
A victim and a prisoner were the two nouns Hurricane Katrina survivor and poet, Shelton Alexander, used to describe following the landfall of the storm. Alexander describes being made a prisoner by the restrictive and ineffective protocol plans within his community. Recovery from a natural disaster is the summation of the communities pre-existing vulnerability, coping capacity, the magnitude of the storm’s impact, and lastly the availability of recovery resources. Demographics such as age, gender, and socio-economic class affect the availability of resources thus impacting the rate of recovery. The factors are relative to a community’s social vulnerability level and how individuals within their respective communities can prepare and recover from a natural disaster. Mass media outlets including major news networks and social media sites like Twitter alike have the ability to spread awareness and Research studies indicate how many media outlets attribute more importance to recovery and aid efforts facilitated by the federal government. Historically, emergency preparedness and preparation protocol have struggled to receive their needed attention due to the focus on major storms ex-post facto. The persisting damage from the devastating storms that recently hit South Carolina calls for the modification of disaster protocol and prevention procedures within the coastal community. Research concludes that in the event that a natural disaster occurs the most vulnerable populations are in fact more susceptible to discrimination and are granted fewer resources, therefore more communities need to advocate for their local legislators to create new or edit current disaster protocol plans to be more inclusive and efficient.  

 Social, racial, and economic factors play a large role in an individual and community’s ability to recover from a natural disaster. In the event of natural disasters, the most vulnerable populations often experience delayed and inefficient assistance as well as negative media portrayals. Social vulnerability is defined as “the socioeconomic characteristics that influence a community’s ability to prepare, respond, cope, and recover from a hazard event” (Finch et al). Social vulnerability is not only a function of the demographics of the population but also includes social constructs such as healthcare, social capital, and access to emergency resources. The social vulnerability index, a statistical means of evaluating neighborhoods, uses factors such as race, age and socioeconomic status to designate areas as low, medium, or high levels of vulnerability. Residents of high social vulnerable areas typically have more difficulties preparing, coping, and recovering from a hazardous event as a result of their “pre-event socioeconomic circumstances” (Finch). Multiple studies and government-funded research have been conducted to assess vulnerable populations and to designate each community to a certain level of perceived vulnerability. Vulnerable populations are assessed based on infrastructure, median household income, age, gender, disabilities, and more constructs. Seemingly low socially vulnerable areas may become high socially vulnerable areas due to infrastructure and other events that co-exist with massive storms. 

The allocation of resources plays an important role in how low socially vulnerable communities recover. Local and state governments create specific protocols for their respective communities. A disaster procedure plan is a set of procedures aimed at minimizing damage and death during and following a natural disaster. It details emergency shelters, evacuation routes, and denotes where governmental funds will be used. The evaluation of historical storms to hit the United States has shown a pattern in regards to governmental support. Many residents of storm-stricken areas are left with options to sell their homes to the state or use state funding to rebuild their homes. Correlational studies with statistics from previous storms have indicated that levels of social vulnerability and the distribution of governmental support for recovery were inversely proportional. The results of these studies allow researchers to conclude that the more socially vulnerable a population was, the fewer funds the residents and small businesses received. 

Historically, protocol and disaster planning have been mainly prioritized within the media after storms have caused damage. Media is largely responsible for what public health officials call media agenda setting or the coverage of events with the ultimate goal of influencing public opinion and policy. The media “advances the needs of vulnerable populations through policy-based messages” (Barnes et al). Analyses of popular news sources during multiple national disasters indicate that the media emphasizes government response more often than journalists address individual and community levels of preparedness (Sommers et al). The focus on government response affects how local and state governments, as well as the public, assess the severity of certain national events. The influence of the media can be crucial in evaluating social and government response to natural disasters in the future. 

The events that transpired in New Orleans in the wake of Hurricane Katrina are a useful case study. Images flashed on all major news networks of families laying on their roofs because the water level had pushed them out of their homes. Incidents of African Americans rummaging through food and housewares from convenience stores that had been flooded and abandoned permeated the media’s rhetoric. The usage of derogatory terms such as “looter” and “thief” applied disproportionately to people of color largely influenced self-concepts which in turn affected the rate of recovery for these individuals (Washington et al). A study conducted in Weems et al. concludes that “residents of New Orleans were more likely than the other regional groups to experience perceptions of discrimination” potentially due to the more frequent, negative media portrayals of the residents (Weems et al). The media’s portrayal of natural disasters guides the public to focus primarily on government aid or the lack thereof. Critics argue that the media did not address individual and community levels of preparedness or responsibility enough. The specificity of community-level programs allows for a more positive and effective response to recovery options. Analyses of multiple news sources before, during, and after hurricanes indicate how significant media setting can be. Although a solution to the issues surrounding natural disasters is multifaceted, major newspapers and news networks can use their influence to address issues within region-specific policy making and lessen the sensationalism attached to situational acts of desperation present in traumatic events. Whenever a major storm hits, celebrities, communities, non-profit organizations and others raise funds to support the victims of the event. Hurricane Katrina survivor, Michael White, writes about his empathy for Hurricane Harvey and Irma victims because he’s too familiar with “what they will experience after the water recedes and after the nation’s attention moves on” (White). After only a couple of weeks, the media hype dies down and the general public's attention is shifted. Major news networks and social media sites are excellent channels to distribute information and to assess what topics are relevant amongst the public. 

