JEM Social vulnerability: An emergency managers planning tool

JEM Social vulnerability: An emergency managers planning tool Garrett Dolan, PhD Dmitry Messen, PhD ABSTRACT The frequency of natural disasters in the United States is increasing. 1 Since 1953, there has been an average of 35 Federal Emergency Management Agency declared disasters per year. 2 However, more concerning is that the number of declarations has more than doubled over the last 5 years for an average of 73 per year. Although it is true that natural disasters affect everyone regardless of their respective health and/or wealth, it is also true that not everyone will experience the event in the same way. Those who can adapt to changing situations are more likely to overcome adversity. This article explains social vulnerability as an emerging concept in natural hazard management and demonstrates its utility as a tool for planning and preparing for emergencies within the Houston- Galveston hurricane storm surge evacuation zones. Practitioners will gain insight into the characteristics that make individuals vulnerable while providing a basis for determining how to plan for their needs. Key words: social vulnerability, evacuation, natural disaster, hazard, hurricane storm surge, emergency management, planning tool INTRODUCTION Natural disasters affect everyone regardless of their respective socioeconomic status in life. However, for emergency managers, it is important to delve further into understanding and adapting to the certainty that not everyone will experience the event in the same way. 3 Indeed, it is recognized worldwide that s vulnerability to risks depends largely on the assets (ie, physical, emotional, social, and financial) they have available at the time of occurrence 4 : the belief being that demographic characteristics shape s ability to absorb, cope with, and recover from natural hazards.* In At Risk, 5 the authors contend that human factors are just as important a determinant of a disaster, as nature. They emphasized the significance for examining predisaster socioeconomic characteristics of a person or group and referred to it as social vulnerability. There are many social factors that could influence a person s vulnerability to hazards including age, culture, disability, illiteracy, education, gender, household composition, income level, politics, poverty, religion, and race/ethnicity. 6-8 * Understanding the social factors that cause one individual, or group, to become vulnerable will give emergency managers insight into the characteristics that make them distinctive while providing a basis for determining how to best plan for, and respond to, their needs. Ultimately, by understanding an individual s or group s susceptibility to hazards, emergency managers have the potential to act in a way that will strengthen s abilities to react and adapt to situations in a resilient manner. Three social characteristics that are particularly insightful and applicable to the vast majority of hazardous events are age (those 65 years and older), income (those living at or below poverty), and race/ ethnicity. *S. Van Zandt, Associate Professor and Fellow, Hazard Reduction & Recovery Center, Texas A&M University, phone interview, August 30, 2011. Racial and ethnic groups refer to population groups identified by their ancestral origin on different continents. Black denotes African-American origin background, White denotes European background, and Hispanic or Latino denotes Latin American background. Based on the scientific consensus that race is a social construct, race and ethnicity are used interably. This is consistent with the definition used by the Robert Woods Jones Foundation s Commission to Build a Healthier America. DOI:10.5055/jem.2012.0095 161

Age (elderly 65 years and older) Those who are 65 years and above represent a significant segment of the population that is vulnerable to natural hazardous. Social scientists have discovered that the elderly population is vulnerable to hazards due to a variety of reasons such as health status, cognitive ability, and social support. 9 Researchers 10 report that limited physical mobility and difficulties searching for information are key causes of vulnerability, whereas other researchers have uncovered evidence that decreased information processing and problem-solving skills, declining memory capacity, and reasoning skills increase their susceptibility to risk. 11 Family members or caretakers who look after the elderly may find it increasingly difficult to continue giving support after a disaster because of competing time demands to care for their own children. During moments of high stress, like before and during a natural hazard, require astute decisionmaking skills. Thus, any decrease in cognitive abilities leading to memory lapses and confusion are cause for concern. They need to address the following fundamental questions that can have life or death consequences: How is the hazard going to impact me? What should I do? Where should I go? How do I get there? When a person s mental capacities are compromised, pressure-filled situations often bring