon
Arizona 23.9 89
Arkansas 23.4 115
Louisiana 26.4 116
New Mexico 30.4 120
Oklahoma 22.6 87
Texas 30.4 95
Region 26.2 104
table 14. health care access Measures
by state
Primary Care Providers
The region has approximately 104 primary care providers
per 100,000 population as compared to the U.S. which
has 72 per 100,000 (Goodman, Brownlee, Chang, &
Fisher, 2010). New Mexico has the highest primary care
provider rate (120), whereas Oklahoma (87), Arizona (89)
and Texas (95) have lower rates or supply of providers
per 100,000 population. As shown in Map 23, 286 of
the 518 counties (or 55.2%) in the region have fewer
than 70 providers per 100,000 population. While
generally dispersed across the region, more than half of
these counties with a potential shortage of primary care
providers are located in Texas.
CLIMATE CHANGE, ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES AND VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES:
Assessing Legacies of the Past, Building Opportunities for the Future
50 III. REGIONAL DATA FINDINGS
Map 22. percent uninsured by county, 2007
Map 23. nuMber of priMary care providers per 100,000 population, by county, 2008
CLIMATE CHANGE, ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES AND VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES:
Assessing Legacies of the Past, Building Opportunities for the Future
51III. REGIONAL DATA FINDINGS
CLIMATE CHANGE CONCERNS AND IMPACTS
This section includes data from measures that have been
linked to consequences of a changing climate. Air pollution
from a variety of sources is displayed visually by county.
The occurrence of extreme weather events is presented for
the region and includes extreme heat, wildfires, flooding,
hurricanes, drought and water shortages. Infectious diseases
including West Nile Virus, Lyme disease and Dengue fever
have been shown to increase in hotter and more humid
climates, and data on this measure is also shown.
Air Pollution
Rising temperatures tend to be associated with increases in air
pollutants, such as ozone, carbon monoxide, sulfur-dioxide,
lead, nitrogen dioxide, and fine particulates (smaller than 10
microns), resulting in lowering air quality, particularly in urban
areas (Longstreth, 1999). According to the Environmental
Protection Agency’s 2010 report, Our Nation’s Air: Status and
Trends through 2008, approximately 127 million people lived
in counties across the U.S. that exceeded national air quality
standards and racial/ethnic minorities were disproportionately
more likely to inhabit such areas. For example, according to
the National Hispanic Environmental Council, 72% of the
Hispanic/Latino population in the U.S. resides in areas that
do not meet federal air pollution standards and 70% live in
areas that fail to meet federal standards for ozone (National
Hispanic Environmental Council, 2010). Similarly, a recent
research study appearing in the 2011 American Journal
of Public Health found that census tract concentrations of
particulate matter were associated with the racial composition
of census tracts, with concentrations higher in census
tracts with higher percentages of racially/ethnically diverse
populations (Brochu, et al., 2011).
The following sections summarize data on air quality—
specifically, greenhouse gas emissions, unhealthy air quality
due to ozone, unhealthy air quality due to fine particulate
matter, and air pollution from industrial toxics—for the six
states in our study region. Where specific data are available,
counties and areas most susceptible to changing climate
and rising temperatures are highlighted, particularly for
vulnerable populations, including racially/ethnically diverse
and low income communities.
2007 2000
GEOGRAPHY MTCO2eRANK
%
OF US
TOTAL
METRIC
TONS
CO2E PER
PERSON RANK MTCO2eRANK
%
OF US
TOTAL
METRIC
TONS
CO2E PER
PERSON RANK
%
CHANGE IN
EMISSIONS
%
CHANGE
IN PER
CAPITA
EMISSIONS
United States 7088.1 -100.00% 23.5 -6920.2 -100.00% 24.5 -2.43% -4.08%
Region 1417.0 -19.99% 33.0 -1410.3 -20.38% 36.6 -0.48% -9.84%
Arizona 112.0 26 1.58% 17.6 37 94.9 27 1.37% 18.4 37 18.02% -4.35%
Arkansas 84.2 32 1.19% 29.6 18 83.6 31 1.21% 31.2 18 0.72% -5.13%
Louisiana 216.3 93.05% 49.4 6236.2 93.41% 52.9 5-8.43% -6.62%
New Mexico 78.8 35 1.11% 40.0 12 75.3 33 1.09% 41.3 94.65% -3.15%
Oklahoma 140.9 19 1.99% 39.0 14 127.3 21 1.84% 36.8 16 10.68% 5.98%
Texas 784.7 111.07% 32.9 16 793.1 111.46% 37.9 15 -1.06% -13.19%
table 15. total greenhouse gas eMissions (co2, ch4, n20, f-gases), 2000 and 2007
Source: Climate Analysis Indicators Tool (CAIT US) Version 4.0. (Washington, DC: World Resources Institute,
2011). See: http://cait.wri.org/cait-us.php?page=yearly&mode=view.
CLIMATE CHANGE, ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES AND VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES:
Assessing Legacies of the Past, Building Opportunities for the Future
52 III. REGIONAL DATA FINDINGS
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
In April 2009, EPA issued Proposed Endangerment and
Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under
the Clean Air Act, which found that current and projected
concentrations of six primary greenhouse gases in the
atmosphere—carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4),
nitrous oxide (N2O), and the 3-F Gases, also known as
hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and
sulfur hexafluoride (SF6)—are a threat to the public’s
health. In its findings, EPA stated that motor vehicles are
a key source of these greenhouse gas emissions and thus
are contributing to the threat of climate change. Table 15
presents data on total greenhouse gas emissions by state,
region and for the nation for 2000 and 2007, highlighting
total emissions, per capita emissions, percent emissions of
U.S. total and state ranks.
The six southern states in our study accounted for
approximately 20% of all greenhouse gas emissions in
the U.S. Between 2000 and 2007, the region experienced
a slower growth in emissions as compared to the nation
(0.48% vs. 2.43%) and a greater decline in per capita
emissions than the U.S. (9.84% vs. 4.08%).
Texas was ranked on top among all states in the U.S. in
both 2000 and 2007 as contributing the greatest amount of
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Over this time period,
nonetheless, the state had seen a slight decline in total
emissions. In terms of per capita emissions, Louisiana was
ranked among the top six states in the U.S. in 2007 (and on
top in the Southern Region).
Unhealthy Air due to Ozone.
The influence of changing temperatures on ground-level
ozone concentrations is well established (Longstreth, 1999). In
addition, increases in ozone levels are associated with increases
in incidence of common chronic conditions, including asthma,
allergic disorders, and cardio-respiratory diseases and deaths.
Some studies suggest that low-income populations of color
have a disproportionate risk of being affected by increased
ozone levels as they are more likely to reside in urban areas that
frequently experience such increases (Longstreth, 1999).
Map 24 shows the annual number of unhealthy air quality
days due to ozone by county for the Southern Region. There
were fifteen counties (depicted in the darkest shades) with
20 or more unhealthy days due to ozone. These counties
generally coincided with major metropolitan areas in Texas,
Arizona, Oklahoma and Louisiana. Arizona’s Maricopa County
(Phoenix area) had the greatest number of unhealthy days due
to ozone (i.e., 43 days), followed by Harris County (Houston
area) and Tarrant and Denton Counties (Dallas/Fort Worth area).
Furthermore, 9 out of 15 counties with 20 or more unhealthy
ozone days were located in Texas, mainly around the Dallas/Fort
Worth, Houston and San Antonio metropolitan areas.
Map 24. annual nuMber of unhealthy air Quality days due to ozone by county, 2006
Source: CDC Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Collaboration, 2006. Data for each state were obtained from the 2011 County
Health Rankings website (http://www.countyhealthrankings.org/).
CLIMATE CHANGE, ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES AND VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES:
Assessing Legacies of the Past, Building Opportunities for the Future
53III. REGIONAL DATA FINDINGS
Maps 25 and 26 overlay the annual number of unhealthy
air quality days due to ozone with percent non-white
and percent Hispanic/Latino population, respectively.
Generally, unhealthy air quality is higher in regions
inhabited by a large percentage of non-white and
Hispanic/Latino sub-populations. This is mainly due
to the fact that racially/ethnically diverse residents are
generally concentrated in metropolitan and surrounding
suburban regions, more susceptible to rises in ground-
level ozone. In contrast, highly diverse, outlying and rural
counties (such as those in Northeast Arizona with large
American Indian populations or those along the border
of Texas with large Hispanic/Latino populations) are less
exposed to unhealthy air due to ozone.
Map 25. annual nuMber of unhealthy air Quality days due to ozone, 2006 and percent
non-White population, 2010, by county
Map 26. annual nuMber of unhealthy air Quality days due to ozone, 2006 and percent
hispanic or latino population, 2010, by county
CLIMATE CHANGE, ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES AND VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES:
Assessing Legacies of the Past, Building Opportunities for the Future
54 III. REGIONAL DATA FINDINGS
Unhealthy Air due to Fine Particulate Matter.
Map 27 displays the annual number of unhealthy air quality
days due to fine particulate matter by county. Louisiana
leads the region in the number of unhealthy air quality days
from fine matter. In 2006, 52 of its 64 parishes (over 80%
of counties) had at least one day in the year where residents
faced unhealthy air quality related to fine particles. As Map
27 shows, four parishes in Southern Louisiana (Ascension,
St. James, Assumption and St. Mary) faced between 10 to
21 unhealthy days from fine particles and thirteen parishes
experienced between five to nine days of unhealthy air (Iberia,
St. Charles, Terrebonne, Acadia, Caddo, Calcasieu, East
Baton Rouge, Evangeline, Lafourche, St. Bernard, St. John
the Baptist, St. Landry, and Vermilion). In addition, Fort Bend
County in Texas (southwest of Houston) was among counties
with high exposures to unhealthy air from fine particulate
matter—i.e., in 2006, the county faced six such days.
