Building Climate Resilience in Vulnerable Communities: Analyzing Designation and Use of Community Disaster Resilience Zones

This report examines the characteristics of the first round of Climate Disaster Resilience Zones and explores two alternative approaches to designation that could help inform the next round of Climate Disaster Resilience Zones.

Date

Sept. 23, 2024

Authors

Sofia Hinesand Margaret A. Walls

Publication

Reading time

The Community Disaster Resilience Zones Act of 2022 directed the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to designate communities that are vulnerable to natural disasters as Community Disaster Resilience Zones (CDRZs), which would then be prioritized for federal climate resilience funding. FEMA announced the first round of CDRZs in September 2023 - 483 census tracts that are high risk based on FEMA's National Risk Index mapping tool and disadvantaged based on the White House Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool. FEMA also followed the CDRZ Act's mandate that the top one percent of census tracts based on risk in each state be designated as CDRZs, ensuring geographical representation of CDRZ communities.

In this study, we summarize the risk and demographic characteristics of the tracts designated as CDRZs and explore two alternative approaches to designation: one that removes the requirement that tracts be disadvantaged based on the CEJST, using only the National Risk Index score, and one that removes the requirement that the top one percent in each state be designated as CDRZs. We also evaluate a potential "round 2" of CDRZs, expanding the list of designated tracts.

We find that incorporating disadvantaged status, based on the CEJST, pulls more socially vulnerable, lower income, communities onto the list of CDRZs than would have been the case using the National Risk Index alone. At the same time, the average risk and resilience characteristics of the communities would be approximately the same. If the top one percent in each state requirement was dropped and designations based only on risk rankings and disadvantaged status, we find that only 22 states would have had CDRZs. This is because of the geographic concentration of risks in the United States, especially around the hurricane-prone Gulf Coast. Finally, our "round 2" list includes more relatively disadvantaged communities, with higher poverty rates, lower household incomes, and higher social vulnerability and slightly lower risk scores. This finding suggests that the requirement that communities be disadvantaged may begin to carry more weight in the designation process as new tracts are added to the CDRZ list.

Using North Carolina as a case study, we compare CDRZs to communities that would have been selected by local experts and using local risk mapping tools. We find very little overlap in the census tracts chosen as CDRZs and these locally selected alternatives. We conclude from this exercise that some refinement of the approach, bringing in local knowledge along with the two national mapping tools, could be useful in the future. Interviews we conducted with state agencies and nonprofit organizations working on local resilience issues suggest some concerns about the CDRZ process. Most of these revolve around capacity and resource challenges in communities in gathering knowledge about CDRZs and accessing federal funding for resilience.

The Community Disaster Resilience Zones Act was signed into law by President Joe Biden on December 20, 2022. S.3875, 117th Cong., 2022, This act amends the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act. H.R. 2617, 117th Cong., 2022, It requires FEMA to identify communities most at risk of natural hazards and climate change to create CDRZs, which should be prioritized for federal resilience grant funding and eligible for lower cost-share requirements on federal grants. The act specifies that the list of CDRZs comprise the 50 census tracts assigned the highest individual hazard risk ratings nationally and not less than 1 percent of census tracts in each state with the highest risk ratings.

FEMA released an initial list of 483 CDRZ communities on September 1, 2023. CDRZs are eligible for increased federal cost share from 75 to 90 percent for FEMA's Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) grant program and its BRIC Technical Assistance program, which provides technical assistance for resilience projects in underserved communities and is often used to position communities to apply for BRIC grants . FEMA also reports that at least seven other federal agencies will use CDRZs to inform grant priorities and other programmatic assistance, especially as those agencies target spending toward resilience. CDRZs thus present a potential opportunity for communities to leverage more support for their hazard resilience, recovery, and emergency management efforts.

The CDRZ Act did not specify the use of particular tools or designation requirements for CDRZs. However, it required that FEMA base its designation on building and agricultural loss exposure to natural hazards, social vulnerability, and community resilience, the three factors that make up FEMA's NRI. FEMA initially proposed using only the NRI to designate CDRZs, but later, after public comment, it added the White House's CEJST and based CDRZ designations on meeting the disadvantaged community criteria from that tool as well the NRI criteria. For more information on the NRI, see https://hazards.fema.gov/nri/, and on the CEJST, see https://screeningtool.geoplatform.gov/en/#3/33.47/-97.5.