confusion, bewilderment, and paralysis. Thus, staying in a place that is known and familiar like their home is relatively comforting. Bob and Clare James of Boynton Beach, Florida are good examples. They had to be removed by a Special Weapons and Tactics team from their retirement community after Hurricane Wilma (2005). The elderly couple decided to stay at home during the storm because they didn t know where else to go and had no one to guide them. Apparently, they were not alone: a 100-year-old neighbor was in bed when the roof of his condo collapsed on him. 12 Income (subgroup poverty) Income level is also an insightful indicator of social vulnerability. Poor households are disproportionately impacted by natural disasters because they are often located in precarious areas and housing constructed to subpar standards. 13 The United States government defines the 2011 poverty level for a family of four at $22,350 per year or $430 per week. 14 When a family is at, or below this level, the financial resources required for preparation and response are very limited. 15 Evidence demonstrates that struggles related to housing, transportation, and employment are the most pervasive. 12,16,17 An Associated Press report on Hurricane Katrina residents in the three dozen of the hardest-hit neighborhoods in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama found that nearly 25 percent of those living in the hardest-hit areas were below the poverty line, about double the national average. 12,18 Complicating the matter is the fact that the poor are less likely to own a vehicle and as a result are less likely to be able to evacuate in a timely manner. 19 The Associate Press noted that 20 percent of the low income households had no car. When a disaster occurs, the consequences are felt the hardest by those with the least amount of financial resources. Consider the ripple effect caused by a local company closing because of flood damage. At least for a short period of time, the company will not be generating revenue or contributing to the tax base of the community. For those employees who may be temporarily or permanently out of work, they are losing not only wages but also access to healthcare. 16 A downward spiral of economic turmoil can be created whereby the out of work employee becomes increasingly dependent on government welfare programs that are simultaneously being underfunded because of lost tax revenue. In this situation, it is conceivable that portions of the population will become dependent on social welfare programs. Race/ethnicity (subgroup Hispanic) According to the 2010 Census, nearly 36 percent of the United States population identifies themselves as a member of a racial or ethnic group other than White non-hispanic. 20 Race and ethnicity are important indicators of social vulnerability, because they can reflect the challenges that exist with integrating 162

minority population into the larger community. 21 Characteristics such as language and cultural practices can create artificial barriers that impede opportunities for cross-cultural dialog and engagement, prerequisites for building trust and respect. Effective emergency risk communication requires the appropriate selection of messages, messengers, and methods of delivery to disseminate information to audiences from before an event to after it occurs. 22 Emergency managers need to be cognizant of their community s demographic trends so they can make accommodations to their communications plan and reach a wider audience. In Texas, the state s population has experienced unprecedented growth especially in the Hispanic population which accounts for two-thirds of all growth in the last decade. Hispanics now make up 38 percent of the state s 25.1 million, up from 32 percent a decade ago. 23 Considering that only 23 percent of first-generation immigrants from Spanish-speaking countries said they spoke English very well 24 it is apparent that the inability to communicate in the native language of the region can increase your vulnerability. Such demographic trends bring forth the obvious need to consider sending multilingual messages and also highlight the importance of considering how vulnerable population receive messages. Dr. Walter Peacock has identified a variety of research studies where the source of information relates to the validity of the message. 25 Social networks, the media, emergency personnel like firemen, and government authorities are perceived differently. For example, those who identify as Whites tend to see media and government authorities as the most credible sources, whereas those who identify as Blacks favored government authorities and social networks. By contrast, Mexican-Americans first turn to social networks for their information such as extended family members or religious institutions. Applying social vulnerability The US Global Change Research Program 26 states that the frequency and intensity of hurricanes and related storm surges could increase along the upper Texas coast. Emergency managers are under more and more pressure to safeguard the public. A framework for thinking about the relationship of natural hazards to humans needs to become commonplace. Social vulnerability can address these concerns by illustrating the level of susceptibility for an individual or group to a risk. It is a concept based on the belief that /groups have different abilities to cope with hazards and as such, it is not enough to plan for a natural disaster based solely on the characteristics of the storm. 