As Map 28 displays, non-white populations in Louisiana
(particularly African Americans) are at a greater risk for
exposure to unhealthy air quality days from fine particulate
matter. For example, parishes such as St. John the Baptist,
St. James, Caddo, East Baton Rouge, and St. Landry
are home to a large number and proportion of African
Americans (i.e., at least 40%). While the Hispanic/Latino
population in Louisiana is relatively small as compared
to other states in the region, parishes with the highest
unhealthy air quality days due to particulate matter (see Map
29) also had some of the highest proportion of Hispanics/
Latinos—e.g., St. Bernard Parish, where nearly one out of
ten residents (or 56,723) were Hispanic/Latino. Furthermore,
Fort Bend County in Texas—which had six unhealthy air
quality days in 2006—is home to a large percentage of non-
whites (43.4%) as well as Hispanics/Latinos (40.8%).
Map 27. annual nuMber of unhealthy air Quality days due to fine particulate Matter by
county, 2006
Source: CDC Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Collaboration, 2006. Data for each state were obtained from the 2011 County
Health Rankings website (http://www.countyhealthrankings.org/).
CLIMATE CHANGE, ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES AND VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES:
Assessing Legacies of the Past, Building Opportunities for the Future
55III. REGIONAL DATA FINDINGS
Map 28. annual nuMber of unhealthy air Quality days due to fine particulate Matter, 2006
and percent non-White population, 2010, by county
Map 29. annual nuMber of unhealthy air Quality days due to fine particulate Matter, 2006
and percent hispanic or latino population, 2010, by county
CLIMATE CHANGE, ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES AND VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES:
Assessing Legacies of the Past, Building Opportunities for the Future
56 III. REGIONAL DATA FINDINGS
Industrial Air Toxics.
The following map (Map 30), obtained from the April 2009
report, Justice in the Air: Tracking Toxic Pollution from
America’s Industries and Companies to our States, Cities and
Neighborhoods, depicts the level of exposure to toxic air
pollution by state. States with the darkest shade have the
highest levels of exposure. Louisiana, in our study region,
is among five states across the nation with the highest level
of exposure to toxic air pollution, followed by Texas and
Oklahoma. New Mexico is among states with the lowest level
of toxicity weighted exposure. Variations in median exposure
to industrial air toxics, as the report suggests, is likely the
result of industrial facilities, but can also be linked to air toxics
from automobiles—which accounts for much of the nation’s
air pollution. This map generally identifies regions that may
be more susceptible to worsening air quality conditions due to
the changing climate—i.e., rising temperatures.
Map 30. Median exposure to industrial air toxics
Source: Ash M, Boyce JK, Chang G, Pastor M, Scoggins J and Tran J. Justice in the Air: Tracking Toxic Pollution from America’s
Industries and Companies to our States, Cities and Neighborhoods. April 2009.
CLIMATE CHANGE, ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES AND VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES:
Assessing Legacies of the Past, Building Opportunities for the Future
57III. REGIONAL DATA FINDINGS
Racial/Ethnic Disparities in Exposure to Industrial Air Toxics.
Map 31, also obtained from Justice in the Air, shows the
“difference between the share of people of color in the total
human health risk of industrial air toxics and their share in
the state’s population” (Ash et al., 2009). Arizona, Arkansas,
Louisiana and New Mexico, in our study region, are among 14
states with the greatest racial/ethnic disparities in health risk
from industrial air toxins—i.e., the difference between racially/
ethnically diverse communities’ share of health risk from
industrial air toxins and racially/ethnically diverse communities’
share of population is 10% or greater. This concept is
reaffirmed by key informants within the region. According
to an air quality organizer in New Mexico, the Pueblo and
Navajo communities are placed at risk due to their proximity
to coal plants as well as the gaps in amenities available to
them like plumbing and electricity. In addition, Hispanic/
Latino groups in the south of Albuquerque are vulnerable
to the effects of the nearby super sites and incinerators.
Air quality issues also plague southeastern New Mexico, an
area that is predominantly low-income and Hispanic/Latino.
One key informant in Arkansas cites an area of concern as
the southwestern part of the state where emissions are
high due to air pollutants from nearby oil refineries. The
surrounding neighborhoods are comprised largely of African
American populations. In Texas and Oklahoma, this difference
between racially/ethnically diverse communities’ share of
health risk from industrial air toxins and racially/ethnically
diverse communities’ share of population is lower and ranges
between 5 to 10%.
Map 31. Difference between racially/ethnically Diverse communities’ share of health
risk from inDustrial air toxics anD racially/ethnically Diverse communities’ share of
population by state
Source: Ash M, Boyce JK, Chang G, Pastor M, Scoggins J and Tran J. Justice in the Air: Tracking Toxic Pollution from America’s
Industries and Companies to our States, Cities and Neighborhoods. April 2009.
CLIMATE CHANGE, ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES AND VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES:
Assessing Legacies of the Past, Building Opportunities for the Future
58 III. REGIONAL DATA FINDINGS
Extreme Weather Events
As the earth’s climate evolves, extreme weather events—
such as hurricanes, tropical storms, flooding, drought
and wildfires—are likely to be more severe. Heavy rainfall
associated with hurricanes and tropical storms are likely
to increase the risk of flooding, lead to greater runoff and
erosion, and could ultimately have an adverse effect on
water quality, rise in vector-borne illnesses and increase
disaster-related morbidity and mortality. Regions that
experience dryer weather (i.e., decline in precipitation)
are at greater risk of suffering from disease and injury
related to droughts and wildfires, as well as poorer quality
of water. The following sections present regional data for
various extreme weather events, highlighting areas with
large communities of color that may be disproportionately
more susceptible.
Wildfires
A warmer and dryer climate is projected to contribute to
an increase in wildfires, especially in our study region which
already experiences a large number and proportion of fires in
the country. Approximately 23% of all wildfires that burned
in the nation between 2005 and 2010 occurred in our study
region. Texas accounted for the greatest number (49,512) and
proportion (40%) of wildfires regionally in this time period,
followed by Oklahoma which experienced 20,564 wildfires
(17%) and Arizona which had 17,195 fires (14%).
Between 2005 and 2010, wildfires affected nearly 14.5
million acres of land. Approximately half of this burn area
was located in Texas which saw over 7 million acres of its
land burn during this time period. One academician cites
the displacement resulting from events such as wildfires as a
top climate change concern facing the state of Texas. While
New Mexico had fewer fires than many other states in the
region, the impact it faced in terms of acres of land burned
was much larger as compared to Oklahoma, Louisiana and
Arkansas, all of which faced a greater number of fires, but
fewer acres burned.
Data suggest that in states such as Texas, Arizona and New
Mexico, dryer conditions could fuel a 54% increase in out-
of-control wildfires by 2050 (Natural Resources Defense
Council, 2010).
Water Shortage
Warmer and dryer climate conditions are projected to lower
water levels and in-turn could lead to serious water shortages
or a decline in quality of water for vulnerable communities.
The National Resources Defense Council has developed a new
Water Sustainability Index (WSI) to capture projected impacts
of climate change at the county-level across the country in
2050. Level of risk to water sustainability is based on the
following criteria:
1. Projected water demand as a share of available
precipitation;
2. Groundwater use as a share of projected available
precipitation;
3. Susceptibility to drought;
4. Projected increase in freshwater withdrawals; and
5. Projected increase in summer water deficit.
Table 16 displays state-level data and Map 32 shows county-
level data on risk to water sustainability in the study region.
Counties with “extreme” risk to water sustainability are those
meeting four or more of the above criteria, while counties
meeting two or three of the criteria are classified as having
“moderate” or “high” risk, respectively. Counties meeting
less than two criteria are at low risk.
geograPhy
PerCent of
CountIes at-rIsK total at-rIsK extreme rIsK hIgh rIsK moderate rIsK
Arizona 93% 14 8 5 1
Arkansas 85% 64 24 13 27
Louisiana 81% 52 119 32
New Mexico 82% 27 10 9 8
Oklahoma 91% 70 25 27 18
Texas 98% 249 162 73 14
Region 88% 476 230 146 100
table 16. Water shortage risk value in at-risk counties, by state
Source: National Resources Defense Council. Note: County Risk Level from “Evaluating Sustainability of
Project Water Demands Under future Climate Change Scenarios,” Tetra Tech, Inc., 2010.
CLIMATE CHANGE, ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES AND VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES:
Assessing Legacies of the Past, Building Opportunities for the Future
59III. REGIONAL DATA FINDINGS
14,434,8843
2,709,549
217,324 224,848
3,006,621
1,262,455
7,009,046
REGION ARIZONA ARKANSAS LOUISIANA NEW
MEXICO
OKLAHOMA TEXAS
15,000,000
10,000,000
5,000,000
figure 3. nuMber of acres burned due to Wildfires by state and region, 2005 - 2010
123,122
17,195 12,413 12,809 10,629 20,564
49,512
REGION ARIZONA ARKANSAS LOUISIANA NEW
MEXICO
OKLAHOMA TEXAS
150,000
100,000
50,000
figure 2. nuMber of Wildfires by state and region, 2005-2010
Source: National Year-to-Date Report on Fires and Acres Burned by State, 2005-2011,
National Interagency Fire Center, http://www.nifc.gov/fireInfo/fireInfo_statistics.html.
Source: National Year-to-Date Report on Fires and Acres Burned by State, 2005-2011,
National Interagency Fire Center, http://www.nifc.gov/fireInfo/fireInfo_statistics.html.
CLIMATE CHANGE, ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES AND VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES:
Assessing Legacies of the Past, Building Opportunities for the Future
60 III. REGIONAL DATA FINDINGS
Most of Texas (98%) is seriously at-risk for water shortages.
Specifically, 249 of its 251 counties are at risk, with 162
counties in west Texas, along the border region, and parts
of Central and Coastal regions at extreme risk for a shortage
in water. Many of these counties, particularly in the west
and along the border, have a majority of Hispanic/Latino
population (i.e., 50% or greater) and a large proportion of
people with LEP. One key informant, an expert in climatology,
cites Texas’ foremost climate challenge as rising temperature’s
affect on water supplies and also refers to the poor’s ability to
obtain water during water shortages as a prominent problem.
Over 90 percent of Arizona and Oklahoma are also at risk.
Specifically, eight counties in Arizona are at extreme risk
of water shortage, including Mohave, Coconino, Navajo,
Yavapai, Maricopa, Pinal, Graham, and Pima. Many of these
counties are home to a sizeable number and proportion
of AI population. For example, 47.7% of Navajo County
(46,532) and 28.5% of Coconino County (33,161) are AIs.
