Disasters,1999, 23(2):156^173
Race, Ethnicity and Disasters in the United
States: A Review of the Literature
Alice Fothergill
University of Colorado
Enrique G.M. Maestas
University of Texas
JoAnne DeRouen Darlington
Western Illinois University
In this paper we synthesise past disaster research that addresses issues of race and
ethnicity in the United States. Using an eight-stage typology to organise the findings,
this literature review presents the results from a wide range of studies. The synthesis
shows how various racial and ethnic groups perceive natural hazard risks and
respond to warnings, how groups may be differentially affected, both physically and
psychologically, and how disaster effects vary by race and ethnicity during the periods
of emergency response, recovery and reconstruction. We show that studies have
important findings, many illustrating that racial and ethnic communities in the US are
more vulnerable to natural disasters, due to factors such as language, housing
patterns, building construction, community isolation and cultural insensitivities. By
presenting these studies together, we are able to witness patterns of racial and ethnic
inequalities that may be more difficult to see or interpret in individual studies that take
place in one specific time and place. We conclude the review with policy and research
recommendations.
Key words: race and ethnicity, United States, natural disasters.
The environmental justice movement examines social and racial inequities in exposure
to technological risks and hazards, monitors environmental racism in the siting of
hazardous materials, and seeks to eradicate the disproportionate vulnerability faced by
racial and ethnic communities in the US due to technological hazards (Bullard, 1990,
1994). Advocates of the environmental justice movement work to compile evidence to
illustrate how certain racial and ethnic groups are disadvantaged in order to change
policies and protect marginalised and less powerful communities in the US. As a result
of their efforts, there is considerable national attention on this issue.
While public concern grows over equity issues bound up with technological risks
and hazards, less attention has been given to natural risks and hazards and the social
inequities displayed in vulnerability to them. According to Blaikie et al. (1994),
vulnerability may apply to a person or group in terms of their ‘capacity to anticipate,
cope with, resist, and recover from the impact of a natural hazard’ (9). People’s
vulnerability to natural hazards is determined not so much by the event itself but, by
ß Overseas Development Institute, 1999.
Published by Blackwell Publishers, Oxford OX4 1JF, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.
Race, Ethnicity and Disasters in the United States
157
social, economic and political processes, society creates different conditions under
which people face hazards (Blaikie et al., 1994). In terms of racial and ethnic
communities, we believe that there are links between racism, vulnerability and
economic power in the disaster context that need to be explored. The disaster field has
long acknowledged that natural disasters are ‘social’ events, having their foundation in
the social structure, and recently the dialogue surrounding the vulnerability of racial
and ethnic communities in the US has increased (Anderson, 1996; Peacock et al.,
1997). None the less, a synthesis of the research outlining this vulnerability is lacking.
As it stands, the existing studies on racial and ethnic differences cover such a wide
spectrum of time, disaster event, place and racial group, that it is difficult to identify
patterns and draw conclusions.
The goal of this article is to review and synthesise the existing research literature on
issues of race and ethnicity in times of disaster in the US in order to take stock of what
is known and to identify gaps in our knowledge. The aim is to be as thorough,
inclusive and exhaustive as possible in the review, and we draw on both qualitative
and quantitative studies. The Natural Hazards Center Library at the University of
Colorado was a starting-point for collecting all articles that focused on the social
aspects of natural hazards and disasters. The majority of the articles reviewed here
were identified by electronic searches of the database. We focused on the US, as
previously much more attention has been paid to marginalised populations in other
countries (see, for example Blaikie et al., 1994). We used the terms ‘race’ and
‘ethnicity’, but each study used a variety of social labels for different individuals and
groups, such as Anglos (white Americans) or blacks, African-Americans and more
recently ‘people of colour’. As each study used different racial and ethnic terms, we
have made an effort to present the terms used in the original research, in order to stay
closest to the authors’ original meanings. Similarly, if the authors failed to place their
findings in the context of the larger population, the information from the original
article did not permit us to do so in this review either.
To present the findings, we use a typology based on the stages of a disaster event.
Borrowing from Fothergill (1996), the typology expands the cyclical framework of the
human ecological perspective which uses the following categories: preparedness,
response, recovery and mitigation. The expanded typology consists of eight categories,
based on the stages of a disaster: risk perception; preparedness behaviour; warning
communication and response; physical impacts; psychological impacts; emergency
response; recovery; and finally, reconstruction. This typology, designed for detailed
literature reviews, uses refined categories as they provide more detail in the analysis,
allow for more understanding of issues of stratification and help to pin-point the gaps in
our knowledge base. We focus solely on climatological and geophysical hazards and
disasters, such as hurricanes, floods and earthquakes. The results of the review follow;
explanations for the findings are provided only if they were given by the original author.
Research findings
Risk perception
This section examines how people viewed the risks and threats of disasters, and
presents evidence of how groups held different risk perceptions. The research record
158
A. Fothergill, E. Maestas and J.D. Darlington
shows that the findings for racial and ethnic groups’ perception of risk were mixed.
Some illustrate that racial and ethnic communities in the US had a heightened
perception of disaster risk, while others found no race or ethnicity differences. The
specific research findings follow.
In Ives and Furseth’s (1983) study of flooding in Charlotte, South Carolina, the
results showed no significant difference in hazard perceptions along race lines. There
was evidence that in the California earthquakes some immigrant groups had
heightened perceptions of risk due to disasters they had previously experienced in
Mexico. Prior to the Loma Prieta earthquake, the Watsonville residents who had
experienced the Mexico City earthquake, or heard about it from relatives or friends,
had more heightened perceptions of earthquake risks than other residents (Aptekar,
1990). Lindell et al. (1980), in research on flooding in a small town in 1978, found that
Mexican-Americans tended to define a risk as high much less often than whites, even
though they lived in equally hazardous areas.
In terms of feelings of fatalism and risk perception, a study done by Turner et al.
(1980) of earthquake threats in southern California, discovered differences between
Anglos, blacks and Mexican-Americans. Their study found that blacks were much
more fatalistic about earthquakes than Anglos, and felt that there was little or nothing
one could do to protect against them. Mexican-Americans and white Anglos were
about equal in their fatalistic feelings. However, some studies purport that white males
as a category were the least worried about the risks of natural disasters. Palm (1996)
discovered that white men were consistently the least concerned group about the risk
to their homes in her study. Blanchard-Boehm (1997) reported that blacks were most
likely to perceive the chances of a major earthquake seriously damaging their homes
to be high or extremely high.
Preparedness
Preparedness is the stage of a disaster involving all pre-event preparation activities and
mitigation efforts in advance of a specific warning. For example, preparedness
behaviour includes stocking emergency supplies, mapping evacuation paths, response
training, practice drills and disaster educational efforts. Little is known about
differences in disaster preparation between racial and ethnic groups during this stage,
but the limited literature suggests that there were some preparedness differences
pertaining to race and ethnicity.