The NRI assigns census tracts a risk index score on a 5-point scale ranging from "very low" to "very high" risk based on the following: expected annual losses from 18 individual natural hazards; social vulnerability, using the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Social Vulnerability Index (SVI); and an index of community resilience, developed by the University of South Carolina Hazards Vulnerability and Resilience Institute, that is based on a range of infrastructure, economic, and governance factors. For more information on the SVI, see https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/placeandhealth/svi/index.html, and on the University of South Carolina resilience indicator index, see https://www.sc.edu/study/colleges_schools/artsandsciences/centers_and_institutes/hvri/index.php/bric.

The CEJST identifies census tracts as disadvantaged if they experience burdens (climate change, energy, health, housing, legacy pollution, transportation, water and wastewater, and workforce development) above certain thresholds and also meet an associated socioeconomic burden based on poverty rates, household income, health outcomes, and more. Tracts within boundaries of Federally Recognized Tribes, including Alaska Native Villages, also qualify as disadvantaged. The CEJST is used to identify disadvantaged communities for the purposes of implementing the Justice40 Initiative, the requirement that 40 percent of the benefits of certain federal climate and energy programs go to disadvantaged communities. For more information on the Justice40 Initiative, see https://media.rff.org/documents/Report_24-01.pdf. Census tracts with NRI scores in the top 50 nationally or the top 1 percent within their state that CEJST also identified as disadvantaged communities were designated as CDRZs, resulting in a total of 483 initial CDRZs.

In the 60-day public comment period from May 26 toJuly 25, 2023, FEMA solicited input on implementation of the CDRZ Act, updates to the methodology and data used for the NRI, and what process should be used to designate community disaster resilience zones. The agency received more than 600 comments in 24 engagement sessions and in written comments (FEMA 2023b ). FEMA conducted "review and consideration" of these comments as it determined a methodology for the initial CDRZ designations. In addition to criticisms over the sole use of the NRI for designation, which led to the addition of the CEJST, commenters also raised concerns about census tract measures and methodology transparency. Many strongly urged FEMA to coordinate with state and local governments to designate zones and take an iterative approach to piloting and updating zone designations (ASFM 2023; FEMA 2023b).

It is worth noting that there is a degree of overlap in the underlying data used in the two tools. For example, the SVI, which is used to create the NRI, is constructed from factors that are also used in the CEJST, such as underlying data on poverty rates, housing cost burdens, and English language proficiency. The CEJST incorporates data used to construct the NRI, such as building loss rates from natural hazards. Without deconstructing the two tools, it is impossible to know the full implications of this fact for the designations. However, in our alternative methods discussed in Section 5, we remove the disadvantaged community requirement (and use of CEJST) and assess the results if only the NRI was used.

Figure 1 shows all 483 CDRZs across the continental United States. Hawaii has five CDRZs and Alaska has one. As the map shows, every state has at least one CDRZ, as required by the legislation. States have about 9 CDRZs each, on average. Nine states have only one CDRZ, and these tend to be states with comparatively lower populations: Alaska, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming. California has 51 CDRZs, the highest number of any state. The average population density of a CDRZ is 2,452 people per square mile, which is significantly less than the population density of an average census tract, indicating that CDRZs tend to be relatively less urbanized. New York, Massachusetts, and Delaware have the most population-dense CDRZs.

Figure 1. CDRZs in the Continental United States

Table 2 provides summary statistics for the variables used in the NRI and other selected sociodemographic variables for the designated CDRZ census tracts and for all census tracts in the United States. In addition to differences in population and population density, building and agricultural values are higher, on average, in CDRZs, and correspondingly, expected annual losses from hazards are also higher than in the average census tract in the United States. The risk score for CDRZs is nearly double the average risk score in the United States as a whole. Socioeconomic variables also differ between CDRZs and the average US census tract. CDRZs have lower median household incomes, $52,084 compared with $73,300 for the average tract in the United States, and higher poverty rates, 20.2 versus 13.5 percent. CDRZs also have a lower percentage of white population compared with all census tracts: 57.14 versus 61.51 percent (note that race is not used in either the NRI or the CEJST).