In addition, Arizona counties with extreme risk are home to
large Hispanic/Latino populations. Pima County, for example,
has over one-third (or 338,802) Hispanics/Latinos. Maricopa
County is home to over 1.1 million Hispanics/Latinos as well as
56,706 AI and 463,747 people with LEP. Furthermore, Graham
County, which is also at extreme risk for water shortages, is
home to a large percentage of Asian-Americans (14.4%).
Ten counties in New Mexico are at extreme risk, including San
Juan, Sandoval and Bernalillo Counties in northeast of the
state, and remaining in South and Southeast, such as Luna,
Dona Ana, Otero, Eddy, Lea, Roosevelt and Curry. Many of
these counties are also racially/ethnically diverse. San Juan
and Sandoval counties, for example, are home to some of the
largest proportions of AI in the state (i.e., 36.6% or 47,640
in San Juan and 12.9% or 16,945 in Sandoval). In addition,
nearly 40 percent of Sandoval County’s population has LEP.
Other counties, such as Dona Ana, Luna and Lea, inhabit a
majority of Hispanics/Latinos (i.e., greater than 50%), and
some also have a large proportion of LEP populations (e.g.,
nearly one-fourth of Lea County is LEP).
Arkansas has 24 counties, mainly located in the east, which
are at extreme risk for water shortages. Many of these
counties are home to a large number and percentage of
African Americans. Another key informant, an environmental
non-profit professional in Arkansas, affirms this idea and adds
that compounding this effect is the agricultural state’s status
as a top consumer of water due to the water-intensive nature
of rice farming. Oklahoma has 25 counties located in western
and central parts of the state with extreme water shortage
threats. Finally, Louisiana has one parish which is at extreme
risk for water shortage.
Map 32. Water supply sustainability index, 2050
Source: National Resources Defense Council. (2010 July). Climate Change, Water, and Risk: Current Water Demands are
Not Sustainable. See: http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/watersustainability/files/WaterRisk.pdf.
CLIMATE CHANGE, ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES AND VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES:
Assessing Legacies of the Past, Building Opportunities for the Future
61III. REGIONAL DATA FINDINGS
Drought
Rising air temperatures tend to increase evaporation, which
in turn contributes to dry and arid conditions. When
coupled with decreasing or less frequent precipitation, these
conditions can lead to serious droughts. Drought can be
measured in a variety of ways, one commonly used measure
being “drought impact”.
The National Drought Mitigation Center defines drought
impact as any “observable loss or change that occurred at
a specific place and time because of a drought.” These
impacts are identified and categorized as being related to
agriculture, business or industry, energy, fires, plants or
wildlife, response or restrictions, public health, tourism or
recreation and water supply or quality. In 2010, Texas faced
the greatest number of drought impacts in the Southern
Region, followed by New Mexico. Key informants in both
states felt that drought was the leading climate change
concern and a top priority. In New Mexico, northern tribal
communities are disproportionately affected as lack of
rainfall affects their crops and thereby their economy.
Drought vulnerability can also be measured in terms of the
average number of extreme low flow days as reported by
watersheds. Map 34 displays drought vulnerability data
as provided by the National Resources Defense Council.
Areas most susceptible to drought in our study region
(i.e., have 33 or more days of extreme low flow) include
east, northeast and southeast parts of Arizona, west and
north central parts of New Mexico, central Texas, southern
Arkansas and a large portion of Louisiana, particularly
its northeast and south central regions. Generally, areas
susceptible to drought in Arkansas and Louisiana are
also home to a large proportion of African Americans. In
Arizona and New Mexico, regions with extreme low flow
days are also those inhabiting large AI populations.
Map 33. total nuMber of drought iMpacts by state, 2010
Source: Drought Impact Reporter, National Drought Mitigation Center.
CLIMATE CHANGE, ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES AND VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES:
Assessing Legacies of the Past, Building Opportunities for the Future
62 III. REGIONAL DATA FINDINGS
Map 34. drought vulnerability, 2000-2009 average nuMber of extreMe loW floW days,
by Watershed
Source: National Map: Drought Vulnerability, National
Resources Defense Council, see: http://www.nrdc.org/health/
climate/drought.asp
Note: Extreme Low Flow Days are defined as the average
number of days annually (2000-2009) that are below the 5th
percentile relative to a 1961-1990 reference period.
CLIMATE CHANGE, ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES AND VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES:
Assessing Legacies of the Past, Building Opportunities for the Future
63III. REGIONAL DATA FINDINGS
Extreme Heat
Heat waves and exposure to extreme heat are associated
with increased mortality, particularly related to cardiovascular,
cerebrovascular and respiratory causes among elderly and
chronically ill people (Haines, Campbell-Lendrum, & Corvalan,
2006). A growing body of research documents that socially
and economically disadvantaged communities are more
likely to face adverse health impacts from extreme heat for
a range of reasons such as limited preventive resources (e.g.,
air conditioning), higher prevalence of pre-existing chronic
medical conditions (e.g., obesity, diabetes and respiratory
illnesses), and geographic location (e.g., living in city centers
which absorb more heat during the day and retain more heat
at night, also known as the “urban heat island effect”).
Based on data from the National Resources Defense Council,
the following section highlights areas within the study region
which are most vulnerable to extreme heat. Vulnerability to
extreme heat is defined in terms of the average number of
days where daily maximum temperatures were above the 90th
percentile of June-July-August temperature relative to a 1961-
1990 reference period.
In the south central region of Arizona, some of the hottest
temperatures ever recorded in that region occurred in the
summer of 2010. In the last 50 years, in the city of Phoenix, the
number of hours during each summer day with a temperature
of 100 degrees Fahrenheit has doubled. In addition, heat-related
mortality is between 3 -7 times the national average, making it
the greatest in the U.S. (Natural Resources Defense Council).
In Arkansas, there is a risk that heat-related deaths could rise
by 2050, and by some accounts could double. By the end
of the century, the state may experience almost 150 days
of over 90 degrees Fahrenheit in a year. Louisiana also feels
the impacts of extreme heat, and in the summer of 2010
suffered from all time high nighttime temperatures in 16
parishes and summer temperatures are expected to continue
to rise 3-7 degrees Fahrenheit.
In New Mexico, 2010 was also a record-setting year in five
counties experiencing high nighttime temperatures. Also in
2010, three counties, made up of almost 45,000 people,
experienced all time high average summer temperatures. In
the summer of 2010 in Oklahoma, six counties set records
for high nighttime temperatures. The frequency and severity
of summer temperatures is also expected to rise. Multiple
regions in Texas are more highly susceptible to heat waves
and temperatures during the summer may increase by 3-7
degrees Fahrenheit. By the late century, some parts may
see a fivefold increase in number of days over 100 degrees
Fahrenheit. Heat-related morality may more than double
in the city of Dallas (Natural Resources Defense Council).
Other research within Texas identified a disparity in heat-
related deaths that occurred during a 1980 heat wave. The
authors found that mortality rates were highest among
several groups including the elderly, African Americans, and
those involved in strenuous labor with the suggestion that
socioeconomic status was the underlying factor (Greenberg,
Bromberg, Reed, Gustafson, & Beauchamp, 1983).
Map 35. extreMe heat vulnerability, 2000-2009
Average Number of Extreme Heat Days
Note: Extreme Heat Days are defined as days with daily
maximum temperatures above the 90th percentile June-July-
August temperature relative to a 1961-1990 reference period.
Source: National Map: Extreme Heat Vulnerability from the
Natural Resources Defense Council. See: http://www.nrdc.org/
health/climate/heat.asp.
CLIMATE CHANGE, ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES AND VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES:
Assessing Legacies of the Past, Building Opportunities for the Future
64 III. REGIONAL DATA FINDINGS
Hurricanes
Of the states in the Southern Region, Texas and Louisiana
are most susceptible to major hurricane activity—i.e.,
Category 3, 4 or 5. Between 1851 and 2009, Texas
witnessed 19 major hurricanes and Louisiana had 29
major hurricanes. Key informants from both states cite
the increased severity and frequency from such storms as
a leading threat to their communities. Those among low
income populations cannot afford to make the adaptations
necessary, such as home elevation, to prevent against these
adverse effects. Area residents are faced with the high cost
of evacuation and in many cases choose not to evacuate
due to these costs. Evacuations also require people to
be in good health which presents a challenge for elderly
community members.
Flooding
As the earth continues to warm, heavy downpours, tropical
storms and hurricanes are projected to increase further.
Total precipitation in the U.S. has increased by 7 percent,
with “the amount of precipitation falling in the heaviest
1 percent of rain events increase[ing] by 20 percent in the
past century” (Karl et al., 2009). Our study region has
notably seen an increase in heavy downpours, particularly
in the warm season over the past few decades which has
contributed to flooding. Flooding is associated with a
number of serious health impacts, such as direct injuries
as well as increased incidence of waterborne diseases.
Flooding can also result in sewage overflows, potentially
contaminating drinking water. This particular challenge was
cited by a tribal leader in Louisiana to be harmful to her
community; damaged septic systems caused water pollutants
during a recent flood. In addition, Hughes, Arkansas
experienced sewage leaks after flooding. In Arkansas, low
income and racially/ethnically diverse populations are more
likely to live in highly susceptible areas such as flood plains.
Map 36 geographically displays flood vulnerability, measured
as extreme high flow days reported by watersheds in the study
region. Extreme high flow days are defined as the average
number of days annually (2000-2009) that are above the 95th
percentile relative to 1961-1990 reference period. Texas has
the most watersheds with high flows days (more than 23 days
per year) and areas of south Texas, central Texas and areas
of the panhandle are more prone to these high flow days.
Louisiana and New Mexico each have one watershed with
over 23 days of high water flow per year, while both Arkansas
and Oklahoma have portions of two different watersheds with
this high rate of water flow.
Map 36. flood vulnerability in the u.s., 2000-2009
Average Number of Extreme High Flow Days and Recorded Floods, by Watershed
Source: National Map: Flooding Vulnerability, Reproduced from
National Resources Defense Council, see: http://www.nrdc.org/
health/climate/floods.asp
Note: Extreme high flow days are defined as the average
number of days annually (2000-2009) that are above the 95th
percentile relative to 1961-1990 reference period.