In California, money had been allotted to preparedness after the Whittier-Narrows
earthquake, yet information about these efforts were disseminated only in English
(Tierney, 1993). Mejer (1994) explained that there is great cultural diversity in the
ways families and communities enact a ‘culture of safety’ (201). Before Hurricane
Andrew hit, black and Hispanic families were more likely than Anglo families to have
been helped by relatives in preparing for the disaster (Morrow, 1997).
Racial and ethnic communities were less likely to have had disaster educational
opportunities in the earthquake-preparedness stage, and as such, they were also
marginal to hazard preparedness (Faupel et al., 1992). Turner et al. (1980) studied
various racial groups and their household preparedness and found several differences.
Preparation, in their study, included having a flashlight, a battery-operated radio, a
first-aid kit, stored food and water, putting latches on cupboards and giving children
Race, Ethnicity and Disasters in the United States
159
earthquake instruction. They found that white Anglos prepared more than blacks or
Mexican-Americans. Mexican-Americans had less interest in earthquake insurance
than blacks or white Anglos. In their sample, white Anglos had higher education
levels, incomes and occupation levels of the household head than blacks or MexicanAmericans. Blanchard-Boehm (1997) found that whites were more likely than blacks,
Hispanics and Asians to make structural changes to minimise the damage an
earthquake might cause to their home. Of those that did not make improvements, the
reason most often given was that it was too expensive. Blacks were the least likely to
stockpile emergency supplies, and Asians the least likely to develop an earthquake
plan. Whites were the most likely to buy earthquake insurance (Blanchard-Boehm,
1997).
Warning communication and response
The warning communication and response stage entails receiving warnings, such as
emergency broadcasts and tornado sirens, or other risk communication of an
immediate danger, and taking some type of action in response to this warning, such as
evacuation. The warning response process is initiated by hearing the warning, which
leads to consideration of various behaviours. There have been several studies
examining racial and ethnic differences in the various components of the warning
process; the results of these studies follow.
Some research addressed the sources of disaster warnings. Perry and Mushkatel
(1986) found that Mexican-Americans used social networks to relay warning
information more than blacks or whites, and that urban residents, particularly
Mexican-American ones, had higher levels of warning information exchange. Phillips
and Ephraim (1992) reported that Anglos received formal information from Englishlanguage sources and Latinos received informal information from family and friends
based on events they experienced in other countries. Blanchard-Boehm (1997) also
found that Hispanics were more likely than whites, blacks and Asians to use social
networks for disaster information. Before Hurricane Andrew, minority households
were likely to report that relatives were an important information source (Morrow,
1997), while Gladwin and Peacock (1997) found that over 14 per cent of their subjects
relied exclusively on Spanish-speaking television and 32 per cent listened to Spanishlanguage radio for Hurricane Andrew information. Perry and Nelson (1991) confirm
more ethnic differences between Mexican-Americans, whites and blacks, in hazard
information dissemination. Mexican-Americans used social networks more than the
other two groups, and they preferred neighbourhood meetings more than the others.
Both minority groups were more likely to prefer local television for hazard
information than whites. Perry and Mushkatel (1986) discover that blacks and
Mexican-Americans preferred neighbourhood meetings as a communication channel
regarding hazards more than whites.
Other studies examine warning source credibility. In one study, the three groups
studied — blacks, whites and Mexican-Americans — found warnings from an
authority to be reliable. Mexican-Americans found the mass media to be reliable,
whereas blacks and whites found the media to be a less-reliable source. Whites with
previous disaster experience believed more strongly in the warnings they heard, but
this did not hold true for blacks and Mexican-Americans (Perry and Mushkatel, 1986).
160
A. Fothergill, E. Maestas and J.D. Darlington
Another study found that there were ethnic differences in the credibility of warning
sources and in the warning confirmation process: minorities were more likely to value
social networks as a source than whites, and minorities attempting to confirm the
warnings contacted a greater number of sources than did whites (Perry and Lindell,
1991).
Several studies explored the issue of the effectiveness of warnings and risk
communication. Aguirre (1988), after researching failed tornado warnings in Texas,
concluded that in the US disaster warning effectiveness ‘presupposes either a common
shared language and culture or the adaptation of the warning system to a multilingual
and multicultural social structure’ (73). Rogers (1992) focused on the communication
of risk information between the US army and a native Polynesian culture. He
determined that although they spoke the same language, the cultures failed to establish
a risk communication dialogue because they did not share a common framework and
had not developed shared meanings for effective risk communication. These different
cultural perspectives led to frustration, a breakdown of credibility and an atmosphere
of contempt. Rogers explains that the members of the native group saw this situation
as just part of a larger victimisation of their people.
Some research has addressed responses to warnings, such as evacuation and selfprotective behaviours. In the case of evacuation, Drabek and Boggs (1968) uncovered
ethnic differences following warnings of the 1965 Denver flood. While both Anglos
and Mexican families depended on kinship ties in the disaster, Mexican families had
more involvement and dependence on family for warning information and evacuation.
In another flood situation, Lindell et al. (1980) reported that Mexican-Americans are
less likely to evacuate than whites, even if their trust in the warnings was equal, but
Mexican-Americans were more likely than whites to undertake some protective action
short of evacuation. Perry and Mushkatel (1986) found that for blacks and whites, but
not Mexican-Americans, stronger belief in the warnings heard correlated closely with
taking protective actions; in evacuation, residents, regardless of race and ethnicity,
chose to go to friends and relatives’ homes, in preference to shelters.
Several more recent studies have examined attitudes towards evacuation and selfprotective behaviour. Morrow (1997) found that in the case of Hurricane Andrew in
Florida, Hispanics were the most likely to have evacuated relatives come and stay with
them during the storm. Perry and Lindell (1991), with research based on a flood in
Texas and a hazardous spill in Washington, found that while there were some ethnic
variations related to evacuation, overall ethnicity had a nonsignificant statistical effect
on warning compliance. Goltz et al. (1992), in a study of earthquake response
behaviour, found that Mexican-Americans followed a pattern of response including
self-protective action at home, work and while driving. The authors noted that this
could be a result of strong interpersonal networks where families had discussed
earthquake topics and warnings. Gladwin and Peacock (1997) found that blacks in the
evacuation zone for Hurricane Andrew were less likely to evacuate than other groups.
Physical impacts
The physical impact stage is concerned with the actual and immediate effects of the
disaster striking a community. Physical impacts include mortality, morbidity and
injury rates, as well as economic losses. Very often these rates are directly related to
Race, Ethnicity and Disasters in the United States
161
safe housing. While many studies and reports do not break statistics on physical
impacts down by race and ethnicity, there are several investigations that provide this
information.