On average, only 0.7 percent of a state's population resides in a CDRZ census tract, and only 10 states have 1 percent or more of their population in CDRZs. Hawaii and Oklahoma have the highest percentage of their population in CDRZs, and Maine and Connecticut have the lowest.

We explore two alternative approaches to creating CDRZs and compare the characteristics of communities designated under these alternative approaches with the actual CDRZs created by FEMA. First, we used FEMA's methodology to create a dataset of CDRZ designations based only on the NRI and not CEJST to better understand the importance of incorporating an official measure of a community's disadvantaged status in the designation. Census tracts with the 50 highest composite risk scores and the top 1 percent of census tracts within each state and the District of Columbia, based on composite risk score, were compiled. Next, we removed census tracts that are identified as disadvantaged by the CEJST. This created a dataset of high-risk, not disadvantaged census tracts-that is, tracts that meet the NRI risk criteria but were not designated as CDRZs because they were not disadvantaged according to CEJST. This created a list of 405 alternatively designated tracts.

Our second scenario explores the importance of ensuring that each state has at least one tract designated as a CDRZ. Here we generate a list of 483 tracts-the same number as in the actual CDRZ list-that have the highest NRI composite risk scores nationally and are also disadvantaged according to CEJST, but without requiring that the top 1 percent from each state be included. Analyzing this scenario sheds light on the geographic concentration of risks and which states would have fallen off the CDRZ list had there not been the 1 percent requirement.

Figure 2 depicts visual representations of CDRZs and the comparison datasets we constructed in the two alternative methodologies. It also includes a fourth option, which we refer to as a potential second round of CDRZs. We discuss this option in Section 5.3. The circles on the left side of each Venn diagram in Figure 2 represent the NRI parameters used in the designation process, and the circles on the right represent the CEJST disadvantaged status. The intersecting area in each represents census tracts that meet both the NRI and the CEJST criteria in that scenario. The area outlined in black represents the area that is, or would be, designated as CDRZs in each scenario.

Figure 2. Dataset Visual Representations

5.1. Comparing High-Risk, Not Disadvantaged Tracts to CDRZs

The map in Figure 3 represents scenario 2B, high-risk, not disadvantaged tracts (orange), compared with 2A, actual CDRZs (green). The high-risk, not disadvantaged tracts-that is, comparison designations based on the NRI but not CEJST-are generally located in similar areas to the CDRZs but appear more geographically concentrated. CDRZs are widely dispersed, with concentrations in the West, Midwest, and scattered pockets elsewhere. High-risk, not disadvantaged tracts are mainly in a north-south band from Texas northward through the central states and in clusters in Illinois, Pennsylvania, and Northern California.

Some states end up with more designations and others with fewer using these criteria. States with more high-risk, not disadvantaged designations relative to CDRZs have areas vulnerable to climate risk, but many of those areas are not also considered disadvantaged. For example, Michigan has 20 high-risk, not disadvantaged tracts and 10 CDRZs; Kansas has 6 high-risk, not disadvantaged tracts and 4 CDRZs. On the other hand, having fewer high-risk, not disadvantaged tracts than CDRZs indicates that many of a state's risk-vulnerable tracts are also disadvantaged. For example, Missouri has only 2 high-risk, not disadvantaged tracts but 16 CDRZs; Nevada has 1 high-risk, not disadvantaged tract but 7 CDRZs. Thus the use of the CEJST was important in identifying CDRZs in those states.