CLIMATE CHANGE, ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES AND VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES:
Assessing Legacies of the Past, Building Opportunities for the Future
65III. REGIONAL DATA FINDINGS
The National Resources Defense Council provides a state-by-
state summary of severe storm and flooding activity. Texas
and Louisiana are among states in the region which have
experienced the greatest damage from storms, hurricanes and
flooding (i.e., over billions of dollars). Since 2000, Texas has
been declared a disaster area 14 times and recent estimates
show that sea levels could rise 17 inches by 2050. In Louisiana,
there have been 13 major declared disasters related to flooding,
storms and hurricanes since 2000. Sea level rise and coastal
flooding pose serious threats to the infrastructure, health and
social well-being of Louisiana’s major coastal cities, such as New
Orleans. Arkansas has also had 15 major disasters declared
since 2000, however, its damages have generally been less
costly than Texas and Louisiana.
Since 2000, Oklahoma has faced the greatest frequency of
disasters related to storms and flooding (i.e., 18 times). In
addition, Arizona and New Mexico have each had seven major
declared disasters since 2000 related to storms and flooding.
In New Mexico, it is projected that “warmer temperatures in
the winters could cause precipitation to fall as rain instead of
snow in mountain regions—raising stream flows and potential
for floods” (Natural Resources Defense Council, 2008). One key
informant specifies that the colonias located on the Mexico-
New Mexico border, which are populated heavily by migrants,
are disproportionately affected by flooding events as these
individuals are more likely to live in substandard housing.
Infectious Diseases
Global warming has been shown to increase conditions such
as rising temperatures and more humid conditions. Due to
these changes, a rise in infectious diseases has been predicted
which are more favorable among these conditions. In addition,
diseases endemic to the U.S., such as arbovirus encephalitis,
may expand and diseases not endemic to the region, such as
Dengue fever, may become so due to these climate changes
(Longstreth, 1999).
The following sections present data on the vulnerability of
communities within the study region to West Nile Virus (WNV),
Dengue fever and Lyme disease—vector-borne diseases likely to
increase in incidence with a warming climate.
geograPhy
dengue fever
1995-2005
west nIle vIrus
1999-2010
lyme dIsease
1990-2008
Arizona 19 1,061 66
Arkansas 3195 191
Louisiana 51,044 117
New Mexico 12 437 43
Oklahoma 3327 365
Texas 6,186 2,175 1,468
Region 6,228 5,239 2,250
table 17. total cases of dengue fever, West nile virus and lyMe disease
Source: National Resources Defense Council
CLIMATE CHANGE, ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES AND VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES:
Assessing Legacies of the Past, Building Opportunities for the Future
66 III. REGIONAL DATA FINDINGS
West Nile Virus
Between 1995 and 2005, there were 5,239 cases of West
Nile Virus (WNV) in the region. The largest number of cases
(2,175 or approximately 42 percent) were in Texas, followed
by 1,061 cases in Arizona and 1,044 cases in Louisiana.
Map 37, from the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, depicts the reported incidence rate of WNV
neuroinvasive disease per 100,000 population, by county,
for the entire nation for 2010. Twelve counties in the region
were among those with the highest incidence of WNV in
the country in 2010—i.e., greater than or equal to 10 cases
per 100,000 population. These included eight counties in
Texas (Roberts, Crosby, Foard, Dickens, Hudspeth, Fisher,
Dawson and Swisher), two in Arizona (Graham and Gila),
one in Arkansas (Bradley) and one in Louisiana (Red River).
Maricopa County in Arizona had by far the highest number
of West Nile Virus cases (116) in 2010, followed by El Paso
and Harris counties in Texas (26 and 23 cases, respectively).
Maps 38 and 39 display the incidence rate of WNV
in relation to where non-white and Hispanic/Latino
populations are located. In Texas, six of the eight counties
with the highest incidence of WNV are also those with
at least a one-third Hispanic/Latino population. Counties
such as Hudspeth, Dawson and Crosby have a majority of
Hispanics/Latinos (52.3%-79.6%). Counties in Arkansas and
Louisiana with the highest incidence of WNV are also those
with a large percentage of African Americans (i.e., 40%).
Graham County in Arizona had a high incidence of WNV
in 2010, along with 30.4% Hispanic/Latino population and
41.8% non-white population.
Map 37. West nile virus (Wnv), by county, united states, 2010
Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2010
CLIMATE CHANGE, ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES AND VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES:
Assessing Legacies of the Past, Building Opportunities for the Future
67III. REGIONAL DATA FINDINGS
Map 38. West nile virus huMan infection incidence and percent non-White race
by county, 2010
Map 39. West nile virus huMan infection incidence and percent hispanic or latino
by county, 201
Source: Statistics, Surveillance and Control. Division of Vector-Borne Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
2005-2010. See: http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvbid/westnile/surv&control_archive.htm.
Source: Statistics, Surveillance and Control. Division of Vector-Borne Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
2005-2010. See: http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvbid/westnile/surv&control_archive.htm
CLIMATE CHANGE, ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES AND VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES:
Assessing Legacies of the Past, Building Opportunities for the Future
68 III. REGIONAL DATA FINDINGS
Dengue Fever
Between 1995 and 2005, there were 6,228 cases of Dengue
fever in the region. Texas had, by far, the most cases (6,186
or approximately 99%). Arizona had 19 cases, New Mexico
had 12, followed by Louisiana with 5 cases, and Arkansas
and Oklahoma, with 3 cases each.
Lyme Disease
Between 1990 and 2008, there were 2,250 reported cases
of Lyme disease in the region, with Texas accounting for the
most cases (i.e., 1,468 or approximately 65.2%). Oklahoma
had 365 cases, followed by Arkansas with 191, Louisiana
with 117, Arizona with 66 and New Mexico with 43.
Key informants within the state of Texas, cited the rising
incidence of infectious diseases due to a warmer and more
humid climate as a climate change priority. In Arkansas,
the literature further confirms that an increased number of
mosquito and water-borne diseases is expected (Center for
Health and Global Environment, 2009).
Map 40. areas vulnerable to dengue fever, 1995-2005
Source: National Resources Defense Council. See: http://www.nrdc.org/health/climate/disease.asp
CLIMATE CHANGE, ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES AND VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES:
Assessing Legacies of the Past, Building Opportunities for the Future
69IV. STATE, LOCAL, AND REGIONAL PROGRAMS & POLICIES
This section reviews climate change priorities and planning
efforts for each state in the region. First, we present an
overview of literature relevant to climate change and
vulnerable populations. Next we describe mitigation and
adaptation efforts undertaken for each state. Finally, we
outline state policies and community and local programs to
counteract, prepare for, or minimize climate change impacts,
especially as they may relate to vulnerable populations,
including economically disadvantaged groups and
communities of color.
IV. STATE, LOCAL, AND
REGIONAL PROGRAMS
& POLICIES
table 18. suMMary of cliMate change Mitigation and adaptation strategies
Active Climate
Legislative
Commissions
And Executive
Advisory Groups
Climate
Change Action
Plan
States with
Greenhouse
Gas Emissions
Targets
Range of
Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Targets
Regional
Greenhouse
Gas Initiatives
State
Greenhouse
Gas Reporting
and Registries
Renewable
Portfolio
Standard
State Adaptation
Plan
Arizona Yes Yes Yes 2000 levels by
2020, 50%
below 2000 by
2040
No Climate
Registry
Yes Recommended
in climate
action plan but
not adopted
Arkansas Yes Yes No Recommended
in climate
change action
plan but not
adopted
No No No No
Louisiana No No No __ No No No No
Oklahoma No No No __ No Climate
Registry
No No
New Mexico No Yes Yes 2000 levels by
2012, 10%
below 2000
by 2020, 75%
below 2000 by
2050
No Climate
Registry and
Mandatory
Reporting
Yes No
Texas No No No __ No Independent
Voluntary
Registry
Yes No
Source: Center for Climate and Energy Solutions’ U.S. Climate Policy Maps
CLIMATE CHANGE, ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES AND VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES:
Assessing Legacies of the Past, Building Opportunities for the Future
70 IV. STATE, LOCAL, AND REGIONAL PROGRAMS & POLICIES
ARIZONA
Arizona is one of the more advanced states across the
region in development of formal policies for adapting
and mitigating climate change effects. It has developed a
statewide mitigation strategy and has undertaken a number
of programs at the local level targeting climate challenges.
Although similar to other states in the region in its lack of
focus on vulnerable populations in policies and programs,
we do identify a number of more promising examples of
vulnerable population inclusion in research.
Climate Change Priorities and Vulnerable Populations
Arizona reports have focused primarily on heat-related
illness or health effects from poor air quality with a number
highlighting vulnerable populations, which were most likely
to be identified by age-related concerns as well as availability
of air conditioning, or overall health status. A CDC report on
heat-related mortality in Arizona specifies multiple groups
that are more at-risk: children, the elderly, those without air
conditioning, and those with pre-existing health conditions.
Among the policy recommendations is identifying high risk
populations and avenues to communicate important public
health messages to them (CDC, 2005). Harlan, Brazel,
Prashad, Stefanov and Larsen (2006) used a simulation
model to examine eight neighborhoods in Phoenix during
the summer and found that the poor as well as communities
of color were more likely to live in warmer neighborhoods.
Higher temperatures were thought to be caused by less
vegetation and open space as well as more highly populated
areas. Fewer resources were available to those in warmer
neighborhoods thus affecting ability to manage the
adverse effects from these heat islands. Recommendations
encouraged more equitable strategies for adaptation to
climate change threats (Harlan, Brazel, Prashad, Stefanov, &
Larsen, 2006).
Of special concern is the city of Phoenix. The city has a large
African American community and Hispanic/Latino residents
comprise 30 percent of its population. Type of employment
and lack of health insurance place these residents at greater
risk in one of the most highly polluted areas in the region
which results from unsafe levels of particulate pollution and
ozone (Madrid & Vasquez, 2011).