In general, these data suggest that minority citizens experienced different consequences as a result of natural disasters than non-minority ones. Red Cross fatality
counts indicated that disaster-connected deaths were disproportionately high among
ethnic minorities (Trainer and Hutton, 1972). Bates et al. (1963) found that a
disproportionate number of blacks died in Hurricane Audrey; the death rate there was 38
per thousand population for whites and 322 per thousand for blacks. Moore (1958) found
similar discrepancies in a tornado; 4 per cent of the white families had at least one
family member seriously injured while 12 per cent of the black families had seriously
injured family members. Bolin and Bolton (1986) discovered that 10 per cent of the
white victims had at least one friend injured, while 20 per cent of the black victims had
the same. Schmidlin (1993) reports that from 1950 to 1989 most of the Ohio tornado
victims were white. Only 3.2 per cent of all tornado victims were black, well below the
state’s 9.1 per cent black population; however, few blacks lived in the tornado-affected
area.
Unequal impact may also have been due to housing factors. In the US many ethnic
group members live in apartment buildings that are often older and contain
unreinforced masonry (URM), which are among those most susceptible to damage
in a disaster (Bolton et al., 1993; Cooper and Laughy, 1994). Indeed, URM buildings
are so heavily occupied by low-income ethnic group members that researchers used
Los Angeles’s list of URM buildings to locate low-income Latino households (Bolton
et al., 1993). In a post-flood survey about risk perception comparing blacks and whites
in similar areas, blacks were the only respondents to estimate over $2,500 in damages
and higher rates of damage estimation over $1,000 due to flooding in Charlotte, North
Carolina (Ives and Furseth, 1983).
Bolin and Bolton (1986) found that in the Paris, Texas tornado, damage levels were
directly related to ethnicity. Their research showed that blacks, due to their older,
poorly built homes, had higher levels of physical damage than whites, but lower dollar
losses. They posit that structural damage is related to race and ethnicity because of
segregated residential patterns and the economic restraints on safe construction. One
study, however, found that in California earthquake-fault areas, while they were
racially and ethnically diverse, did have slightly more white residents than in the state
as a whole, and these resided in newer housing (Grow and Palm, 1981).
Psychological impacts
This section examined work on the emotional stress, trauma and other psychological
impacts of a disaster event. Research carried out on race and ethnicity and the
psychological impacts of a disaster is somewhat limited. Green (1993), in her review
of psychological impacts in disaster studies, speculated that there were very few
studies perhaps since researchers were uncomfortable with the topic or maybe samples
are too homogeneous in terms of race. Yet, the studies that have been done have found
some important correlations.
Aptekar (1990) found that social class and race contributed to residents’
psychological reactions to the disasters, specifically in regard to the importance of
162
A. Fothergill, E. Maestas and J.D. Darlington
collective memories. In a small South Carolina town, founded on slave labour, the
African-American victims recalled — in the context of needing assistance from others
after the storm — their grandparents’ stories of slave days. In particular, they
recounted how their ancestors were dependent on the white plantation masters and
slave owners. In Perry and Perry’s (1959) research on children’s emotional symptoms
after tornadoes in rural Mississippi, they found the black children who survived fared
better than white children in a different disaster. They attributed this to the black
children having more support beyond the immediate family and that they had more
household and farm responsibilities. These helped stabilise the children and made
them feel more important to the family. This study also found that the community had
trouble coming to terms with the tornado killing only blacks, as the disaster challenged
their view that a just God does not discriminate between white and black.
In research concerned with fear associated with earthquakes, Goltz et al. (1992)
determined that the highest levels of fear about the earthquake were expressed by
people with lower incomes and educational levels, women and Hispanics. The authors
reported that the least fearful were whites and Asians. Garrison (1985), in a literature
review on stress and disaster relocation, also found a correlation between class/
ethnicity and stress reactions. Her study found that for the poor and minorities the
relocation after a disaster was also stressful. The critical variables, she found, included
perceptions about increased indebtedness and the degree of control. A lack of control
over the situation and the future led to feelings of helplessness and of being trapped.
Shoaf (1998) related that blacks and Latinos reported the most emotional injuries in a
survey done after the Northridge earthquake. A recent study (Khoury et al., 1997),
examined the effects of the problems and stress from Hurricane Andrew on minor
deviant behaviour among adolescents. Race and ethnicity were not related to posthurricane deviance for boys, although they were for girls; Hispanic and AfricanAmerican girls in the sample were more likely to engage in minor deviant behaviour
than white non-Hispanic girls, both before and after the disaster.
In a study of the psycho-social recovery of older people who survived a tornado,
Bolin and Klenow (1988) also discovered race differences. They found that a higher
proportion of elderly whites were psycho-socially recovered eight months after the
disaster than their black counterparts, even though their housing had sustained an
equal amount of damage; but elders in general recovered faster than younger people.
Bolin and Klenow concluded that the black elderly had slower psycho-social recovery
than whites mainly because they had fewer economic resources with which to obtain
permanent housing and thus avoid multiple moves in and out of temporary housing. It
is hard to know if the difference in recovery was a result of class, race or a
combination of the two. Bolin and Klenow (1988) also found that family was not
associated with recovery for white victims, but was positively associated with
recovery for black victims.
In a study of the Buffalo Creek dam collapse disaster, Gleser et al. (1981) presented
some interesting findings on race and emotional recovery. In the original studies done
on the community two years after the disaster, blacks fared better than whites and
demonstrated less impairments as a result of the disaster. Yet, this could be attributed
to the fact that the blacks lived lower down in the valley, and their community was less
destroyed and suffered no fatalities. Blacks and whites in this event had similar class
status. Green et al. (1990) performed a follow-up study on this community 14 years
after the dam collapse and found that more blacks had delayed post-traumatic stress
Race, Ethnicity and Disasters in the United States
163
disorder (PTSD) than whites. The authors speculated that initially many blacks felt
that God had protected them during the flood. Later, more prejudicial attitudes
resurfaced in the community, which increased the risk among blacks for PTSD (Green
et al., 1990).
Emergency response
The emergency response stage of a disaster is the post-impact period. It is the
immediate aftermath of a disaster, the first hours, days, sometimes up to one week,
depending on the event and surrounding circumstances. The material reviewed
illustrates that race and ethnicity are significant variables in the stage.
During the emergency response period the interactions of relief workers and
victims of different races and ethnicities deserve attention, as that relationship may
determine the subsequent recovery of a community. There is some indication that
emergency personnel who arrive in a disaster setting to offer assistance may be
culturally insensitive. Following Loma Prieta, the Red Cross brought in volunteers
from the East Coast who were not sensitive to the cultural needs of the Hispanic
population (Katayama, 1992).