Figure 3. CDRZs and High-Risk, Not Disadvantaged Tracts in the Continental United States

Table 3 shows mean values for several characteristics of CDRZs and high-risk, not disadvantaged tracts and the results of t-tests for statistically significant differences in those means. While there are differences in means for all variables, the differences are not statistically significant for population density, property values, crop values, and expected annual losses. Significant differences are found for the other variables. CDRZs have significantly higher risk scores, higher social vulnerability, and lower community resilience than high-risk, not disadvantaged tracts. CDRZs are also less populated than high-risk, not disadvantaged tracts and have significantly more people in poverty and lower median incomes. CDRZs have a lower percentage of white residents than high-risk, not disadvantaged tracts. It is notable that CDRZs have higher risk scores. This finding suggests that using the CEJST in combination with the NRI did not result in the exclusion of (on average) higher-risk tracts from CDRZ designations. Rather, the CEJST seems to have mostly reinforced the criteria in the NRI. Notably, this scenario has only 78 fewer tracts than the CDRZ list (405 versus 483). There are 41,708 census tracts that are disadvantaged, according to CEJST, out of 73,057 census tracts in total in the United States. Thus 57 percent of all tracts are considered disadvantaged.

5.2. Removing the Top 1 Percent in Each State Requirement

Figure 4 shows a map of the 483 tracts with highest NRI composite risk scores that are also disadvantaged according to the CEJST without also requiring that the top 1 percent in each state be included, along with CDRZs. A total of 220 census tracts overlap; these tracts are represented on the map in red. Remaining CDRZs are shown in green; purple tracts are those highest-risk disadvantaged tracts that would have been CDRZs without the top 1 percent requirement.

In this scenario , the 483 highest-risk and disadvantaged tracts are concentrated along the East, West, and Gulf Coasts. Only 22 states are represented in this group-Alabama, Alaska, California, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Washington-leaving 28 states without a CDRZ. Thus the top 1 percent requirement significantly affects the tracts selected as CDRZs. The green areas on the map represent census tracts that were categorized as CDRZs by FEMA because of the top 1 percent from each state requirement. These tracts are mainly concentrated in landlocked areas such as Colorado, Kansas, and Missouri. The top 1 percent requirement has the biggest impact in New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, which have the highest number of green tracts (24, 21, and 21, respectively) but no top 483 tracts. California, Texas, and North Carolina have the highest number of top 483 tracts that do not overlap with CDRZs (purple tracts; 152, 24, and 20, respectively). These states would have received the most CDRZ designations if the top 1 percent requirement were removed. Lastly, the red areas on the map represent tracts that would have been designated as CDRZs with or without the top 1 percent requirement.

Figure 4. CDRZs and Highest-Risk, Disadvantaged Tracts

Table 4 shows summary statistics for various characteristics of CDRZs and this alternative list of the 483 highest-risk and disadvantaged tracts. The 483 highest-risk tracts have a less-white population than CDRZs. Notably, the average risk and social vulnerability scores are higher for these highest-risk tracts than for designated CDRZs. Thus the top 1 percent requirement ensured geographic diversity of CDRZs but led to the exclusion of some highly vulnerable at-risk communities in some parts of the country.

5.3. Comparing Potential Round 2 CDRZs with Initial Set of CDRZs

In this section, we analyze the characteristics of census tracts in a future potential round 2 list of CDRZs. Using the NRI and CEJST tools, we compiled a list of tracts that have the 100 highest risk scores based on the NRI and the top 2 percent of census tracts within each state and the District of Columbia. We then removed tracts already designated as CDRZs and tracts not identified as disadvantaged by the CEJST. This created a list of 407 potential round 2 CDRZs-that is, the next top 50 and next top 1 percent tracts in each state based on risks and that are also disadvantaged communities. Thus this list represents the result of a continuation of FEMA's method for designating CDRZs.

Figure 5 depicts the initial CDRZs (green) and potential round 2 CDRZs (pink) mapped together. Potential round 2 CDRZs appear slightly more geographically clustered than existing CDRZs and are found primarily in the South, particularly in Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia. Smaller pink clusters are seen in the Carolinas, Arizona, California, and southern Missouri and Illinois.

In this potential round 2, some states receive more CDRZs than in the first round and others fewer. For example, Florida has 32 CDRZs but would get only 25 round 2 tracts; Washington has 15 CDRZs but would get only 7 round 2 tracts; and South Carolina has 10 CDRZs but would get only 4 round 2 tracts. This suggests that most of these states' high-risk and disadvantaged tracts were already selected in the initial designation of CDRZs. Other states fare about the same in the second round as the first. Texas has 35 CDRZs and would get 39 round 2 tracts, and Georgia has 15 CDRZs and would get 17 round 2 tracts. This suggests that these states have many census tracts that were not designated as CDRZs in the initial round although they are high-risk and disadvantaged.