Climate Change Planning: Adaptation and
Mitigation Strategies
In 2006, the Climate Change Advisory Group issued the
state’s mitigation plan pursuant to an executive order issued
by the governor. The overarching goal established within
that report was to set goals for greenhouse gas emissions
ARIZONA CLIMATE CHANGE PLANNING
AT A GLANCE
Climate change action plan developed
No statewide adaptation plan
Some academic research include vulnerable
populations
Air Quality and Energy
State policy
E.O. 2006-13, E.O. 2010-06, H.B. 2766, H.B.
2390, H.B. 2324, E.O. 2005-05, E.O. 2006-13
Local programs
The Arizona Renewable Energy Tax Incentive
Program, Tuscon’s Sustainable Action Plan,
Phoenix Environmental Justice Project,
Green Phoenix
Extreme heat
Local programs
Phoenix’ Tree and Master Shade Plan, “heat
relief stations” in place by local department of
public health
Water Management
State policy
S.B. 1624, ARS 45, Winters v. United States
Local programs
Phoenix’ Water Resources Plan, Rural
Community Assistance Corporation
Emerging Infectious Disease
State and local programs
Surveillance by state and local health
departments
Wildfires
State program
Arizona State Forestry Division works to
prevent fires throughout the state
CLIMATE CHANGE, ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES AND VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES:
Assessing Legacies of the Past, Building Opportunities for the Future
71IV. STATE, LOCAL, AND REGIONAL PROGRAMS & POLICIES
which includes the target of 2000 levels by the year 2020
and to 50 percent below 2000 levels by the year 2040.
These recommendations are outlined by sector and include:
the residential, industrial and waste management sector, the
energy supply sector, the transportation and land use sector,
and the agriculture and forestry sectors. These reductions
are achieved through energy efficiency as well as renewable
energy policy among the residential, commercial and
industrial sectors. Other mitigation efforts include the state’s
greenhouse gas registry for reporting these emissions. These
actions are intended to track and manage emissions and
are seen as prerequisites for participation in greenhouse gas
reduction programs.
Adaptation planning is currently ongoing in the state but
remains in the preliminary phases. Recommendations from
the climate change action plan specified that the adaptation
plan describe the effects of climate change on human,
economic and natural sectors resulting from Arizona’s
top climate concerns such as drought, forest fires, and
increasing temperatures. The recommendations, however,
do not include special provisions for vulnerable populations,
including racially/ethnically diverse communities. The
Arizona State Health Department recieved a CDC grant
award to advance adaptation efforts as part of its “Climate-
Ready States & Cities Initiative”. Currently in the assessment
phase, the state is evaluating its ability to respond to
consequences such as the adverse health effects of climate
change through gap analyses and needs assessments.
Current Policies and Programs
Primary climate-related issues affecting Arizona, as identified
by the literature, data findings, and interviews, drought,
extreme heat, air quality and wildfires. The following is
a review of the state legislative policies and community
programs targeting these concerns.
Air Quality and Energy. Several state laws are in place aimed
at directly reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Executive Order
2006-13 was signed by former Governor Napolitano and
formalized the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions
to 2000 levels by 2020. Included in the order was the
state’s adoption of the Clean Cars Law, a vehicle standards
program similar to California’s. The Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality, in 2007, began to outline rules and
implement this law which was formally approved in 2008
by the Governor’s Regulatory Council. The 2012 model year
will begin compliance scheduling. In 2010, Executive Order
2010-06, signed by Governor Brewer, pulled the state out of
the Western Climate Initiative (WCI)’s (see Regional Programs)
cap and trade program due to increasing costs on the state’s
economy. In 2011, the state formally left the collaborative.
Executive Order 2010-06 further aims to strengthen the
state’s economy through promoting energy efficiency
standards. Arizona’s energy efficiency policies include
requiring the state government to comply with certain
building standards or requiring state agencies to purchase
certain energy efficient vehicles or products. For example,
2003’s H.B. 2324 specified that all state agencies purchase
energy-efficient products unless these products were
not proven to be cost-effective. Executive Order 2005-
05 specified that state buildings meet certain LEED
(Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) standards
and H.B. 2324 required state agencies and universities
to realize a 15 percent energy use reduction by 2011.
2006’s Executive Order 2006-13 requires state agencies
to purchase only certain vehicles that were either hybrid,
met low emissions standards or use more fuel-efficient
fuels; it further established that all state-owned vehicles
meet these requirements by 2010. Other policies targeting
energy efficiency include applications for those outside of
state government. H.B. 2766, the Omnibus Energy Act of
2008, put into place energy standards for equipment and
appliances and 2005’s H.B. 2390 created energy efficient
minimums for 12 specific appliances. Laws 2000, Chapter
214 outlined the provision of an individual income tax
subtraction to taxpayers who sell one or more energy
efficient single family residence, condominium or town home
that met certain energy efficiency requirements.
Executive Order 2010-06 also has the goal of leveraging the
state’s potential in renewable energy to improve its economy.
For example, Arizona, as of January 1, 2010, established
a new resource to advance its solar platform and broaden
the scope into the domain of renewable energy by creating
The Arizona Renewable Energy Tax Incentive Program.
This program is designed to stimulate renewable energy
companies such as solar, wind, geothermal among others. In
addition, it will promote new investments in manufacturing
and headquarter operations of these energies.
In addition to these state laws, several air quality and
energy programs and policies have been developed and
implemented locally. In 2009, the mayor of Phoenix
announced an ambitious plan termed “Green Phoenix”
to transform the city into the most sustainable city in the
U.S. The plan addresses six areas including creating more
energy-efficient homes, using solar energy for public,
residential and commercial buildings, replacing public
traffic lights with energy-efficient lights among other
initiatives. The City of Tucson and the City of Phoenix
have adopted the 2006 International Energy Conservation
Code which set minimum requirements for energy efficient
design for both new and renovated buildings. In 2008,
Tucson’s Pima County adopted “Sustainable Action Plan for
CLIMATE CHANGE, ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES AND VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES:
Assessing Legacies of the Past, Building Opportunities for the Future
72 IV. STATE, LOCAL, AND REGIONAL PROGRAMS & POLICIES
County Operations” which specifies ways to incorporate
sustainability goals into government operations. The plan
requires that city facilities use cool roofing materials for
both new construction and replacements. Adopting this
policy at the local level has encouraged the use of the
products among private projects as well.
Academic institutions in Arizona also provide input regarding
climate change priorities. The Phoenix Area Environmental
Justice Project, led by Arizona State University researchers,
examines the impact of manufacturing plants in the area on
their nearby neighborhoods. Toxic emissions from the plants
are also examined including the reduction of these emissions,
and results have suggested that while the volume has
decreased the toxicity has increased. Transferring these toxic
materials is hazardous, both en route and for the locations
receiving them. Researchers found that despite intentions
to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, African American
and Hispanic/Latino communities are still considered most-
affected by these plants.
Extreme Heat. Our review did not find any state laws
related to extreme heat. However, several local and
community programs have been developed to assist in
both mitigating and adapting to this concern. The City of
Phoenix’ Tree and Shade Master plan promotes the value of
trees within the city. According to the plan, an investment
in trees by the city can achieve several important goals: to
reduce its overall carbon footprint, to address the urban
heat island effect, to create cleaner air, to decrease costs
of energy, to reduce storm water runoff, and to increase
biodiversity as well as property values. This plan describes
the outline of an urban forest with the goal of 25 percent
tree canopy coverage by the year 2030. Also in an effort
to combat extreme heat, the public health department in
Phoenix’ Maricopa County has developed a comprehensive
effort to keep the public informed and safe. Heat advisory
warnings coupled with “heat relief” stations are in place
to keep citizens both cool and hydrated. Maricopa
County’s public health department has also undertaken
further analysis of death certificates for a more complete
heat surveillance program, which has been an asset for
prevention efforts. These extreme heat policies, however,
have not included vulnerable communities in planning or
implementation.
Water Management and Water Rights for American
Indians. Several state laws and statutes are in place to
regulate water supply in Arizona. The Environmental
Budget Reconciliation Bill (S.B. 1624) passed in 2011
includes in Section 2 amendments to the Arizona Revised
Statutes allowing the Department of Water Resources
to collect fees from state municipalities based on the
population in each municipality. The statute establishes a
water resources fund which is funded with fees paid to the
department. The funds are used to carry out several water
management tasks such as establishing and regulating
ground and surface water rights. For example, the statute
and its congruent rules put in place requirements for new
subdivision development, requiring a water supply sufficient
for 100 years be proven and approved by the Arizona
Department of Water Resources.
For American Indians, access to water supply is a major
concern that is exacerbated by climate change. According
to one source, 40 percent of the population on the Navajo
Reservation in Arizona lacks a potable water supply
(Colby, 2007). The Arizona legislature has attempted to
pass solutions to American Indians’ water rights issues,
but to date, most efforts have been insufficient. Policies
describing water rights for American Indians exist, but they
are described in treaties with the federal government rather
than at the state level. The Supreme Court ruling Winters
v. United States guaranteed American Indian tribes’ rights
to water near where they had settled. However, problems
surfaced during implementation of this ruling: tribes failed to
obtain access to water due to a lack of funding to develop
their adjudicated water rights. An additional challenge has
been the competing interests for water in the state. As
American Indians have petitioned the government for their
promised water, other stakeholders continue to bring forth
challenges and appeals claiming they own the resource.
“Vulnerable populations have drier landscapes showing that they have less water for
irrigation and fewer plants to moderate extreme temperatures. Overall, they have
fewer resources to moderate these types of hazards.”
– Key Informant, Arizona.
CLIMATE CHANGE, ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES AND VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES:
Assessing Legacies of the Past, Building Opportunities for the Future
73IV. STATE, LOCAL, AND REGIONAL PROGRAMS & POLICIES
Some communities and cities have engaged in water
planning efforts in the face of looming water shortages. For
example, Phoenix’s Water Resources Plan provides guidance
plans for water acquisition, management, and infrastructure.
Its recommendations include necessary tasks to guarantee
sufficient supply of water for a growing population. Different
development scenarios are considered under the plan
including water shortage conditions as well as the effects
of climate change. At the community level, non-profit
organizations support groups with water shortage concerns.