Language is often an issue. Several studies showed that emergency agencies have
either too few or no bilingual personnel for bilingual populations (Phillips and
Ephraim, 1992). Subervi-Velez et al. (1992) found that agencies had too few bilingual
staff for Spanish speakers and were even less prepared for Asian victims. After
Hurricane Andrew, much of the early relief information was provided only in English,
preventing area Latinos and Haitians from receiving needed food, medical supplies
and assistance information (Yelvington, 1997). In addition, some house tags, placed
on homes to alert residents of the building’s status, were printed in English only
(Phillips and Ephraim, 1992). After the Whittier Narrows earthquake, some Latinos
reported that the English-language radio tended to have better information than the
Spanish-language stations; the sole Chinese newspaper was out of date and the
Hispanic radio stations focused on human-interest stories which resulted in these
ethnic communities getting incorrect information (Bolton et al., 1993). Problems can
also arise between victims and relief workers due to conceptual differences. For
example, in Hawaii after a hurricane, research found there were difficulties in locating
victims’ homes on maps, as Hawaiians and mainland Americans have different
conceptions of spatial relations (Mitchell, 1985).
Research illustrates that the interactions between relief personnel and racial and
ethnic communities play out the pre-existing social problems and structural
stratification. Following Hurricane Frederick, for instance, response workers restored
power in black areas only after it was restored in white areas, and black communities
received less emergency shelter, ice, food and assistance (Beady and Bolin, 1986).
After the Whittier Narrows earthquake, authorities placed signs reading ‘Not Fit for
Occupancy’ on buildings with English-speaking tenants, while the Spanish translation
read ‘Entry Illegal’, and was posted on the buildings of Spanish-speaking residents
(Cooper and Laughy, 1994: 7). Indeed, after Loma Prieta, shelters in well-off
neighbourhoods had more volunteers than homeless and received visits from the
mayor, while at a low-income emergency shelter it was reported that Anglo volunteers
made racist remarks and the mayor paid no visits (Dhesi, 1991).
164
A. Fothergill, E. Maestas and J.D. Darlington
Food and meal preparation is another area in which cultural awareness is necessary.
Following the Loma Prieta earthquake, many Latinos became sick from the Anglo
food prepared by relief workers as the unfamiliar ingredients were difficult for them to
digest (Phillips, 1993). In the aftermath of Hurricane Hugo, Mexican women and the
military relief workers held a ‘cook-off’ at a shelter site to end disagreements over
which food was preferred by the hurricane victims; they chose the Mexican fare
(Morrow and Enarson, 1994).
Media coverage also affects the rate to which a community progresses in the
response, recovery, and reconstruction periods (Rodrigue and Rovai, 1994). Recent
studies show that ‘media narratives of disaster are not particularly reliable in their
representation of damages in socio-economically and ethnically diverse areas’ (op.
cit.: 6). Subervi-Velez et al. (1992) suggested that the English-language news focused
on San Francisco, and not on Watsonville, with its large minority population. The
existing media bias, with more media attention and overall coverage to wealthier,
whiter communities, largely contributed to the fact that these communities recovered
more quickly (Rodrigue and Rovai, 1994). The researchers posited that ‘the socioeconomic structure, together with and reinforced by the media, clearly affect the
abilities of communities to recover from disaster: poorer communities recover more
slowly than more prosperous (especially whiter) ones’ (op. cit.: 6–7). Specifically, the
emergency and disaster management personnel often assessed the hardest-hit areas
immediately after a disaster by turning to the media coverage and then responding to
those areas featured.
Recovery
For the purposes of this review, the recovery stage is considered the one-year period
following a disaster. It is usually characterised as a time of returning to ‘normality’
and of rebuilding, allocating resources, finding housing and repairing lifelines in a
community. The material reviewed found significant patterns in terms of race,
ethnicity and recovery.
Socio-economic factors contribute to the marginalisation of some communities of
colour during the recovery stage. Many minorities had greater difficulties recovering
due to lower incomes, fewer savings, greater unemployment, less insurance and less
access to communication channels and information (Bolin and Bolton, 1986; Cooper
and Laughy, 1994; Peacock et al., 1997). After Hurricane Andrew, racial differences
in insurance settlement claims were found. Blacks and non-Cuban Hispanics were
more likely than Anglos to receive insufficient settlement amounts, although there
were no differences between Hispanics and Anglos if they had insurance with a major
company. The results showed that black neighbourhoods were not likely to have
insurance with major companies, which may be due to red-lining practices (Peacock
and Girard, 1997). Bolin’s (1993) earthquake research found that Anglo employment
was more severely disrupted because Anglos dominated the employment of the central
business district, which was largely destroyed; Hispanics faced other economic
troubles. Hispanics were unlikely to have household insurance, and they were more
likely to have moved more frequently after a disaster than Anglos. Non-whites were
more likely than whites to cite churches and the Red Cross as helpful sources of
information during recovery, and less likely than whites to report that television, radio
Race, Ethnicity and Disasters in the United States
165
or newspapers were useful (McDonnell et al., 1995). After the Northridge earthquake,
many Latinos faced political and cultural marginalisation, and limited housing and
employment opportunities (Bolin and Stanford, 1998).
Studies have also addressed racial and ethnic differences in who received recovery
assistance. Upper-middle-class victims were more likely to know how to work through
the government system, fill out forms, and manoeuvre within the relief system — with
the result that they were more likely to receive aid than non-whites and poor victims
(Aptekar, 1990). Bolin and Bolton (1986) concluded that blacks and Hispanics were
more likely to be left out of the formal aid network and to recover economically more
slowly. Yet, another study finds that Mexican-Americans, as they had higher losses
and fewer resources, were more likely to use federal aid and housing programmes
(Bolin, 1993). Another study also found that minorities might have used more federal
aid (Bolin and Stanford, 1991). They might also have used mass shelters more; after
Hurricane Andrew, the tent cities population was roughly 50–60 per cent Latino and
30 per cent black (Yelvington, 1997).
Some research addressed housing issues during recovery. In the recovery following
Tropical Storm Agnes in 1972, one study found that initially housing was assigned
along racial lines: whites were assigned to a new suburban housing development and
blacks were assigned to a high-rise housing project, a discriminatory practice that was
uncovered and stopped. Otherwise the researchers found little evidence of racial
discrimination, although they criticised the federal agencies for not setting up
mechanisms to prevent racial discrimination in future post-disaster situations
(American Friends Service Committee, 1972). Bolin (1993) disclosed that landlords,
wanting to avoid rent-control rules, evicted tenants for late rent after the earthquake,
which occurred on the first of the month. Relocation after a 1970 tornado in Texas
placed Anglo, Negro and Mexican-Americans in one neighbourhood, whereas prior to
the disaster the three ethnic groups were highly segregated residentially. The
researchers found language barriers to be a large factor in the adjustment of the
groups, but the majority had favourable attitudes towards the new post-disaster
integration. The least willing to adjust to the new neighbours were Anglos, and
children of all groups intermingled more than adults with other racial groups (Minnis
and McWilliams, 1971).