Figure 5. Existing CDRZs and Potential Round 2 CDRZs

Table 5 shows summary statistics for existing CDRZs and potential round 2 CDRZs. Compared with the initial set of CDRZs, potential round 2 CDRZs have lower building values, lower expected losses, and lower risk scores, suggesting that the additional tracts pulled into the CDRZ category generally fall lower on the overall NRI risk score, as expected. There are no significant differences between population and population density. However, potential round 2 tracts have slightly higher poverty rates and lower median incomes than existing CDRZs. This suggests that the CEJST may be carrying relatively more weight as the list of potential CDRZs expands. Potential round 2 tracts also have a lower percentage of their populations that are white than existing CDRZs.

Eastern North Carolina is a region that faces significant flood risks and vulnerability to sea level rise. In this section, we take a careful look at CDRZs designated in two counties in the region, Craven and Beaufort Counties, and investigate how the use of local data may have changed designation outcomes. We also summarize interviews with local officials and representatives from NGOs working in the region.

6.1. Community-Identified Tracts versus CDRZs and Comparison Datasets

Community representatives from Craven and Beaufort Counties used local data on hazard damages, house elevations, flooding, and expected loss from hazards to identify census tracts that are most vulnerable and would benefit most from resilience efforts. In most of these tracts, resilience projects are underway or have been deemed a priority (Holly White and Helene Wetherington, personal communication, March 20, 2024). Figure 6 maps these tracts (blue) alongside designated CDRZs (green) and potential round 2 CDRZs (pink). There is no overlap between the locally identified tracts and either the CDRZs or a potential round 2 CDRZ list. In Figure 6, circles are drawn around the three locations where tracts identified by community representatives share a border with CDRZs and potential round 2 CDRZs.

Community representatives are aware of the discrepancies. In our discussions with representatives of the North Carolina Office of Recovery and Resiliency (NCORR), one pointed out a tract designated as a CDRZ to show how close it was to a census tract they had identified as in need of funding for resiliency projects.

Figure 6. Community-Identified Vulnerable Census Tracts and CDRZs and Potential Round 2 CDRZs in Eastern North Carolina

6.2. Incorporation of Local Data Tools

In this section, we investigate how the use of other data tools, including those developed locally, may have changed designation outcomes in Craven and Beaufort Counties. North Carolina data sources such as the NC Environmental Health Data Dashboard (EHDD) illustrate census tracts with high environmental burdens based on a variety of social, environmental, and health indicators (NCDHHS 2024). Although there is overlap between the EHDD and the two national tools, the NRI and CEJST, the EHDD includes additional data on both environmental hazards and health outcomes. Neighborhoods at Risk is a national tool developed by Headwaters Economics that identifies census tracts that may experience unequal impacts from flooding and extreme heat (Headwaters Economics 2024). Both tools are free and publicly available. To determine whether these alternative data tools more accurately capture the tracts identified by community members, we constructed another set of comparison maps.

We first selected census tracts with a composite Environmental Health Index score greater than 0.7-that is, in the 70th percentile or higher of environmental burdens as determined by the EHDD. Figure 7 represents the overlap (purple) between these EHDD-identified tracts (gray) and the community-identified tracts (blue) from Figure 6. Five census tracts identified by community representatives were also identified by the EHDD.

Figure 7. Community-Identified Vulnerable Census Tracts and Vulnerable Tracts Identified by the EHHD in Eastern North Carolina

Using the Neighborhoods at Risk tool's variables and parameters, we selected census tracts with properties that have a flood risk of 10 percent or more, at least 10 percent of the area located in a 500-year floodplain, and at least 10 percent of housing units being mobile homes. These tracts represent those likely to experience unequal climate change impacts in this region. Figure 8 represents the overlap (purple) between these tracts selected using the Neighborhoods at Risk tool (gray) and community-identified tracts (blue). Nine census tracts identified by community representatives were also identified by the Neighborhoods at Risk tool.