For example, the Rural Community Assistance Corporation
is a non-profit organization that assists western states
including New Mexico and Arizona and their low income and
rural populations. This organization provides both education
and assistance to American Indian tribes in a variety of
domains, including safe drinking water.
Other Climate Change Concerns. In Arizona, other
climate change concerns have surfaced as public health
priorities. These include emerging infectious diseases and
the occurrence of wildfires. Arizona Department of State
Health Services performs surveillance for West Nile Virus,
which was first detected in the state in 2003, as well as
Dengue fever and Lyme disease. Maricopa County Public
Health Department also does surveillance for West Nile
Virus and responds to complaints related to mosquitoes
to perform appropriate testing of the insects. The Arizona
State Forestry Division works to prevent and suppress
wildfires throughout the state. However, our review does
not reveal that these efforts have included any strategies to
incorporate vulnerable populations into either surveillance
or planning.
Evaluation of Programs and Policies. During our review,
we sought the input from key informants about the perceived
effectiveness of climate change policies as a whole and as they
relate to vulnerable populations. One key informant noted
that although the state’s 2009 climate action plan has resulted
in cities implementing measures to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions, the efforts have not been especially visible. Key
informants agreed that actions taken by county health
departments were both effective and important for assisting
residents adapt to climate-related challenges. These actions
include Maricopa County’s heat surveillance effort and its
initiative to provide relief from extreme heat.
Key informants identified the following assets in Arizona:
the state’s environmental and climate research, grassroots
movements and non-profit organizations. Research in
climate change has been incorporated into the secondary
education curriculum in the state. Workshops for middle
school teachers have used the example of urban heat islands
and their implications for equity for educational purposes.
While this academic research has both included vulnerable
populations and been incorporated into a local initiative,
the scope or reach of other efforts remains limited as the
majority of the state’s climate change policies do not address
the needs of the low income, racially/ethnically diverse and
other vulnerable communities.
“It’s my understanding that if we’re going to be prepared [for climate change] there
has to be a serious discussion around the legal rights we have to water. And this is an
issue for indigenous groups around the world. At the community level, we haven’t had
that discussion yet.”
– Navajo Key Informant, Arizona
CLIMATE CHANGE, ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES AND VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES:
Assessing Legacies of the Past, Building Opportunities for the Future
74 IV. STATE, LOCAL, AND REGIONAL PROGRAMS & POLICIES
ARKANSAS
Climate change adaptation and mitigation efforts are, to
some extent, underway in Arkansas. The state has initiated
some policy efforts to curb the negative effects of climate
change, but only a few programs at the community level
have resulted from them. Non-profit groups throughout
the state have taken the lead in developing programs to
mitigate climate change effects.
Climate Change Priorities and Vulnerable Populations
Our selected review of Arkansas-based research studies
described health effects on the state’s population due to
climate change, but did not focus specifically on vulnerable
populations. Priority issues included projected incidence of
respiratory and cardiovascular disease due to heat stress
and asthma; and the anticipation of increased numbers
of mosquito and water-borne diseases due to warmer
and wetter climate patterns (Center for Health and Global
Environment, 2009).
Climate Change Planning: Adaptation and
Mitigation Strategies
In Arkansas, a statewide climate mitigation action plan
was developed by the Governor’s Commission on Global
Warming in 2008. The plan’s primary goals were to examine
the current impacts of global warming on the state as
well as to develop a comprehensive plan to mitigate those
effects on the environment, the economy and the state’s
residents. The plan outlines 54 recommendations to reduce
the state’s greenhouse gas emissions to below 2000
levels in the following increments: 20 percent by 2020,
35 percent by 2025, and 50 percent by 2045. In addition,
five technical working groups are in place to support the
Governor’s Commission on Global Warming, which is
charged with conducting analyses and policy development.
The working groups are made up of Commission members
and supplemented by other climate change experts as
needed. The technical working groups are supported by an
Advisory Body, composed of state agency representatives
from the following departments: Agriculture, Environmental
Quality, Forestry, Highway and Transportation, Natural
Resources Commission, Economic Development, Parks
and Tourism, Public Service Commission, State Game and
Fish Commission and the Oil and Gas Commission to offer
added expertise. The plan is laid out by sector and includes
recommendations for land use, transportation, and other
priority sectors.
ARKANSAS CLIMATE CHANGE PLANNING
AT A GLANCE
Climate change action plan developed
No statewide adaptation plan
Air Quality and Energy
State policy
H.B. 2445, S.B. 237, E.O. 09-07, H.B. 1050,
Arkansas Water and Air Pollution Control Act
Local programs
Little Rock’s Home Energy Affordability
Loan Program, energy audits and education
programs led by natural gas companies,
government-sponsored home weatherization
programs
Water Management
State policy
Act 472, The Safe Drinking Water Fund
Program (Act 772), The Arkansas State Water
Plan (Act 217, Act 1051), partnership with
the EPA’s WaterSense Program
Local programs
Audubon Arkansas, the Nature Conservancy,
Heifer International
Emerging Infectious Disease
State and local programs
Surveillance by The Arkansas Department of
Health
Emergency Preparedness
State program
The Arkansas Department of Emergency
Management
CLIMATE CHANGE, ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES AND VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES:
Assessing Legacies of the Past, Building Opportunities for the Future
75IV. STATE, LOCAL, AND REGIONAL PROGRAMS & POLICIES
Among the climate change action plan’s recommendations
are the development of adaptation strategies. Related
work includes further investigating the impact of climate
change on individuals, water resources, temperature-
sensitive populations, and ecosystems. The action plan
also implies the need for a vulnerability assessment;
however a particular model for vulnerability assessment is
not suggested.
Current Policies and Programs
Our review found little background literature describing
the effects of climate change on Arkansas. However, our
data findings as well as reports from the key informants
indicated that significant climate issues in the state revolved
around poor air quality and drought.
Air Quality and Energy. The state has enacted policies
to promote energy efficiency. The Arkansas Public Service
Commission (APSC) is authorized to address high energy
costs by creating energy efficiency and conservation
programs. In 2007, APSC issued an order approving
programs with energy efficient goals that applies to
investor-owned utility companies. In addition, in order to
address the declining usage in gas utilities, APSC approved
mechanisms to prevent the loss of revenue for certain
utility companies. These mechanisms allow gas utilities to
develop conservation programs while preserving revenues,
and as a result utility companies have initiated energy
efficient programs and policies. In December of 2010, the
APSC issued ten orders as part of the Sustainable Energy
Resource Action Plan for Arkansas that were intended to
expand the state’s energy efficient efforts. This was the
first set of comprehensive policies developed to encourage
utility energy efficiency programs. However, while these
actions indicate some progress, other work has been
thwarted. For example, 2005’s H.B. 2445, which was
introduced to promote better building standards in state
facilities, was classified as no action because no goals
specific to energy savings were included (EPA: State and
Local Climate Energy Program).
The state has several policies in place encouraging fuel
efficiency. The Arkansas Alternative Fuels Development
Act (S.B. 237, Act 699) was signed in 2007 and specified
that state agency-owned diesel-powered vehicles and
equipment be converted to diesel fuel containing at least
2 percent biofuels by volume by 2009. In 2009, Executive
Order 09-07 required that strategic energy plans be
developed by individual state agencies including using more
fuel-efficient vehicles to reduce energy consumption. In
2011, House Bill 1050 initiated the Arkansas Alternative
Fuels Development Program which distributes grants for
alternative fuels. Alternative fuel producers, feedstock
processors, and alternative fuel distributors are eligible
for this funding. Also under this program are rebates for
making school buses more energy efficient.
Arkansas’ “Air Code” was developed under the Water
and Air Pollution Control Act and includes the rules and
regulations for controlling air pollution. This program
is administered by the Arkansas Pollution Control and
Ecology Commission and the Arkansas Department of
Environmental Quality.
In addition to state-level laws and regulations related
to energy and air quality, several local programs are in
existence. For example, currently underway are municipal
actions such as Fayettesville’s plan for sustainability and
North Little Rock’s “Think Global, Act Local” initiative to
reduce greenhouse gases for the city. The City of Little
Rock has also reduced greenhouse gas emissions through
a Home Energy Affordability Loan Program in partnership
with the William J. Clinton Foundation’s Climate Change
Initiative. The plan will provide 30 home energy retrofits
and plans to quantify the results and share lessons learned
with other stakeholders (Combating Climate Change:
Clinton Climate Initiative).
Several local initiatives stem from APSC’s previously
mentioned order encouraging energy savings programs
by utility companies. For example, Entergy Arkansas, Inc.
Home Energy Solutions Program provides coupons for
“In Arkansas we are tackling climate change through different avenues: through the state
water planning process or through the state energy planning process. But the processes
don’t address the impact [of climate change] on vulnerable or diverse populations.”
- Key informant, Arkansas
CLIMATE CHANGE, ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES AND VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES:
Assessing Legacies of the Past, Building Opportunities for the Future
76 IV. STATE, LOCAL, AND REGIONAL PROGRAMS & POLICIES
the purchase of energy-efficient appliances and windows
to residential customers. The Natural Gas Commercial
and Industrial Energy Audits implement energy audits for
natural gas customers to identify potential energy savings.
Reports and recommendations are provided to customers
and may suggest weatherization improvements or installing
energy-efficient equipment. Also in place are Natural Gas
Customer Education Programs in which several energy
companies will promote messages to support a statewide
campaign directing consumers to programs at each
company with opportunities for energy efficiency.
Arkansas also has a weatherization program currently
in place designed after a similar program developed by
the U.S. Department of Energy. Targeting 2,500 of the
most energy insufficient homes in the state, the goal of
the program is to provide weatherization assistance in
form of attic, floor, wall and duct insulation among other
upgrades and replacements, paying up to 50 percent
of the costs. In addition, compact fluorescent light bulb
replacement programs are offered by several electric
companies, who provide coupons toward the purchase of
these energy-efficient bulbs.
Outreach and education programs are available through
the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality, the
Arkansas Energy Office and the Arkansas Game and Fish
Commission. Also involved in education and outreach
is the Arkansas Agriculture Department and Forestry
Commission which administers Arkansas’ Alternative Fuels
Development Program.