Studies have also covered issues of residence status and household structure. Many
undocumented immigrants were concerned over the unclear Immigration and
Naturalization Service (INS) policy, and thus, shied away from recovery assistance
for fear of deportation (Subervi-Velez et al., 1992; Bolin, 1993; Cooper and Laughy,
1994). After Hurricane Andrew, this fear of immigration officials may be one reason
for the low occupancy rates at the tent cities when the military first opened them
(Yelvington, 1997). Non-traditional family structures may be a problem with officials
in disaster aftermaths. Following Hurricane Andrew, FEMA had trouble with some of
south Florida’s family structures, particularly Haitian families, who often had several
families in one household. FEMA’s temporary assistance was set up for nuclear
households with one head of household (Morrow, 1997).
The relationship between the recovery agencies and the disaster victims also
illustrates the relevance of race, ethnicity and cultural perceptions. After the villagers
of two Alaskan villages lost their homes to an earthquake and tsunami, the Bureau of
Indian Affairs (BIA) did not take into account the native culture and lifestyle (Davis,
1986). While the villagers centred family life in the kitchen, not the living-room, BIA
166
A. Fothergill, E. Maestas and J.D. Darlington
built houses with very small kitchens and large living-rooms, which remained unused
or became storage areas after the villagers moved in. In addition, the new houses were
equipped with bathtubs, another feature that went unused or to store canned goods, as
the villagers used steam baths (Davis, 1986). The aftermath of the 1989 Loma Prieta
earthquake, Watsonville contains a useful illustration of the importance of avoiding an
us-and-them relationship. While the Latino population of Watsonville was 60 per cent,
the city decision-makers and Red Cross officials were predominantly white — a
situation that contributed to the conflict. One study cited the example of an engineer
who told the residents they had 15 minutes to remove their belongings before he
condemned their buildings. He later admitted he exercised this power only for his own
convenience and he felt that if he gave them more than 15 minutes they would bring
out ‘unimportant’ items (Aptekar, 1990). After Hurricane Andrew, many non-Englishspeaking women of colour, especially single women in desperate need of home
repairs, were vulnerable to the dishonest practices of construction contractors (Enarson
and Morrow, 1997). In San Francisco, community-based organisations invited the Red
Cross to work with them to do outreach in low-income and non-English-speaking
communities, but the Red Cross declined (Subervi-Velez et al., 1992).
Recovery workers must account for a community’s culture, history and prior
experience, as overlooking these factors may lead to more problems in recovery.
Following several earthquakes, many of the Latino victims had experienced or had
been told, through family and friend connections, of earthquakes in their countries of
origin, such as the Mexico City 1985 earthquake and the deadly aftershocks, and thus
shunned the temporary shelters (Bolton et al., 1993; Phillips, 1993). In Miami,
immigrants from countries with a history of political repression, such as El Salvador
and Guatemala, were averse to getting help (Enarson and Morrow, 1997). In
California, some residents of Central American origin found the National Guard tents
and fences to be reminders of death camps in their native countries and refused to use
them (Phillips, 1993). In the tent cities erected after Hurricane Andrew, there were
many ethnic conflicts; one tent occupant, for example, continually played a tape of a
song with lyrics containing racial slurs (Yelvington, 1997).
Reconstruction
The final stage in the typology is reconstruction, the last period in the disaster cycle
and one that is sometimes neglected. The reconstruction phase follows recovery, thus
extending from approximately the first year after the event to several years later.
Reconstruction surrounds a community’s long-term restoration, including rebuilding,
replacing infrastructure, obtaining loans and assistance, and locating permanent
housing. Once again, the disaster record illustrates the influence of race and ethnicity
during reconstruction.
The successful reconstruction of a community often depends on many structural
factors, playing out primarily in the field of housing options. If a community is
suffering from poverty, unemployment and homelessness prior to a disaster, for
example, it will face many related obstacles, such as housing crunches, following the
event. Overall, while some very poor victims were better off in the short-term
recovery (Aptekar, 1990), it appears that communities of colour were more likely to
have experienced a decline in their standard of living than white communities in the
Race, Ethnicity and Disasters in the United States
167
long term (Bolin and Stanford, 1991). In Watsonville, California after the Loma Prieta
earthquake, the town lost 8 per cent of its housing stock (Phillips, 1993). In a black
community in Florida, Hurricane Andrew created housing and economic problems on
top of existing poverty, a limited economy and negligible political power (Dash et al.,
1997). A 20-year follow-up study of two Alaskan villages of native populations found
that the village that was growing prior to the earthquake and tsunami was able to
recover completely and prosper in the long run. However, the village that was
declining before the disaster had ceased to exist 20 years later (Davis, 1986). Bolin
(1993) remarks that post-earthquake problems included housing shortages and rent
increases, which were especially problematic for low-income and minority
populations in Los Angeles; many Hispanics were attached to their neighbourhoods
and did not want to relocate. After Hurricane Andrew, blacks were less likely than
Anglos to relocate, and data show that blacks remained in badly damaged areas. This
may have happened because of economic constraints as well as the barriers of
residential segregation (Girard and Peacock, 1997).
Members of racial and ethnic minorities are less likely to qualify and receive
various types of aid, including Small Business Association (SBA) loans, and to have
trouble with the housing process. A study of the aftermath of a Texas tornado, for
example, found that whites were much more likely to qualify and receive SBA loans
than blacks (Bolin, 1986; Bolin and Bolton, 1986). After the Northridge earthquake,
FEMA and SBA loans and grants were not very accessible to ethnic-minority
households (Bolin and Stanford, 1998). In the Loma Prieta reconstruction, those who
had illegal housing prior to the event were ineligible for disaster aid (Phillips, 1993).
Minority groups may also have trouble securing permanent housing for reasons other
than purely economic ones. Phillips (1993) also reported that there were allegations of
racism in the housing process. Language, too, is cited as a barrier in the housing
market, as well as in the aid and relief system. Bolin (1993) found that the majority of
Latino victims could not speak English well enough to use the relief system. In
Watsonville, language surfaced again as a housing problem, as those in need of a place
to live were Spanish-speaking and the rental market was dominated by Anglos
(Phillips, 1993).
The reconstruction stage of a disaster may be a time of opportunity for change.
There is some indication in the literature that communities may become politicised
due to the social disruption and inequities of the disaster. Enarson and Morrow (1997)
reported that Mexican farmworkers, Haitian immigrants and African-American church
women ‘galvanized their neighborhoods into action’ (128). Indeed, after Andrew,
women representing all of the major ethnic and racial groups formed an emergent
political coalition, in response to the official, homogeneous, organisation formed for
Miami’s reconstruction (Enarson and Morrow, 1997). Bolin (1993) found that during
reconstruction the evidence of social inequality led to political and social conflict and
litigious actions of citizens against officials, which, in turn provided an opportunity for
change. His study discovered that coalitions of community activists, federal agencies
and private organisations pushed to build low-income housing as part of the planned
reconstruction in Santa Cruz County. These integrated efforts were very effective and
some Latinos ultimately experienced an improvement in their living conditions.