27 Social vulnerability adds the dimension of sensitivity to the scenario by considering the capacity or capability of a person to adapt. Social vulnerability is a more -centric approach to hazard mitigation; therefore, any analysis begins by asking the following questions: What social characteristics make vulnerable to the approaching hazard because their ability to move to a safer location is compromised? Specifically, how do these characteristics impact their ability to understand warnings and take appropriate responses? Where are these located? STUDY AREA Located within the State of Texas, the Houston- Galveston area is made up of 13 counties covering 12,189 miles 2 and has a total population of 6.08 million. 28 The region is predisposed to severe rainstorms and flooding with low-lying coastal areas being the most susceptible to damage. The National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration s National Climatic Data Center has reported that the Texas Gulf Coast is a leading contributor to the BILLION Dollar Disaster List. 29 In an effort to ensure a safe and expeditious evacuation from future hurricanes, the Houston-Galveston Area Council delineated four hurricane storm surge evacuation zones 30 (see Figure 1) on the basis of the zip code boundaries. To clearly communicate with cities, counties, and the public, the combined four 163

Figure 1. The four H-GAC storm surge evacuation zones Coastal Region. evacuation zones are collectively referred to as the Coastal Region. Evacuations in the HoustonGalveston region have always been determined by surge zones, due to wind and water concerns, but this concept was taken further in 2007 when zip codes were added. The available information on hurricanes, flooding, population data, and roadways was combined in a single map. The guiding principles behind the zones development were based on managing the flow of and having an effective means for communicating who should evacuate. Thus, the current evacuation strategy is for officials to call for voluntary evacuations in a phased manner with those closest to the coast leaving first. The order of evacuations starts with the Coastal Zone, followed by zones A, B, then C. Emergency announcements will then list the zip codes that are asked to evacuate. The success 164 of a geographical proximity approach largely depends on residents in more inland zones waiting in their homes, whereas those closer to the coastline begin to evacuate. However, this approach did not take into account vulnerable population. The coastal region makes for an interesting scenario when considering the basic tenets of social vulnerability. The natural31 conditions such as sea level rise and an increase in severe storms, and social processes such as population growth in urban coastal centers and the building of supporting infrastructure like roadways, are common phenomena driving in most coastal communities throughout the country. SOCIOECONOMIC DATA AND METHODS The socioeconomic data relevant to vulnerability analysis are summarized by four zones (Figure 1). For

the demographic data items in this report (all items with the exception of poverty and income) for both 2000 and 2010, we used the census block-level data from the SF-1 tables. For 2000 poverty and income items, which are only available in the SF-3 table for larger areas (census block groups), we assigned the block group-level poverty rate and per capita income to all the blocks inside each block group area. The per capita income in 2000 SF-3 table, which is technically income received in 1999, was converted to 2009 constant dollars using a Consumer Price Index 32 deflator. After the 2000 decennial Census, the traditional long form that was the source of sample-based poverty, income, and other socioeconomic items for the SF-3 table was discontinued and the collection of the various socioeconomic items became the domain of the American Community Survey (ACS) program administered by the Census but functionally separate from the decennial Census. The poverty and income (reported in 2009 constant dollars) items are taken from the 2009 5-year block group-level ACS estimates; the ACS estimates are averages constructed from survey responses received over a 5-year period (2005-2009). The stratified poverty rates were assigned to the blocks inside each block group (for 2000) and census tract (for 2010) area. The resulting estimates are block-level three-way binary tabulations for age (under 65/65 years and above), Hispanic origin (of Hispanic origin/not of Hispanic origin), and poverty status (income above poverty level/income below poverty level). The block-level estimates were then summarized by the four evacuation zones. OBSERVATIONS A population