Water management. Water quality standards are set by
the state to regulate the use of streams for public water
supplies, agricultural uses, aesthetics, recreational uses,
and other purposes. 1997’s Arkansas Act 772 initiated the
Safe Drinking Water Fund Program to distribute funds and
resources to cities, counties, community water systems
among others. These entities are eligible to receive funding
for water-related programs including: compliance, water
supply, public health, plan and design. The Arkansas State
Water Plan, in accordance with Act 217 (1969) and Act
1051 (1983) consists of numerous reports that identify
potential problems for both surface and groundwater and
provide recommended solutions.
The Arkansas Natural Resource Commission is the agency
charged with protecting the state’s water and land
resource programs in the state. Non-profit organizations,
including Audubon Arkansas and the Nature Conservancy,
provide both planning and management support to the
Arkansas Natural Resource Commission’s programs,
and include assistance in developing irrigation systems
for croplands. The Arkansas Farm Bureau has also been
involved in the Commission’s planning efforts. Another
non-profit organization active in the climate change
arena is Heifer International whose goals are to teach
sustainable farming techniques. In addition, large
companies such as Wal-Mart are beginning to participate
in the dialogue of climate change. Central Arkansas
partners with The EPA’s WaterSense Program whose
resources encourage conservation of outdoor, indoor, and
irrigation water systems.
Other Climate Change Concerns. A number of
state policies target emerging infectious diseases and
emergency preparedness in Arkansas. The Arkansas
Department of Health conducts surveillance for West
Nile Virus, Dengue fever and Lyme disease. The Arkansas
Department of Emergency Management helps residents
prepare, respond, recover and mitigate damages during
extreme weather events and other emergencies. Our
review suggests that neither program uses strategies to
target vulnerable communities of color.
Evaluation of Programs and Policies. We asked key
informants in Arkansas to identify and describe state policies
and programs that were most effective in addressing and
meeting climate change goals. According to one informant,
progress from the 2008 climate change action plan has been
minimal. To date, only one of the plan’s recommendations
has been implemented (the aforementioned Sustainable
Energy Resource Action Plan) and it resulted from two years
of APSC inquiries involving public comments and hearings,
sworn testimony, legal briefs, and technical conferences.
The state does have the capacity to lay the foundation for
climate change mitigation and adaptation work, both at
the state and the local level. But as a key informant stated,
there is no doubt that “much needs to be done to see these
recommended policies become a reality.” Effective actions
to alleviate the stress of climate change effects include the
weatherization programs provided with government support
as well as the energy audits performed by utility companies.
Though the state has made significant progress in energy
efficiency policy, one informant stated that the policies are
over-protective of the state’s energy industry.
Key informants agree that assets in Arkansas have been
government and non-profit support to help farmers
install irrigation systems. They noted that non-profit
groups such as Heifer International and the William J.
Clinton Foundation who have special provisions within
their programs for climate-related impacts, have helped
the state in its pursuit of climate change goals. Wal-
mart’s commitment to sustainability in these small, rural
communities is considered a positive feature for the state.
CLIMATE CHANGE, ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES AND VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES:
Assessing Legacies of the Past, Building Opportunities for the Future
77IV. STATE, LOCAL, AND REGIONAL PROGRAMS & POLICIES
LOUISIANA
At the state level, with some focused exceptions, Louisiana
has undertaken only limited planning for climate change
adaptation and mitigation. Some communities have
developed efforts on more pressing climate change
concerns especially around receding coastline and preparing
for emergencies resulting from an increased number and
severity of storms.
Climate Change Priorities and Vulnerable Populations
Review of state-based investigations focused on the
increased frequency of storms, including hurricanes, and
the continued sea level rise. Of particular concern resulting
from these changes in weather is the rise of indoor air
toxins as many homes experienced high levels of these
pollutants after flooding occurs (Committee on the Effect
of Climate Change on Indoor Air Quality and Public Health,
2011). For example, reports such as “Adapt or Die” paint
a picture of how the poorest suffer the effects of global
warming more severely than compared with wealthier
populations. Due to the city’s geography below sea level,
this report raises concerns of New Orleans’ continued
viability (Hertsgaard, 2007). Both of these resources cite
poverty as the leading factor determining vulnerability.
Climate Change Planning: Mitigation and Adaptation
Strategies
Louisiana has neither a formal statewide climate change
mitigation plan nor a strategy for adapting to the effects
of climate change. However, efforts have been undertaken
at the city or parish level to plan for changes related to
weather and climate concerns. For example, as an effort
to mitigate adverse effects related to climate, the City of
New Orleans developed a plan in 2009 titled “The City of
New Orleans Carbon Footprint Report” which describes the
city’s participation in the Cities for Climate Protection (CCP)
Campaign and summarizes the results of this campaign.
The plan also outlines a greenhouse gas inventory as well as
describes current programs for their reduction, and makes
recommendations for the future.
Despite the lack of a statewide adaptation strategy, efforts
at the community level have been taken to proactively plan
and prepare for the effects of extreme weather events.
For example, the local community of Mandeville has an
adaptation plan to incorporate sea level rise into planning
and decision making for land use. The plan aims to allow
Mandeville to continue to grow in a sustainable way as
well as ensure the community’s resiliency. In addition, the
Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority has drawn
ARKANSAS CLIMATE CHANGE PLANNING
AT A GLANCE
Climate change action plan developed
No statewide adaptation plan
New Mexico’s Drought Planning Team
established
New Mexico Wildlife Strategy is sector-specific
adaptation plan in the state.
Air Quality and Energy
State policy
E.O. 2005-033, Efficient Use of Energy Act,
S.B. 994, H.B. 305, H.B. 205, S.B. 418, the
Renewable Energy Act, S.B. 237, S.B. 257,
H.B. 375, H.B. 572, S.B. 647, the “Pit Rule.”
Local programs
Sustainable Santa Fe Plan, Border 2012,
Southwest Organizing Project
Water Management
State policy
Interstate Stream Commission investigates,
protects and conserves water resources, State
Water Plan Act requires that the state water
plan be updated every five years
Local programs
WaterSense and WaterWise education
programs
Emergency Preparedness
State program
Health Emergency Management Programs
Emerging Infectious Diseases
State and local program
Surveillance by New Mexico Department
of Health
CLIMATE CHANGE, ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES AND VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES:
Assessing Legacies of the Past, Building Opportunities for the Future
78 IV. STATE, LOCAL, AND REGIONAL PROGRAMS & POLICIES
up coastal restoration and hurricane protection actions
(including new alternatives to standard levees). The plan
documents that Louisiana will be one of the first regions
within North America to suffer the effects of sea level
rise. These local mitigation and adaptation plans indicate
geographic location as the contributing factor for increased
vulnerability to Louisiana’s continued weather-related
challenges but do not include sociodemographic variables.
Current Policies and Programs
According to the literature review and to key informants, the
most pressing climate change challenges facing Louisiana
are increased frequency and intensity of storms, including
hurricanes, as well as the impending rise of the sea level. Our
data findings also suggest that the state’s poor air quality is
a high priority. Some efforts have been undertaken at the
state and community levels to combat the impacts of these
climate and environmental-related changes.
Coastal Conservation. The magnitude of the sea level
problem was identified in the 1970s. Chapters within
the Louisiana Administrative Code enacted coastal
management legislation in 1979; and permits for coastal
use were specified under coastal management legislation
with the intention of minimizing human impacts to the
region. Since then, several planning initiatives have been
undertaken proposing solutions to save the dramatic loss of
land caused by warming temperatures.
Act 6, a statute passed in 1989, initiated the state’s work
in coastal restoration. The statute had many purposes
including charges to conserve, restore, create and enhance
the wetlands as well as to establish the Governor’s Office
of Coastal Activities and the Wetland Conservation and
Restoration Authority. Both of these entities are required to
direct and coordinate the efforts for the coast. The statute
further develops a funding source for these activities by
creating the Coastal Wetlands Conservation and Restoration
Fund, which also receives matching federal funds. In 1998,
the Wetland Conservation and Restoration Authority, in
collaboration with other entities began creating blueprints
for a coastal restoration plan. The collaborating entities
included the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources,
parish governments and the Coastal Wetlands Planning,
Protection and Restoration Act Task Force. The initiative’s
purpose was to create a plan for coastal sustenance as
well as design an ecosystem management technique
in conjunction with the communities within the state.
The resulting document entitled “Coast 2050: Toward
a Sustainable Coastal Louisiana” was released in 1998.
This document enumerates the local, state, and federal
approaches addressing the significant concern of a
diminishing coastline.
Recommendations from the Coast 2050 report were
developed into a report by the Louisiana Coastal Area and
served as the foundation for their Ecosystem Restoration
Plan. In 2004 the plan was submitted to Congress for
approval, though funding was later reduced to $2 billion
from $14 billion. Before Congress approved the plan’s
recommendations, however, Hurricane Katrina hit Louisiana.
Eventually, the report resulting from this effort advanced to
the “Near-Term Priority LCA” plan which was granted under
the Water Resources Development Act of 2007.
In the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, in 2005,
Louisiana passed Act 8 which restricted the Wetland
Conservation and Restoration Authority. The new body,
The Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority (CPRA),
became the designated authority and coordinator of all
efforts to promote coastal protection and restoration over
the long-term. Included in this coordinated effort, are
both flood control and wetland restoration which were
previously separate areas. The act mandates that CPRA set
clear priorities to meet coastal protection needs in the state.
In 2007, CPRA released “Louisiana’s Comprehensive Master
Plan for a Sustainable Coast” and has updated the plan in
early 2012 with more specific provisions for rebuilding the
coast with input from state, national and coastal scientists.
The plan, assuming a budget of $50 billion, details specific
projects necessary to restore the wetlands. Before any of
the projects can be undertaken, however, the plan must be
approved by the legislature.
Several local entities incorporate planning tools to evaluate the
effects of sea level rise on their communities. One example,
“REACT” or Real-time Emergency Action Coordination Tool,
uses weather data from St. Tammany Parish and other sources.
Data are combined with other information and transferred to
“In Louisiana, we have a large population of people of color; these groups were given
the land that is less valuable which are the wetlands or swamp.”