Other studies found that disasters can open political dialogues on social inequalities
(Bolin and Stanford, 1991) or create an enhanced sense of ethnic identity (Davis, 1986).
Peacock and Ragsdale (1997) reported that there is the possibility that Hurricane
168
A. Fothergill, E. Maestas and J.D. Darlington
Andrew played a role in post-disaster elections in which several African-Americans
were elected to public office. Simile (1995) found that after a hurricane in South
Carolina, white church groups gave charity and sympathy to poor, rural black victims,
while in Watsonville, California, following the Loma Prieta earthquake, Latinos
engaged in collective action against the white power structure. According to this
research, disasters may provide the opportunity for contentious collective action, but
only groups engaged in such action before a disaster will be likely to engage after the
disaster. Finally, Barry (1997), in his recent book on the 1927 Mississippi flood, argues
that the mistreatment of blacks during the flood affected the black shift from the
Republican to the Democratic party, as well as the migration of blacks to northern states.
Discussion and conclusion
This synthesis of findings from previous studies allows us to see what a natural
disaster means in terms of race and ethnicity. The studies presented, taken as a whole,
paint a picture of increased vulnerability and risk to disasters for racial and ethnic
communities in the US. Given these current — albeit incomplete — data, there are
some policy changes that can be initiated in order to decrease the inequitable risk and
vulnerability. However, this literature review also points to gaps in the knowledge
base and the need for more extensive research. Therefore, we will briefly discuss our
recommendations for future policy, based on what we now know, and future research,
based on the identified knowledge gaps.
In light of the findings and the evidence of racial and ethnic inequities, we have
several policy recommendations. First, that large-scale organisations and agencies
working on disasters should understand the specific diversity issues of each area, plan
for changing demographics of the area and ensure that members of all communities
are involved in the disaster-reduction process. For example, agencies could forge
connections with neighbourhood associations, churches and other community groups,
so that the community, and not outside organisations, can decide what its needs are in
a disaster. It is important that groups are not left out of the disaster-reduction process;
people who are marginalised in the early stages are marginalised later — they need to
be part of the planning from the beginning. In addition, we recommend the
multilingual dissemination of information in all eight stages of a disaster. These efforts
will help remove language barriers and promote cultural sensitivity: two problems that
surfaced in the review.
Our suggestion does not imply, however, that agencies are not working in this area;
several agencies have made a concerted effort to incorporate better policies for a
diverse population. The Red Cross, for example, after receiving criticism in the Loma
Prieta earthquake, worked to improve and become more aware of diversity issues
before making changes in their organisation. The Association of Bay Area
Governments (ABAG) and the United States Geological Survey (USGS), after a
Bay-area earthquake, produced a large newspaper insert about the risk in a dozen
languages. FEMA, which also publishes materials in several languages, recently
showed more flexibility and increased sensitivity in their disaster-assistance process.
The California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (OES) has also made strides
to educate, prepare and assist those in their diverse region. These efforts and others not
mentioned should be applauded, and we recommend more efforts in this area.
Race, Ethnicity and Disasters in the United States
169
We strongly recommend that policy-makers address the issue of housing. One of
the most consistent and significant findings in the review is that racial and ethnic
communities in the US face enormous housing problems in a disaster. These problems
include living in unsafe buildings which expose them to greater risks and dealing with
housing shortage obstacles following a disaster. The lack of affordable, safe housing
after a disaster is partly due to the fact that the private housing market hinders the
reconstruction of low- and moderate-income rental unit rebuilding — perhaps due to
red-lining by insurance companies. We recommend that policies are initiated to assist
vulnerable populations with housing, such as ordinances to require landlords to make
mitigative improvements, or provide incentives or tax breaks to ensure that they do so
voluntarily, and policies that require insurance companies to cover minority
communities. We also recommend that cities establish and enforce rent-control
policies, to ensure that rents do not skyrocket when they have been repaired or
upgraded.
The literature review, while exhibiting certain patterns of inequalities that merit
policy change, also illustrates that many gaps exist in our disaster literature on the
topic of race and ethnicity in the US. We wish to make several recommendations about
the direction of future research. Many believe that the vulnerability of racial and
ethnic communities to disasters is mainly due to economic status and resources, and
argue we should be addressing class issues, not those of race and ethnicity (Mileti et
al., 1992; Mileti, 1999). It is true that racial and ethnic communities are
disproportionately poor in the US, and that the proportion of poor among racial and
ethnic minorities in the nation are growing. Yet, it is important that we do not dismiss
issues of race and ethnicity. While in many ways they cannot be separated from issues
of economic resources and power, in other ways they explain marginalisation in the
disaster experience in a manner that socioeconomic factors cannot. For example, there
is evidence in this review of cultural ignorance, ethnic insensitivity, racial isolation
and racial bias in housing, information dissemination and relief assistance. We
recommend that more detailed, in-depth qualitative research be done to uncover the
ways in which race and ethnicity contribute to vulnerability in a disaster. For example,
we need to explain why racial and ethnic communities may have higher-risk
perception, but lower preparedness levels. In terms of subjects, we need more research
about Asians and Native Americans.
We also recommend that future research be developed in conjunction with
practitioners working in local communities. It has been found that research geared
towards a particular community with specific needs is more likely to be useful,
constructive, and thus, implemented. For example, as a community recovers from a
disaster, various service providers need to know if their outreach work is successful,
and social scientists have the tools to assess the extent and outcome of their efforts. As
a research community invested in reducing the vulnerability of marginalised
individuals, groups and communities, we need to work with people in the field and
gear our research projects towards the needs of practitioners and community members.
In addition, work in these research projects needs to acknowledge and take into
account the historical and cultural context and be careful with generalisations.
We hope that this review and recommendations will help to steer a productive
course towards ending the vulnerability of many minority communities in the US to
disasters. Like the environmental-justice field, the disaster community is concerned
about issues of justice and equity. We hope that disaster scholars follow the
170
A. Fothergill, E. Maestas and J.D. Darlington
environmental-justice researchers and focus more efforts on issues of racial equality.
In the last decade the disaster research community has begun more thoroughly to
document racial and ethnic inequalities in disaster risk and vulnerability in hopes of
improving the situation and taking measures to prepare for future events. This
literature synthesis, while the depth of the findings vary for each stage, provides us
with enough evidence to conclude that racial and ethnic communities are more
vulnerable to natural disasters and that the reasons for this are complex, at times
enigmatic, and finding solutions will be an arduous but worthwhile challenge to all
who work in the disaster field.
