Regionalizing resilience to acute meteorological events: Comparison of regions in the U.S

Linking coastal environmental and health observations for human wellbeing

Coastal areas have long been attractive places to live, work, and recreate and remain so even in the face of growing threats from global environmental change. At any moment, a significant portion of the human population is exposed to both positive and negative health effects associated with coastal locations. Some locations may be "hotspots" of concern for human health due to ongoing climatic and other changes, accentuating the need for better understanding of coastal environment-human health linkages. This paper describes how environmental and health data could be combined to create a coastal environmental and human health observing system. While largely based on information from the US and Europe, the concept should be relevant to almost any coastal area. If implemented, a coastal health observing system would connect a variety of human health data and environmental observations for individuals and communities, and where possible cohorts. Health data would be derived from questionnaires and other personal sources, clinical examinations, electronic health records, wearable devices, and syndromic surveillance, plus information on vulnerability and health-relevant community characteristics, and social media observations. Environmental data sources would include weather and climate, beach and coastal conditions, sentinel species, occurrences of harmful organisms and substances, seafood safety advisories, and distribution, proximity, and characteristics of health-promoting green and blue spaces. Where available, information on supporting resources could be added. Establishment of a linked network of coastal health observatories could provide powerful tools for understanding the positive and negative health effects of coastal living, lead to better health protections and enhanced wellbeing, and provide significant benefits to coastal residents, including the historically disadvantaged, as well as the military, hospitals and emergency departments, academic medical, public health, and environmental health programs, and others. Early networks could provide best practices and lessons learned to assist later entries.

Towards integrated modeling of the long-term impacts of oil spills

Although great progress has been made to advance the scientific understanding of oil spills, tools for integrated assessment modeling of the long-term impacts on ecosystems, socioeconomics and human health are lacking. The objective of this study was to develop a conceptual framework that could be used to answer stakeholder questions about oil spill impacts and to identify knowledge gaps and future integration priorities. The framework was initially separated into four knowledge domains (ocean environment, biological ecosystems, socioeconomics, and human health) whose interactions were explored by gathering stakeholder questions through public engagement, assimilating expert input about existing models, and consolidating information through a system dynamics approach. This synthesis resulted in a causal loop diagram from which the interconnectivity of the system could be visualized. Results of this analysis indicate that the system naturally separates into two tiers, ocean environment and biological ecosystems versus socioeconomics and human health. As a result, ocean environment and ecosystem models could be used to provide input to explore human health and socioeconomic variables in hypothetical scenarios. At decadal-plus time scales, the analysis emphasized that human domains influence the natural domains through changes in oil-spill related laws and regulations. Although data gaps were identified in all four model domains, the socioeconomics and human health domains are the least established. Considerable future work is needed to address research gaps and to create fully coupled quantitative integrative assessment models that can be used in strategic decision-making that will optimize recoveries from future large oil spills.

Gulf of Mexico Coastal County Resilience to Natural Hazards

Using a Cumulative Resilience Screening Index (CRSI) that was developed to represent resilience to natural hazards at multiple scales for the United States, the U.S. coastal counties of the Gulf of Mexico region of the United States are compared for resilience for these types of natural hazards. The assessment compares the domains, indicators and metrics of CRSI, addressing environmental, economic and societal aspects of resilience to natural hazards at county scales. The index was applied at the county scale and aggregated to represent states and two regions of the U.S. Gulf of Mexico (GOM) coastline. Assessments showed county-level resilience in all GOM counties was low, generally below the U.S. average. Comparisons showed higher levels of resilience in the western GOM region while select counties Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama exhibited lowest resilience (<2.0) to natural hazards. Some coastal counties in Florida and Texas represented the highest levels of resilience seen along the GOM coast. Much of this increased resilience appears to be due to higher levels of governance and broader levels of social, economic and ecological services.

Enhancing Disaster Resilience by Reducing Stress-Associated Health Impacts

Disasters are a recurring fact of life, and major incidents can have both immediate and long-lasting negative effects on the health and well-being of people, communities, and economies. A primary goal of many disaster preparedness, response, and recovery plans is to reduce the likelihood and severity of disaster impacts through increased resilience of individuals and communities. Unfortunately, most plans do not address directly major drivers of long-term disaster impacts on humans-that is, acute, chronic, and cumulative stress-and therefore do less to enhance resilience than they could. Stress has been shown to lead to or exacerbate ailments ranging from mental illness, domestic violence, substance abuse, post-traumatic stress disorders, and suicide to cardiovascular disease, respiratory problems, and other infirmities. Individuals, groups, communities, organizations, and social ties are all vulnerable to stress. Based on a targeted review of what we considered to be key literature about disasters, resilience, and disaster-associated stress effects, we recommend eight actions to improve resiliency through inclusion of stress alleviation in disaster planning: (1) Improve existing disaster behavioral and physical health programs to better address, leverage, and coordinate resources for stress reduction, relief, and treatment in disaster planning and response. (2) Emphasize pre- and post-disaster collection of relevant biomarker and other health-related data to provide a baseline of health status against which disaster impacts could be assessed, and continued monitoring of these indicators to evaluate recovery. (3) Enhance capacity of science and public health early-responders. (4) Use natural infrastructure to minimize disaster damage. (5) Expand the geography of disaster response and relief to better incorporate the displacement of affected people. (6) Utilize nature-based treatment to alleviate pre- and post-disaster stress effects on health. (7) Review disaster laws, policies, and regulations to identify opportunities to strengthen public health preparedness and responses including for stress-related impacts, better engage affected communities, and enhance provision of health services. (8) With community participation, develop and institute equitable processes pre-disaster for dealing with damage assessments, litigation, payments, and housing.