analysis of the Houston-Galveston coastal region was conducted. US Census data from 2000 and 2010 were compared to learn about the relative growth and/or decline of three susceptible population segments to natural hazards: age/elderly, income/poverty, and race/ethnicity. Information was compiled and analyzed in relation to the four evacuation zones. The results will enable managers to understand the current scenario and determine the trends into the future. The 2010 Census reports that there are 1.56 million residing in the coastal region (Table 1). Between 2000 and 2010, the population of the coastal region grew significantly (by 198,000 or 15 percent). Within the four zones, the greatest population increase has occurred in zone A which added 49,000, whereas the zone with the smallest rate of growth, actually a decrease, is the Zone Coastal which lost 13,000 or 15 percent. It is beyond the purview of this article to determine why there has been a migration of away from the coast; however, it is generally believed that the destruction caused by Hurricane Ike (2008) is the primary reason. The three social vulnerability characteristics of interest indicate that there has been substantial in the zones. Those identified as elderly (65 years of age and above) have increased in population by 24 percent or 28,000 to a total of 144,000 (Table 2). There has been a net increase of elderly in three of the four zones and although they represent only 9 percent of the total population, the level of assistance Total population Table 1. Total population in the coastal region (thousands) Zone A 179 13 228 15 49 25 28 Zone B 356 26 387 25 31 15 9 Zone C 740 54 871 56 132 66 18 Zone Coastal 90 7 77 5 13 7 15 All zones 1,365 100 1,563 100 198 100 15 165

Elderly population (65+) Table 2. Elderly population in the coastal region (thousands) Zone A 18 15 24 17 6 21 34 Zone B 30 26 40 28 10 37 35 Zone C 56 48 69 48 13 47 24 Zone Coastal 12 10 10 7 2 6 13 All zones 116 100 144 100 28 100 24 Table 3. Hispanic population in the coastal region (thousands) Hispanic population Zone A 29 6 49 7 20 11 68 Zone B 72 15 105 16 31 17 44 Zone C 353 74 485 73 134 72 38 Zone Coastal 25 5 27 4 1 1 6 All zones 480 100 663 100 183 100 38 required to evacuate the elderly population can be substantial. The demographic s in race/ethnicity have been significant. Total population of Hispanics has increased by 183,000 in the four zones bringing the total to 663,000, which accounts for 42 percent of the population in the coastal region (Table 3). The most dramatic, -wise, occurred in zone A where the Hispanic population grew by 183,000 (an increase of 20,000 ). Of the three social vulnerability factors in the Coastal Zone, Hispanics are the only segment that has actually posted a population increase (1,000 ). Those living below the poverty level have increased by 61,000 to 234,000 (Table 4). The poverty rate in the coastal region currently stands at 15 percent (two points increase from the total population in 2000). Three of the four zones show increases in the number of residents in poverty, whereas the Coastal Zone has actually decreased by 11 percent or 2,000 ; however, this decrease stems from the overall population decline in that zone. Table 5 demonstrates that between 2000 and 2010 the socially vulnerable population of the Coastal Zone increased by 180,000. This increase of 26 percent indicates an overall increased level of vulnerability. The more socially vulnerable living in an area the more resources it takes to communicate with, and evacuate to safety. Table 6 indicates that 56 percent of all those living in the coastal region embody at least one of the three social vulnerability characteristics. This is a remarkable statistic and should alert local emergency managers that many logistical issues, above and beyond standard procedures, will be necessary to address. Communicating, evacuating, and re-entering will be more complex and difficult, requiring managers to develop more sophisticated communication and logistical plans. DISCUSSION Several significant aspects can be extracted from the data. 166

Population below poverty level Table 4. Population below poverty level in the coastal region (thousands) Zone A 19 11 25 11 6 10 30 Zone B 33 19 43 19 10 17 32 Zone C 102 59 149 64 47 77 46 Zone Coastal 18 10 16 7 2 3 11 All zones 173 100 234 100 61 100 36 Table 5. Vulnerable population in the coastal region (thousands) Vulnerable population Zone A 62 9 87 10 25 14 41 Zone B 125 18 164 19 39 22 31 Zone C 458 66 578 66 120 67 26 Zone Coastal 50 7 45 5 5 3 10 All zones 694 100 874 100 180 100 26 1. The coastal region is becoming more vulnerable to severe storms due to overall population increases especially within the three categories used to measure social vulnerability. The overall population has increased by 198,000 or 15 percent over the last decade. The relative of socially vulnerable has also increased from 51 percent in 2000 to 56 percent in 2010. Population growth has occurred in all three categories of socially vulnerable. The elderly grew by 28,000 or 24 percent; those below the poverty level have grown by 61,000 or 36 percent; and the Hispanic population has increased by 183,000, or 39 percent. 2. The increase in number and geographic distribution of socially vulnerable population make communication more complex and difficult. The unique vulnerabilities must be considered and information distributed in a user-friendly format. An increased distribution of socially vulnerable requires more robust communication programs. The total number of elderly has increased significantly by 24 percent except for Zone Coastal which has experienced a net decrease of 13 percent. 167