Acknowledgement
This is a revised version of a paper presented at the 91st Annual Meeting of the
American Sociological Association (1996). This work was supported by the National
Science Foundation Grant Number CMS-9312647, which is gratefully acknowledged.
The authors would like to thank Dennis Mileti, David Morton, Lara Feland, Eve
Passerini and Mary Fran Myers for their assistance.
References
Aguirre, B.E. (1988) The Lack of Warnings Before the Saragosa Tornado. International
Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters 6(1): 65–74.
American Friends Service Committee (1972) The Agnes Disaster and the Federal
Response. Report for American Friends Service Committee, Philadelphia.
Anderson, W.A. (1996) The Underserved in Natural Disaster Reduction. Unpublished
paper. Hazard Mitigation Section, National Science Foundation, Washington.
Aptekar, L. (1990) A Comparison of the Bicoastal Disasters of 1989. Behavior Science
Research 24(1–4): 73–104.
Barry, J.M. (1997) Rising Tide: The Great Mississippi Flood of 1927 and How It Changed
America. Simon & Schuster, New York.
Bates, F., C.W. Fogleman, B. Parenton, R. Pittman and G. Tracy (1963) The Social and
Psychological Consequences of a Natural Disaster. NRC Disaster Study 18. National
Academy of Science, Washington.
Beady, Jr., C.H. and R.C. Bolin (1986) The Role of the Black Media in Disaster Reporting
to the Black Community.Working Paper No. 56. Institute for Behavioral Science,
University of Colorado, Boulder.
Blaikie, P., T. Cannon, I. Davis and B. Wisner (1994) At Risk: Natural Hazards, People’s
Vulnerability, and Disasters. Routledge, New York.
Blanchard-Boehm, D. (1997) Risk Communication in Southern California: Ethnic and
Gender Response to 1995 Revised, Upgraded Earthquake Probabilities. Research
Report. Natural Hazards Research and Applications Information Center, Boulder.
Bolin, R. (1986) Disaster Impact and Recovery: A Comparison of Black and White
Victims. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters 4(1): 35–50.
—— (1993) Household and Community Recovery after Earthquakes. Institute of
Behavioral Science, University of Colorado, Boulder.
—— and P.A. Bolton (1986) Race, Religion, and Ethnicity in Disaster Recovery. Institute
of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado, Boulder.
—— and D.J. Klenow (1988) Older People in Disaster: A Comparison of Black and White
Victims. International Journal of Aging and Human Development 26(1): 29–33.
—— and L. Stanford (1991) Shelter, Housing and Recovery: A Comparison of US
Disasters. Disasters 15(1): 24–34.
Race, Ethnicity and Disasters in the United States
171
—— and L. Stanford (1998) The Northridge Earthquake: Community-based Approaches to
Unmet Recovery Needs. Disasters 22(1): 21–38.
Bolton, P.A., E.B. Liebow and J.L. Olson (1993) Community Context and Uncertainty
Following a Damaging Earthquake: Low-Income Latinos in Los Angeles, California.
The Environmental Professional 15: 240–47.
Bullard, R.D. (1990) Dumping in Dixie: Race, Class, and Environmental Quality.
Westview, Boulder.
——(1994) Overcoming Racism in Environmental Decisionmaking. Environment 36(4):
10–20, 39–44.
Cooper, F. and L. Laughy (1994) Managing Hazards in a Changing Multinational World.
Unpublished paper.
Dash, N., W.G. Peacock and B.H. Morrow (1997) And the Poor Get Poorer: A Neglected
Black Community. In W.G. Peacock, B.H. Morrow and H. Gladwin (eds.) Hurricane
Andrew: Ethnicity, Gender, and the Sociology of Disasters. Routledge, New York.
Davis, N.Y. (1986) Earthquake, Tsunami, Resettlement and Survival in Two North Pacific
Alaskan Native Villiages. Natural Disasters and Cultural Responses. Studies in Third
World Societies No. 36. College of William and Mary, Williamsburg,
Dhesi, N. (1991) The Social Impacts of the 1906 and 1989 Earthquakes. Unpublished
paper. University of Colorado, Boulder.
Drabek, T.E. and K.S. Boggs (1968) Families in Disaster: Reactions and Relatives. Journal
of Marriage and the Family August: 443–51.
Enarson, E. and B.H. Morrow (1997) A Gendered Perspective: The Voices of Women. In
W.G. Peacock, B.H. Morrow and H. Gladwin (eds.) Hurricane Andrew: Ethnicity,
Gender, and the Sociology of Disasters. Routledge, New York.
Faupel, C.E., S.P. Kelley and T. Petee (1992) The Impact of Disaster Education on
Household Preparedness for Hurricane Hugo. International Journal of Mass
Emergencies and Disasters 10(1): 5–24.
Fothergill, A. (1996) Gender, Risk, and Disaster. International Journal of Mass
Emergencies and Disasters 14(1): 33–56.
Garrison, J.L. (1985) Mental Health Implications of Disaster Relocation in the United
States: A Review of the Literature. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and
Disasters 3(2): 49–65.
Girard, C. and W.G. Peacock (1997) Ethnicity and Segregation: Post-hurricane Relocation.
In W.G. Peacock, B.H. Morrow and H. Gladwin (eds.) Hurricane Andrew: Ethnicity,
Gender, and the Sociology of Disasters. Routledge, New York.
Gladwin, H. and W.G. Peacock (1997) Warning and Evacuation: A Night for Hard Houses.
In W.G. Peacock, B.H. Morrow and H. Gladwin (eds.) Hurricane Andrew: Ethnicity,
Gender, and the Sociology of Disasters. Routledge, New York.
Gleser, G.C., B. Green and C. Winget (1981) Prolonged Psychosocial Effects of Disaster:
A Study of Buffalo Creek. Academic Press, New York.
Goltz, J.D., L.A. Russell and L.B. Bourque (1992) Initial Behavioral Response to a Rapid
Onset Disaster: A Case Study. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and
Disasters 10(1): 43–69.
Green, B.L. (1993) Mental Health and Disaster: Research Review. Paper for the National
Institute of Mental Health, Violence and Traumatic Stress Research Branch,
Washington.
——, J.D. Lindy, M.C. Grace, G.C. Gleser, A.C. Leonard, M. Korol and C. Winget (1990)
Buffalo Creek Survivors in the Second Decade: Stability of Stress Symptoms.
American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 60(1): 43–54.
Grow, C. and R.I. Palm (1981) Population and Housing in the Special Studies Zones.
Natural Hazards Research and Applications Information Center, University of
Colorado, Boulder.
Ives, S.M. and O.J. Furseth (1983) Immediate Response to Headwater Flooding in
Charlotte, North Carolina. Environment and Behavior 15(4): 512–25.