The census tracts in Craven and Beaufort Counties identified as having high environmental burdens by the EHDD or unequal climate change impacts by the Neighborhoods at Risk tool, or both, more closely align with the census tracts identified by community representatives than do the CDRZ designations. The EHDD identified five overlapping census tracts, while the Neighborhoods at Risk tool identified nine overlapping census tracts. In contrast, there was no overlap between the community-identified tracts and the CDRZs or potential round 2 CDRZs, as depicted in Figure 6. These discrepancies highlight the limitations of relying on federal data and tools to designate CDRZs. They also show the potential of incorporating local knowledge and data tools in the designation process. This strategy was also suggested by local NGO representatives we interviewed, who expressed a desire for more nuanced CDRZ designations.

Figure 8. Community-Identified Vulnerable Census Tracts and Vulnerable Tracts Identified by the Neighborhoods at Risk Tool in Eastern North Carolina

Relying on a local data approach could have drawbacks, however. Some communities may have greater capacity than others to collect accurate climate risk data, which may exacerbate the very disparities that the CDRZ process is attempting to address. Local data for all communities in the United States would have to be considered and incorporated into designations with the same degree of scrutiny. Ultimately, CDRZs present the federal government with the opportunity to identify the most vulnerable and at-risk areas to ensure they receive support to adapt to the impacts of climate change. As the program moves forward, the debate over whether and how to bring local data, tools, and knowledge into the CDRZ process deserves more attention and discussion. If CDRZ designations do not match priorities at the state and local levels, the program risks failing to meet its objectives of helping the most underserved and at-risk communities.

To gain further understanding of CDRZ designation and usage, we conducted semistructured interviews with nine stakeholders from five different organizations. Table 6 lists these organizations, which represent government agencies, nonprofits, and research institutions. We aimed to gather information, experiences, and insights pertaining to CDRZs from professionals working in community resilience and disaster recovery. All interviewees have expertise related to community resilience and disaster risk reduction efforts at various levels of implementation. Our main objective was to understand the current practices, challenges, and opportunities associated with CDRZ implementation and explore potential strategies for enhancing their effectiveness and broader adoption.

The Geos Institute builds systems to help communities access support services to address the effects of climate change. EcoAdapt, Project In-CORE, and NCORR, are all part of the Geos Institute's Southeast Navigator Network. Launched in October 2023, the Southeast Navigator Network established individuals as navigators in four states to serve as "trusted partners to CDRZ communities" and help them take advantage of funding sources, identify capacity-building strategies, and secure technical support for resilience (Geos Institute 2024). NCORR is a state government agency that partners with local governments, other state agencies, and community organizations to improve resiliency. SERCAP aims to improve the quality of life for low-income individuals by promoting affordable water and wastewater facilities, community development, environmental health, and economic self-sufficiency across its regional programs.

We completed a thematic analysis of interview transcripts and identified six themes surrounding the implementation and use of CDRZ designations. These themes are awareness and understanding of CDRZs, coordination and alignment challenges across different levels of government, capacity and resource constraints, methodological and data concerns, equity and environmental justice considerations, and the need for sustainability and long-term planning. Table 7 lists these themes along with related interview sentiments.

These themes highlight significant challenges and opportunities in the current CDRZ framework. The first thing we learned is that there is a notable lack of awareness and understanding of CDRZs among designated communities. Nonprofit officials supporting CDRZs reported that community leaders in designated zones frequently had no idea they had been designated as a CDRZ or what the designation means for their community. Once they are made aware of their community's CDRZ status, leaders often face difficulties coordinating across different levels of government. For example, CDRZs are designated at the census tract level, but governance is at the town or city level, and applications for FEMA funding and other forms of assistance must be coordinated with county and state governments.

Another theme that emerged is the complexity of assisting CDRZ communities effectively because capacity and resources vary widely between CDRZs. Many concerns were raised about the methodology for CDRZ designations, particularly regarding the ability to capture local risk accurately using only federal data. Interviewees had questions about how to ensure that the CDRZ framework complements rather than complicates existing environmental justice initiatives. For example, several interviewees asked about the connection between the CEJST being used to designate both CDRZs and disadvantaged communities under the Justice40 Initiative.