 Disaster recovery not only serves as a means to restore the physical damage of a community but also to lessen the degree of psychosocial impacts. These psychosocial impacts include the onset of post-traumatic stress disorder, discrimination, and other social constructs. Rebuilding and improving infrastructure for affected neighborhoods should be prioritized through community initiatives to indirectly improve psychosocial symptoms within neighborhoods. The psychological trauma of natural disasters must be included in an evaluation of recovery from natural disasters because psychological symptoms impact the rate of recovery of victims. The Weems et al. study was a correlational analysis that found that many victims of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans experienced a heightened exposure to discrimination, lessened social support, and a plethora of emotional symptoms. The symptoms assessed within the study mainly lined up with symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder. Although the victims within the study experienced relatively the same levels of physical damage, victims in the greater New Orleans area experienced disproportionate levels of discrimination (Weems et al). State governments pressuring victims to sell their homes to the government instead of obtaining funds to rebuild reflects discrimination within recovery. These vulnerable neighborhoods are often the ones who suffer the most economically. Because of this, storms often present themselves as opportunities to rebuild neighborhoods in a different look, light, and often with new residents. From a public health perspective, mental health evaluations are just as important as physical damage evaluations. Homes can be rebuilt, roads can be fixed, but severe emotional responses to trauma typically are more difficult to prevent, manage, and cure. Acute stress disorders are commonly experienced by individuals who experience severe trauma but what turns this disorder into PTSD is the longevity of the symptoms. PTSD symptoms can affect individuals for months and even years after the initial trauma. These symptoms ultimately lessen the quality of life and can stimulate other mental health disorders to surface within an individual such as depression and anxiety (Weems et al). 

The issues surrounding natural disaster relief and protocol have always existed but have recently become a main topic within the national media. Hurricane Matthew wreaked havoc on the east coast in 2016 followed by one of the most disastrous storms to hit the south, Hurricane Harvey. Hurricane Matthew slammed South Carolina with major flooding that displaced residents and wrecked infrastructure. Residents and state officials underestimated the extent of damage the storm would cause resulting in a messy, prolonged re-building process. Reverend Woodberry, a member of the EPA Environmental Justice Leadership Forum and the SC Energy Coalition, states how low-income communities in Columbia specifically “have been stripped of their natural land barriers, exposing them to the worst impacts of natural disasters”. South Carolina lawmakers have proposed the formation of new industrial-scale facilities within the state. In order to meet the production goals denoted by this proposal, the state would need to annually log over 70,000 acres of forests (Woodberry). This would inadvertently expose communities to an increased risk of natural disasters.  Due to the fact that neighborhoods, homes, and roads in South Carolina are still damaged from the recent storms, South Carolina residents should put pressure on elected officials to not pass legislation that would increase the vulnerability of their constituents.

A major barrier to rebuilding neighborhoods is funding. Perennial programs and fundraisers need to be an ongoing initiative so that in the event that these storms occur, funds will already be allocated for either planning or recovery purposes. A nonprofit organization known as SBP or the St. Bernard Project works to “shrink time between disaster and recovery through five interventions: rebuilding efficiently, sharing [their] model with other organizations, preparing home and business owners through resilience training, advising municipal and state officials, and advocating for policy changes and improvements to the disaster recovery industry” (SBP). Founded in 2006 after Hurricane Katrina, SBP not only works year round to fundraise and raise awareness about the importance of disaster preparedness but employs volunteers who help rebuild homes and clean up storm-related debris for communities. Another main initiative of the organization is to partner with the “state government in South Carolina to ensure that Volunteer Organizations Active in Disaster (VOAD) groups are best equipped and supported with SBP's resources and best practices in long-term residential recovery” (SBP). Rebuilding these affected neighborhoods will not only improve the visual appearance of these neighborhoods but will increase morale for victims. The damages are not only physical but psychological. These storms destroy homes, memories, livelihoods, and often all that many victims have. By funding and supporting research on the impact of a traumatic event on an individual's susceptibility to experience post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, depression, and more, states can include social work campaigns within disaster relief plans. These plans would include therapy as a resource as well as other social support systems. A suggestion would be mobile therapy and counseling services that can visit neighborhoods and shelters to offer talk therapy and other resources to victims and their families. 

 According to the Washington et al study, storms like Hurricane Katrina “brought to the forefront what many Americans thought was long buried: the realization that poverty, race, and social class are a prevailing force used to make critical governmental decisions”. In order to ensure that vulnerable populations are not disproportionately exposed to more trauma as a result of delayed resources and negative portrayals in the media, state legislators must revisit and update disaster plans to fit the specific needs of the community. As of this past September, the federal government has given up to $15 billion of aid in response to Hurricanes Harvey and Irma that hit Florida, Georgia, and Texas. Critiquing the works of FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, is not beneficial for the cause especially being that FEMA workers receive hundreds of thousands of applications requests from aid following major disasters. For the recent storms alone, over 800,000 applications have been sorted through and over $400 million have been distributed (Horowitz). Currently, the majority of state funds focus on joblessness and repairing infrastructure. The majority of FEMA’s funds are received as personal grants and loans to cover damage to one’s household or loss of furniture and other valuables within the residence. 