Table 6. Vulnerable population in the coastal region as a share in total population Vulnerable population, percent 2000 2010 Zone A 35 38 Zone B 35 42 Zone C 62 66 Zone Coastal 55 59 All zones 51 56 The Hispanic population has increased dramatically by 186,000 with the highest concentration found in zone C representing 483,000. The overall number of below the poverty level has increased except for Zone Coastal which lost 15 percent of the population. 3. The importance of evacuating residents in a strategic manner is increasing. Current evacuation procedures are centered on the phased withdrawal of residents with those closest to the coastline leaving first. This strategy is highly dependent on the more inland residents waiting for their instructions. If a mass evacuation were to occur, the region s limited roadway capacity would be overwhelmed and traffic jams such as those during Hurricane Rita (2005) could occur. However, 2010 Census data indicate a growing complication with a phased approach. Socially vulnerable population segments require more time to evacuate yet they are increasingly locating in zone C, the last zone to evacuate with arguably the shortest time frame to accomplish it in. Two of the three socially vulnerable population segments are increasing in numbers in zone C. Over the last decade, the elderly have increased their presence by 13,000, whereas those below the poverty level have increased by 47,000. Overall, the three categories of socially vulnerable increased by 26 percent in zone C. CONCLUSIONS The purpose of this article was to explain social vulnerability as an emerging concept in natural hazard management and to demonstrate its value as a tool for emergency personnel to plan and prepare for natural disasters. An effective means to accomplish this is to apply a social vulnerability framework to population trends. As population and infrastructure increase in scope and scale, social conditions fluctuate and the relationship of humans to the built and natural environment becomes more complex. Thus, social vulnerability is a valuable construct, because it allows emergency planners to focus their attention on the factors that make susceptible to harm, as opposed to the physical variables of the potential natural hazard. It also enables the planners to see how vulnerability is socially expressed and as a result, it provides a frame of reference for addressing solutions. The Houston-Galveston hurricane storm surge evacuation zones were used as a proxy to illustrate the way a fundamental demographic analysis could yield insightful information. The three social vulnerability characteristics examined (ie, age/elderly, income/poverty, and race/ethnicity) were chosen because they illustrate different sources of exposure, interesting historical trends and applicability to most hazard scenarios. Given the total population increase, the population growth in all three vulnerable characteristics and the distribution of vulnerable, the data indicate that the evacuation zones are becoming more vulnerable and less resilient to natural hazards and disasters. Emergency managers eager to expand their use of a social vulnerability analysis should consider mapping clusters of vulnerable population, perhaps using census data, and then developing targeted intervention programs based on their unique factors. 168

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We thank Dr. Shannon Van Zandt of Texas A&M University and Dr. Phil Bedient of Rice University s SSPEED Center for their encouragement and support. Garrett Dolan, PhD, Civil & Environmental Engineering, Rice University, Houston, Texas. Dmitry Messen, PhD, Socioeconomic Modeling Program Manager, Houston-Galveston Area Council. REFERENCES 1. Federal Emergency Management Agency: Annual major disaster declarations totals. Available at http://www.fema.gov/news/disaster_ totals_annual.fema. Accessed March 13, 2012. 2. Federal Emergency Management Agency: Declaration Process Fact Sheet. Available at http://www.fema.gov/media/fact_sheets/ declaration_process.shtm. Accessed March 13, 2012. 3. Mileti DS: Natural Hazards, Planning and Sustainable Development, University of Colorado at Boulder, Keynote Presentation to the Eastern Regional Organisation for Planning and Housing. Available at http://www.earoph.info/pdf/2007papers/ KN4.pdf. Accessed March 13, 2012. 4. Aguilar L: How natural disasters affect women. International Union for Conservation of Nature. Available at http://www. iucn.org/news_homepage/events/isdr/?3373/how-natural-disastersaffect-women. Accessed March 13, 2012. 