Finally, especially for interviewees in North Carolina, there was an emphasis on the importance of long-term planning and sustainability in CDRZ implementation. Some agency workers and others remarked on their desire for future climate risks and long-term regional resilience strategies to be incorporated into the CDRZ framework.

These insights highlight the challenges, opportunities, and considerations surrounding CDRZ designations. They also underscore the complexity of CDRZ implementation and the importance of addressing identified challenges.

Attention to the problems of climate and disaster risks in the United States is increasing, with a greater focus on the need to build resilience. With passage of the Community Disaster Resilience Zones Act of 2022, Congress acknowledged the disproportionate impacts that disasters are causing in some socially vulnerable communities and the need to prioritize those communities for investments in resilience. In this report, we have taken a first look at the 483 communities designated as CDRZs, mapping where they are, summarizing their risk and sociodemographic characteristics, and comparing them with communities that might have been selected under alternative criteria.

The use of FEMA's National Risk Index (NRI) and the White House's Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool (CEJST) to designate CDRZs effectively selected the most socially vulnerable, least-resilient communities in high-risk areas, as Congress intended. Inclusion of the CEJST in the designation process, rather than use of the NRI alone, appears to have strengthened rather than undermined the selection of socially vulnerable communities.

The requirement to include tracts from every state, however, led to the exclusion of some highly vulnerable communities in favor of geographic representation. Losses from disasters are regionally concentrated, especially along the coasts, and highly vulnerable at-risk communities are mainly in the South and along the Gulf Coast (Walls and Liao 2024). With the requirement of state representation, some of those communities drop off the list in order to include communities in other states.

Our examination of potential round 2 CDRZs indicates that future designations are likely to have different geographic distributions and risk profiles than those in the initial set, with a tendency toward more socioeconomically disadvantaged areas but slightly lower overall risks. These findings highlight the complex trade-offs inherent in the current designation methodology and suggest areas for potential refinement.

Our case study of two counties in eastern North Carolina highlights the potential disconnect between federal designations and local realities. The incorporation of local data and knowledge could significantly enhance the accuracy and relevance of CDRZ designations. Although bringing in local data and knowledge must be balanced against the need for a standardized national methodology, the current approach could end up at odds with state and local efforts, which could undercut the objectives of the CDRZ effort. Thus we feel that better coordination with states and localities is needed. One idea would be to have the top 50 tracts selected with the national tools and the top 1% in each state selected by combining the state and local data and knowledge with the national tools. A step in this direction is for FEMA to start coordinating with state offices of resilience and emergency management to bring in state-sanctioned data and tools to the CDRZ process. Although some states are ahead of others in developing these tools and in their attention to resilience more broadly, the very process of engagement could push states to do more.

The challenges identified through stakeholder interviews-including lack of awareness about CDRZ designations and their implications, coordination difficulties across local and state governments, and varying community capacities-underscore the need for a more comprehensive implementation strategy. FEMA and other federal agencies should prioritize outreach and capacity-building efforts to ensure that CDRZ designations translate into tangible benefits for communities.

Finally, it is important to point out that the CDRZ approach can only do so much. The 483 CDRZs make up less than 1 percent of all census tracts in the United States. Clearly, many more communities need investments in resilience, including those that are socially vulnerable and disadvantaged. In addition, FEMA resilience funding is limited. The BRIC program had $1 billion in grant funding available in FY2023. In comparison, disaster recovery spending by FEMA-money spent to help individuals and communities recover from the impacts of a disaster-totaled more than $13 billion that same year. More emphasis on predisaster resilience investments is needed at all levels of government and in communities across the United States.

Building Climate Resilience in Vulnerable Communities: Analyzing Designation and Use of Community Disaster Resilience Zones

Click here to read the full report with citations.

PDF - 2.9 MB

Topics

• Climate Risks and Resilience
• Hurricanes and Flooding
• Wildfires
• Federal Climate Policy

Authors

Related Content