Research on crisis-level natural disasters suggests that the most effective response during the immediate aftermath of the event depends on first-line responders, operational commanders (governors, mayors, etc.), and lastly the resilience of citizens (Boin et al). Opposing lawmakers and legislators would argue that latter is the most important factor. They also purport that the modification of disaster protocol plans is not an effective means of developing solutions to social disparities in wake of catastrophic events. One avenue of opposition is the idea that although technology in meteorology has allowed storm trackers and meteorologists to predict these large natural disasters, these storms are still uncontrollable. My opposition would argue that these storms are largely unavoidable thus the blame for the negative impacts should not be put on state and federal governments. These storms are unavoidable but as with any other public health-related topic, officials within the field promote programs and agendas that reduce the rates of morbidity and mortality as a result of these events. FEMA and other storm-related government personnel critique my proposed plans by claiming that not enough attention is placed on disaster mitigation and preparedness. The emphasis on crisis management which includes post-disaster works such as “impact analysis, response, amendment, and reconstruction” overshadows the importance of risk management initiatives which include “preparedness, prediction, early warning, and disaster awareness” (Caymaz et al). According to a disaster and emergency management model formulated for provinces within Turkey, operation, planning, press information, logistics, and liaison are the five main factors in affecting change. Formulating new disaster protocol plans will strengthen the communication between the federal and state governments. Disaster reports from Hurricane Katrina indicated that the responsibilities denoted for state and federal governments were not clear in the aftermath of the storm. This discrepancy disallowed the maximum amount of resources from being distributed and lengthened the duration of community recovery. These new disaster protocols will be neighborhood and community-specific which will allow vulnerability indexes to denote which areas are more vulnerable than others. 

Why didn’t they evacuate? This question periled through peer conversations and media interviews in criticism of the New Orleans residents who were left behind. The director of Homeland Security, Richard Skinner, confirmed that the criticism of the slow government response time was warranted for multiple reasons. The Federal Emergency Management Agency, more commonly known as FEMA, not only failed to comprehend the magnitude of the storm until three days after landfall but was “ill-prepared to conduct the massive search-and-rescue function” that the destruction required (Ahlers). The Department of Homeland security’s report detailed shortcomings in emergency housing. Cruise ships contracted for emergency shelter were inaccessible during the first thirty days following the storm. The Superdome was a vital emergency shelter but evacuees learned of the deplorable conditions within it when it was too late. The importance of personal responsibility over government aid is the stance many lawmakers take. Often when the media begins warning populations of an upcoming storm, residents who are non-compliant with mandatory evacuations shape media rhetoric. According to a telephone survey conducted at Harvard University, nearly one in four Katrina-affected respondents indicated their intention to stay despite evacuation protocols. Many residents choose not to abandon their homes when news of a storm hits the media. Should we encourage protocols to focus on personal responsibility? My opposition would say yes, but the focus cannot be on personal responsibility only. Individual differences disallow personal responsibility to be a primary focus of disaster prevention and recovery. Different resources, demographics, and many other factors create the divide between neighborhoods and communities in relation to disaster recovery. 

Response to trauma is “not one-dimensional and interventions that treat individuals with ‘‘one size fits all’’ prevention interventions are not only ineffective but may be detrimental” (Ahlers). Although state and federal governments take numerous precautions to cope with natural disasters, previous shortcomings indicate that more comprehensive measures should be taken for pre and post-disaster phases. These measures should be specific to the needs and social vulnerability levels within the community to ensure that resources and aid are not distributed disproportionately. Although my opposition emphasizes personal responsibility as a vital factor in emergency preparedness, communities can work to properly inform residents of the dangers of refusing to evacuate. These proposed changes will employ state governments with the ability to prepare and efficiently provide aid to their respective communities made vulnerable by natural disasters. Natural disasters are unavoidable occurrences that will continue to impact our modern world but with the help of feasible, efficient, and socially inclusive disaster protocol plans, we can aim to reduce the rates of morbidity and mortality due to these events. Agenda setting within the media has the potential to redirect national attention and put pressure on community and state leaders to readily find solutions to these problems. 

According to Reverend Woodberry, “when we fail to care for the least among us--we contribute to the problem”. Residents of South Carolina should pressure South Carolina's elected officials to amend the state budget to better accommodate disaster relief funds. The disproportionate allocation of relief strengthens racial and class divides within suffering communities. Historically, media outlets have extrapolated the issue by not only applying negative connotations to minorities but by centering their journalism on governmental shortcomings. If local communities individually push for a change in state disaster protocol plans, the plight of victims of future natural disasters will be diminished. Now is the time to discuss where local governments went wrong in their procedures. Waiting for another monumental storm to flatten homes, displace humans, and cause irreplaceable damage would be too late. 

 
