Unequal recovery? Federal resource distribution after a Midwest flood disaster

102Citations
Citations of this article
142Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Following severe flooding in 2008, three Iowa communities acquired over 1000 damaged properties to support disaster recovery and mitigation. This research applies a distributive justice framework to analyze the distribution of disaster recovery funds for property acquisition. Two research questions drive the analysis: (1) how does recovery vary by acquisition funding source; and (2) what is the relationship between recovery and vulnerable populations? Through spatial econometric modeling, relative recovery is compared between two federal programs that funded the acquisitions, and across socially vulnerable populations. The results indicate both distributive and temporal inequalities in the allocation of federal recovery funds. In particular, Latino and elderly populations were associated with lower recovery rates. Recommendations for future research in flood recovery and acquisitions are provided.

References Powered by Scopus

Vulnerability

4438Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Social vulnerability to environmental hazards

3998Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Community resilience as a metaphor, theory, set of capacities, and strategy for disaster readiness

3471Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Flood exposure and social vulnerability in the United States

239Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Social justice implications of US managed retreat buyout programs

186Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Managed retreat through voluntary buyouts of flood-prone properties

162Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Muñoz, C. E., & Tate, E. (2016). Unequal recovery? Federal resource distribution after a Midwest flood disaster. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 13(5). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph13050507

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 61

70%

Researcher 14

16%

Professor / Associate Prof. 7

8%

Lecturer / Post doc 5

6%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Social Sciences 30

43%

Environmental Science 19

28%

Engineering 16

23%

Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4

6%

Article Metrics

Tooltip
Mentions
News Mentions: 2
Social Media
Shares, Likes & Comments: 28

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free