172
A. Fothergill, E. Maestas and J.D. Darlington
Katayama, T. (1992) Aftermath of the Loma Prieta Earthquake: How Radio Responded to
the Disaster. INCEDE Report No. 2.
Khoury, E.L., G.J. Warheit, M.C. Hargrove, R.S. Zimmerman, W.A. Vega and A.G. Gil
(1997) The Impact of Hurricane Andrew on Deviant Behavior among a Multi-racial/
ethnic Sample of Adolescents in Dade County, Florida: A Longitudinal Analysis.
Journal of Traumatic Stress 10(1): 71–91.
Lindell, M.K., R.W. Perry and M.R. Greene (1980) Race and Disaster Warning Response.
Research paper. Battelle Human Affairs Research Center.
McDonnell, S., R.P. Troiano, N. Barker, E. Noji, W.G. Hlady and R. Hopkins (1995)
Evaluation of Long-term Community Recovery from Hurricane Andrew: Sources of
Assistance Received by Population Sub-groups. Disasters 19(4): 338–47.
Mejer, J.H. (1994) Hazard Perception and Community Change: Cultural Factors in Puna,
Hawaii. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters 12(2):199–213.
Mileti, D.S. (1999) Disasters by Design: A Reassessment of Natural Hazards in the United
States. Joseph Henry Press, Washington.
——, J.H. Sorensen and P.W. O’Brien (1992) Toward an Explanation of Mass Care Shelter
Use in Evacuations. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters 10(1):
25–42.
Minnis, M.S. and A.P. McWilliams (1971) Voice of the People in Disaster and After: A
Study of Residential Integration. Texas Tech University, Lubbock.
Mitchell, J.K. (1985) Prospects for Improved Hurricane Protection on Oceanic Islands:
Hawaii after Hurricane Iwa. Disasters 9(4): 286–94.
Moore, H.E. (1958) Tornadoes over Texas. University of Texas Press, Austin.
Morrow, B.H. (1997) Stretching the Bonds: The Families of Andrew. In W.G. Peacock,
B.H. Morrow and H. Gladwin (eds.) Hurricane Andrew: Ethnicity, Gender, and the
Sociology of Disasters. Routledge, New York.
—— and E. Enarson (1994) Making the Case for Gendered Disaster Research. Paper
presented to the XIIIth World Congress of Sociology. July, Bielefeld.
Palm, R. (1996) Communicating to a Diverse Population. Presentation of research results at
the Natural Hazards Workshop, Denver.
Peacock, W.P. and C. Girard (1997) Ethnic and Racial Inequalities in Hurricane Damage
and Insurance Settlements. In W.G. Peacock, B.H. Morrow and H. Gladwin (eds.)
Hurricane Andrew: Ethnicity, Gender, and the Sociology of Disasters. Routledge, New
York.
——, B.H. Morrow and H. Gladwin (eds.) (1997) Hurricane Andrew: Ethnicity, Gender,
and the Sociology of Disasters. Routledge, New York.
—— and A.K. Ragsdale (1997) Social Systems, Ecological Networks and Disasters:
Toward a Socio-Political Ecology of Disasters. In W.G. Peacock, B.H. Morrow and H.
Gladwin (eds.) Hurricane Andrew: Ethnicity, Gender, and the Sociology of Disasters,
Routledge, New York.
Perry, H.S. and S.E. Perry (1959) Schoolhouse Disasters: Family and Community as
Determinants of the Child’s Response to Disaster. National Academy of Sciences,
National Research Council, Washington.
Perry, R.W. and M.R. Greene (1982) The Role of Ethnicity in the Emergency DecisionMaking Process. Sociological Inquiry 52(4): 306–34.
——, M.R. Greene and A.H. Mushkatel (1983) American Minority Citizens in Disaster.
Grant NSF-PFR80-19297 Final Report, Battelle Memorial Institute, Columbus Labs.,
Columbus.
—— and A.H. Mushkatel (1986) Minority Citizens in Disasters. University of Georgia
Press, Athens.
—— and L. Nelson (1991) Ethnicity and Hazard Information Dissemination. Environment
Management 15(4): 581–7.
—— and M.K. Lindell (1991) The Effects of Ethnicity on Decision-making. International
Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters 9(1): 47–68.
Race, Ethnicity and Disasters in the United States
173
Phillips, B.D. (1993) Cultural Diversity in Disasters: Sheltering, Housing, and Long-Term
Recovery. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters 11(1): 99–110.
—— and M. Ephraim (1992) Living in the Aftermath: Blaming Processes in the Loma
Prieta Earthquake. Working Paper No. 80. IBS, Natural Hazards Research and
Applications Information Center, University of Colorado, Boulder.
Rodrigue, C.M. and E. Rovai (1994) The ‘Northridge’ Earthquake: Differential
Geographies of Damage, Media Attention, and Recovery. Unpublished paper.
Rogers, G.O. (1992) Aspects of Risk Communication in Two Cultures. International
Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters 10(3): 437–64.
Schmidlin, T.W. (1993) Tornado Fatalities in Ohio, 1950–1989. Geophysical Monograph
No. 79: 529–34.
Shoaf, K. (1998) Psychological Effects of the Northridge Earthquake. Presentation of
Research at the 23rd Annual Hazards Research and Applications Workshop. July 13,
Boulder.
Simile, C. (1995) Disaster Settings and Mobilization for Contentious Collective Action:
Case Studies of Hurricane Hugo and the Loma Prieta Earthquake. Disaster Research
Center, University of Delaware, Newark.
Subervi-Velez, F.A., M. Denney, A. Ozuna and C. Quintero (1992) Communicating with
California’s Spanish-Speaking Populations: Assessing the Role of the SpanishLanguage Broadcast Media and Selected Agencies in Providing Emergency Services.
Report, California Policy Seminar, Berkeley.
Tierney, K.J. (1993) Socio-Economic Aspects of Hazard Mitigation. Preliminary Paper No.
190, Disaster Research Center, University of Delaware, Newark.
Trainer, P. and J. Hutton (1972) An Approach to the Differential Distribution of Deaths and
Disaster. Paper presented at the meeting of the Midwest Council on Social Research in
Aging, Kansas City.
Turner, R.H., J.M. Nigg, D.H. Paz and B.S. Young (1980) Community Response to
Earthquake Threat in Southern California. Institute for Social Science Research,
University of California, Los Angeles.
Yelvington, K.A. (1997) Coping in a Temporary Way: The Tent Cities. In W.G. Peacock,
B.H. Morrow and H. Gladwin (eds.) Hurricane Andrew: Ethnicity, Gender, and the
Sociology of Disasters. Routledge, New York.
Address for correspondence: Alice Fothergill, Department of Sociology,
University
of
Colorado,
Boulder,
Colorado
80309,
USA. E-mail:
Purchase answer to see full
attachment