- Key informant, Louisiana
CLIMATE CHANGE, ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES AND VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES:
Assessing Legacies of the Past, Building Opportunities for the Future
79IV. STATE, LOCAL, AND REGIONAL PROGRAMS & POLICIES
an emergency management system which, in turn, creates a
visualization of the information. Statistics are captured in real-
time as water rises.
Also involved in wetlands restoration efforts are the Army
Corps of Engineers who have started closing the Mississippi
Gulf River Outlet as part of the “Sewerage and Water
Board Assimilations Project.” This body of water has been
implicated as a cause in the destruction of wetlands.
Air Quality & Energy. The legislature in Louisiana has
enacted few laws to regulate energy and improve air
quality. No greenhouse gas performance standards or
reporting are required in the state. Louisiana also lacks a
renewable portfolio standard. However, energy efficient
policy has been incorporated into building efforts after
Hurricane Katrina, and the 2006 International Residential
Code is mandatory statewide. In 2007, S.B. 240 was
passed, specifying that state building or renovation efforts
must exceed state energy efficiency targets by 30 percent.
Policies targeting net metering, or the billing arrangement
that allows customers to receive savings as a result of their
clean energy systems, have become more effective with the
enactment of recent legislation. Act No. 543 was signed
into law by the governor in 2008 and amends the state’s
net metering standards and expands the limit of kilowatts
to meter for non-residential systems. S.B. 359 was passed
in 2008 to increase the eligible size of commercial and
agricultural power generators.
Also in 2008, the governor signed Executive Order BJ 2008-
8, termed “Green Government,” with several objectives: to
establish energy efficiency goals for state-owned buildings; to
undergo energy analysis of all state facilities and take action
to reduce energy consumption; to develop fuel economy goals
for the state fleet of vehicles and to develop a plan to meet
those goals; and to review purchasing practices to conserve
energy by procuring energy efficient appliances. At the local
level, energy efficient programs for utility customers are
available in New Orleans, but are not present outside of the
city. For example, Energy Smart is a citywide program allowing
all New Orleans residents to receive weatherization retrofits to
their homes without out-of-pocket costs.
Louisiana has enacted few laws targeting air quality.
One investigative exception is H.B. 661, passed in 2009,
which establishes funding for research and development
for geologic sequestration of carbon dioxide emissions, a
process that curbs their release into the atmosphere.
Other Climate Change Concerns. Policies related to
emerging infectious diseases, emergency preparedness
and water management also have implications for the
manner and degree in which individuals are affected by
Louisiana’s changing climate. The Louisiana Department
of Health & Hospitals began West Nile Virus surveillance
in 2000. Surveillance is also ongoing for Dengue fever and
Lyme disease. Louisiana’s Department of Health & Hospital’s
Center for Community Preparedness maintains disaster
preparedness efforts for the state; and programs such as
the previously mentioned “Project Reconnect” draw on
universities for expertise and support.
In 2000, the governor signed an Executive Order to create
the Water Policy Advisory Task Force. This task force was
charged with creating a comprehensive water management
plan for the state; its recommendations included enacting
a short-term plan to protect aquifers and surface waters.
In 2001, S.B. 965 was enacted to create the Water
Management Advisory Task Force to begin the process of
creating a statewide comprehensive plan. To date, however,
the state still lacks a legislatively mandated water policy.
Evaluation of Programs and Policies. Louisiana has made
some effort to plan for and adapt to its climate challenges.
According to key informants, however, these efforts so far have
not focused on protecting vulnerable populations including low
income individuals and communities of color residing in the
zones most susceptible to these effects. Noticeably absent are
robust state and local policies aimed at improving air quality, a
climate-related concern across the state.
According to a leader from a tribe located on Louisiana’s
coast, coastal preservation efforts for lower Bayou
communities have been minimal to date, as these
communities have essentially been termed “unrescuable.”
In many ways, the American Indians who inhabit these lands
are facing a loss of culture as they may eventually be forced
to move. The conversation has focused on actions to preserve
the city of Houma while lower Bayou communities are ignored
and presented with few options as their land disappears.
Though our review indicates programs such as “Project
Reconnect” include vulnerable communities into disaster
planning, key informants noted this to be the exception. For
example, in general, evacuation information rarely takes into
account cultural-specific customs or circumstances. American
Indian groups may not trust city or other officials when given
information regarding evacuation. However, they do look to
tribal leaders for advice on planning.According to key informants,
plans for Louisiana’s coast, such as Coast 2050, have not been
exceptionally visible or effective. Coastal communities in Louisiana
anticipate the release of Louisiana’s Comprehensive Master
Plan for a Sustainable Coast, which is slated for early 2012
though they realize that during the legislative approval process
competing priorities may influence which recommendations are
carried out. Key informants reinforced the value of maximizing
transparency during this process.
CLIMATE CHANGE, ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES AND VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES:
Assessing Legacies of the Past, Building Opportunities for the Future
80 IV. STATE, LOCAL, AND REGIONAL PROGRAMS & POLICIES
NEW MEXICO
New Mexico has taken several important steps to planning
for climate change though many have been slowed or halted
in their initial stages of implementation after changes in
administration. Not unlike other surrounding states, New
Mexico’s foremost climate-related concerns are drought
as well as poor air quality. And to some extent, both the
state and communities developed policies and programs to
combat these challenges.
Climate Change Priorities and Vulnerable Populations
New Mexico-based literature cited concerns around lack of air
conditioning, health insurance and general access to health
care for populations more vulnerable to the social and health
consequences of extreme weather events. Individuals with pre-
existing illnesses such as respiratory or cardiovascular disease
or outdoor workers were identified as more susceptible to the
effects of poor air quality and toxins (The Potential Effects of
Climate Change in New Mexico, 2005). A report entitled “Death
by Degrees: The Health Threats of Climate Change in New
Mexico” identified adverse health effects related to extreme
heat, flooding, hailstorms and landslides. Populations determined
more at-risk to these effects were the poor and those who were
uninsured (Physicians for Social Responsibility, 2000). Though the
literature identified in New Mexico describes specific populations
and their vulnerability, little specific attention is given to race,
ethnicity and language. A more comprehensive model for
determining vulnerability is also lacking in the state.
Climate Change Planning: Adaptation and
Mitigation Strategies
New Mexico has an official climate change action plan. The plan
describes 69 recommendations for meeting the greenhouse gas
emissions target outlined within former Governor Richardson’s
Executive Order. The report also details the projected growth
of the state’s greenhouse gas emissions, the targets specified
by the Executive Order and a projection of emission reductions
expected if the recommendations are implemented in full.
New Mexico also has mandatory reporting of greenhouse gas
emissions by industries such as petroleum refineries and cement
manufacturing plants, among others. A phase-in reporting
system is outlined to include data for carbon dioxide and
methane emissions as well as nitrous oxide and other emissions.
New Mexico’s Drought Planning Team, created by former Governor
Richardson, has the mission of creating a plan for several key areas:
1) assessing vulnerabilities to drought throughout the state; 2)
identifying strategies to reduce the effects of drought before they
occur; and 3) planning appropriate responses to drought effects.
Drought action plans have been developed yearly with the most
NEW MEXICO CLIMATE CHANGE PLANNING
AT A GLANCE
Climate change action plan developed
No statewide adaptation plan
New Mexico’s Drought Planning Team
established
New Mexico Wildlife Strategy is sector-
specific adaptation plan in the state.
Air Quality and Energy
State policy
E.O. 2005-033, Efficient Use of Energy
Act, S.B. 994, H.B. 305, H.B. 205, S.B.
418, the Renewable Energy Act, S.B. 237,
S.B. 257, H.B. 375, H.B. 572, S.B. 647,
the “Pit Rule.”
Local programs
Sustainable Santa Fe Plan, Border 2012,
Southwest Organizing Project
Water Management
State policy
Interstate Stream Commission investigates,
protects and conserves water resources,
State Water Plan Act requires that the
state water plan be updated every five
years
Local programs
WaterSense and WaterWise education
programs
Emergency Preparedness
State program
Health Emergency Management Programs
Emerging Infectious Diseases
State and local program
Surveillance by New Mexico Department
of Health
CLIMATE CHANGE, ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES AND VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES:
Assessing Legacies of the Past, Building Opportunities for the Future
81IV. STATE, LOCAL, AND REGIONAL PROGRAMS & POLICIES
recent recommendation report to former Governor Richardson in
2008. More recent recommendations or progress are not available.
A statewide plan for adaptation to climate change has not
been developed nor does it appear to be in the development
process. There is a sector-specific ecosystems adaptation plan
in place titled “New Mexico Wildlife Strategy” which outlines
specific conservation recommendations for particular species
and habitats. Time- and cost-effective approaches are
identified to achieving these recommendations.
Current Policies and Programs
Our review of the literature and data as well as input from
key informants in the state suggests that the key climate
change priorities for the state include poor air quality,
drought, extreme heat as well as emerging infectious
diseases. The following is a review of the current state and
local policies that address these foremost climate concerns.
Air Quality, Energy, and Pollution. Former Governor
Richardson issued Executive Order 2005-033 which put in
place greenhouse gas emission reduction targets statewide.
Specifically, the order has the goal of 2000 emission levels by
2012, 10 percent below 2000 levels by 2020 and 75 percent
below 2000 levels by 2050.
The legislature has passed significant policies targeting
energy efficiency. 2005’s Efficient Use of Energy Act permits
public utilities (both gas and electric) to roll out cost-effective
programs for energy reduction. In 2007, S.B. 994 establishes
the provision of tax credits for electric power plants that
meet carbon dioxide emission requirements. This energy
tax credit equals six percent of the eligible generation plant
costs of the qualified generating facility up to a maximum
amount of $60,000,000. H.B. 305 was passed in 2008
and its purpose was to add to the 2005 Efficient Use of
Energy Act amendments by negotiating a more aggressive
timeline for the reduction of energy use by investor-owned
utilities. Included in the amendments were targets to reduce
energy use by 10 percent by 2012 and 20 percent by
2020. Submission of an annual report to the Commission is
required detailing compliance standards. In 2008, H.B. 205
was passed, which developed targets for energy efficiency
for the state. An achievement of a 5 percent reduction from
2005 sales by 2014 as well as a 10 percent reduction by
2020 is required by each utility.