5. Blaikle P, Cannon T, Davis I, et al.: At Risk: Natural Hazards, People s Vulnerability and Disasters. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge, 2004. 6. O Keefe P, Westgate K, Wisner B: Taking the naturalness out of natural disasters. Nature. 1976; 260: 556-557. 7. Cutter SL, Boruff BJ, Shirley WL: Social vulnerability to environmental hazards. Social Sci Q. 2003; 84(2): 242-261. 8. Schmidlin TW: Risk factors and social vulnerability. Paper presented at the Proceedings of International Forum on Tornado Disaster Risk Reduction for Bangladesh, Dhaka, Bangladesh, Wind Engineering Research Center, Tokyo Polytechnic University: 104-108. Available at http://www.iawe.org/wrdrr_ Bangladesh/Preprints/S5Schmidlin.pdf. Accessed March 13, 2012. 9. Kim EJ, Geistfeld L: What makes older adults vulnerable to exploitation or abuse? The Forum for Family and Consumer Issues. 2008; 13(1). 10. Lyon P, Dave K, Anne C: Experience,, and vulnerability: Consumer education for older revisited. Int J Consumer Stud. 2002; 26(3): 178-187. 11. Zwahr MD, Park DC: Judgment about estrogen replacement therapy: The role of age, cognitive abilities, and beliefs. Psychol Aging. 1999; 14(2): 179-192. 12. Associate Press: Seniors vulnerable as hurricane season nears: Florida is deploying rapid response teams to retirement communities. Available at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24732270/ns/ weather/t/seniors-vulnerable-hurricane-season-nears/. Accessed March 13, 2012. 13. Inter-American Development Bank: Social Protection for Equity and Growth. Washington, DC: IDP Publications, 2000. 14. US Department of Health and Human Services: 2011 HHS Poverty Guidelines. Available at http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/ 11poverty.shtml. Accessed March 13, 2012. 15. Morrow BH: Identifying and mapping community vulnerability. Disasters. 1999; 23(1): 1-18. 16. Brodie M, Weltzien E, Altman D, et al.: Experiences of Hurricane Katrina evacuees in Houston shelters: Implications for future planning. Am J Public Health. 2006; 96(9): 1402-1408. 17. Tierney K: Social inequality: Humans and disasters. In Daniels RJ, Keitl DF, Kunreuther H (eds.): On Risk and Disaster: Lessons from Hurricane Katrina. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2006. 18. US Department of Health and Human Services, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality: 2007 National Healthcare Disparities Report. Available at http://www.ahrq.gov/qual/nhdr07/ nhdr07.pdf. Accessed March 13, 2012. 19. Mongaboy.com: Poverty worsens hurricane impact. Available at http://news.mongabay.com/2005/0905-new_orleans_income.html. Accessed March 13, 2012. 20. US Census Bureau: American Fact Finder 2. Available at http://factfinder2.census.gov. Accessed March 13, 2012. 21. Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured: How race/ethnicity, immigration status and language affect health insurance coverage, access to care and quality of care among the low-income population. Washington, DC: Kaiser Family Foundation, 2003. 22. Andrulis DP, Siddiqui NJ, Gantner JL: Preparing racially and ethnically diverse communities for public health emergencies. Health Aff. 2007; 26(5): 1269-1279. 23. McKinley J Jr: Population Tipping Point in Texas, as Hispanics Get Closer to Parity With Whites, New York Times, February 2011. Available at http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/18/us/18texas.html. Accessed March 13, 2012. 24. Preston J: Latino Immigrants Children Found Grasping English. New York Times. November 2007. Available at http://www. nytimes.com/2007/11/30/us/30immig.html. Accessed March 13, 2012. 25. Peacock WG: Toward a resiliency and vulnerability observatory network, Rice University Texas A&M University Research Workshop, Rice University, Civil & Environmental Engineering Department, March 2011. 26. US Global Change Research Program: Regional climate impacts: Southeast. Cambridge University Press, November 2009: 114. Available at http://downloads.global.gov/usimpacts/ pdfs/southeast.pdf. Accessed March 13, 2012. 27. Mileti DS: Disasters by Design: A Reassessment of Natural Hazards in the United States. Washington, DC: Joseph Henry Press, 1999. 28. US Census Bureau: Available at http://quickfacts.census.gov/ qfd/states/48000.html. Accessed March 13, 2012. 29. US Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmosphere Administration: Billion Dollar Weather Disasters 1980-2010. Available at http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/reports/ billion/billion2010.pdf. Accessed March 13, 2012. 30. Houston-Galveston Area Council: Zip zone evacuation map. Available at http://www.h-gac.com/taq/hurricane/documents/ Hurricane_zip_2011small.pdf. Accessed March 13, 2012. 31. Anderson JB: The Formation and Future of the Upper Texas Coast: A Geologist Answers Questions about Sand, Storms and Living by the Sea. College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 2007. 32. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Consumer Price Index. Available at http://www.bls.gov/cpi/home.htm#tables. Accessed March 13, 2012. 169