patrickbdevaney/mia9 · Datasets at Hugging Face

text stringlengths 0 6.44k
and gardens, human impacts (trash, emissions,
construction, pollution), and trees (or lack
thereof), indicating a desire for more places for
people to congregate and enjoy the outdoors
while reducing human impacts.
Flooding Emphasis on rainfall, flooding, and the ability to
get to work.
Emphasis on the ability to get to work, but also
focused on human impact (including issues such
as infrastructure, construction, pollution),
agriculture, extreme heat, and food insecurity.
Extreme heat No clear theme, but a range of issues such as
shade, gardens, human impact, and trash.
Patterns of emerging themes around extreme
heat related to crops, worker stress, storms/
flooding, and food insecurity.
Storms Emphasis on storms related to rainfall, traffic,
flooding, and hurricanes.
Focused on hurricanes related to damage, safety,
food insecurity, and crops, with additional
emphasis on rainfall.
Health and
wellbeing
Only one story related to health and wellbeing,
focused on insecurity and safety, combined with
SLR, hurricanes, human impact, and energy.
15 stories related to health and wellbeing, with
themes around negative effects of pollutions,
food insecurity, crops, extreme heat, worker
stress/resiliency/fatigue, and the impacts of
pollution.
Valence 1 positive, 5 negative, 18 mixed 14 positive, 30 negative, 15 mixed
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000041.t002
PLOS CLIMATE
Advancing a hyperlocal approach to community engagement in climate adaptation
PLOS Climate \| https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000041 June 8, 2022 13 / 26
The key concerns related to climate change expressed by community members through the
photovoice exercise grew organically from the participants and as anticipated, differed from
the geospatial risk factors of the ICRA. Based, for example, on objective measures of greenness
as identified by the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) and park proximity,
Fig 1. Little River photovoice examples.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000041.g001
PLOS CLIMATE
Advancing a hyperlocal approach to community engagement in climate adaptation
PLOS Climate \| https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000041 June 8, 2022 14 / 26
neither community ranked notably poorly in relation to the MDCUA average. Little River
ranked 9th in risk for low levels of greenness, and 19th for low levels of proximity to parks.
Homestead ranked 8th for low levels of greenness and 18th for park proximity. From an objective perspective, both study areas experience a slightly higher risk for low levels of greenness
Fig 2. Homestead photovoice examples.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000041.g002
PLOS CLIMATE
Advancing a hyperlocal approach to community engagement in climate adaptation
PLOS Climate \| https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000041 June 8, 2022 15 / 26
Fig 3. Integrated climate risk assessment for Miami-Dade County.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000041.g003
PLOS CLIMATE
Advancing a hyperlocal approach to community engagement in climate adaptation
PLOS Climate \| https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000041 June 8, 2022 16 / 26
than urban Miami Dade County, and both are at lower risk for low levels of proximity to
parks. Residents in both communities, however, featured greenness as a significant area of
concern, and identified greenness as a desired strategy, illustrating the potential for the community engagement process to serve as an important guide and integral part of designing climate adaptations that meet residents’ needs.
Similarly, objective measures ranked the risk of Disability at 12th for Little River and 1st for
Homestead in relation to MDCUA. Using the ICRA to aggregate this data with average household income indicates that Homestead experiences significantly greater at risk for health and
well-being than Little River. Integrating the photovoice and design thinking outcomes, reveals
15 photovoice health and well-being stories for Homestead compared to just 1 for Little River,
and greater emphasis on mobility strategies proposed in the Homestead sessions.
The hyperlocal scale of the ICRA provide a further advantage for analysis through the illustration of a more detailed distribution of risk (Fig 4). The neighborhood of Little River, for
example, represents a much higher risk than many of its surrounding neighborhoods or proximate municipalities such as El Portal. Similarly, the climate risk for the Laura Saunders Area
of the Homestead study area is also high in relation to surrounding areas.
Table 3. Integrated climate risk assessment scores by raster layer and community.
Climate Risk
Factor
Scale Miami- Dade
County
MDC Urban
Area
Homestead
Score
Homestead
Rank
Homestead
Difference
Little River
Score
Little River
Rank
Little River
Difference
Water 1–10 8.4 9.7 9.7 10 0.0 9.7 13 0.0
Slope 1–10 8.9 8.8 8.8 14 0.0 8.7 16 -0.1
Avg Household
Income
1–10 8.7 8.0 8.7 2 0.8 8.6 5 0.7
Elevation 1–10 7.7 7.7 8.0 4 0.4 7.4 18 -0.2
Septic 1–10 4.8 7.6 7.4 19 -0.2 8.5 3 0.8
Depth to
Groundwater
1–10 7.4 7.3 7.6 5 0.3 6.7 20 -0.7
Surface
Temperature

and gardens, human impacts (trash, emissions,

construction, pollution), and trees (or lack

thereof), indicating a desire for more places for

people to congregate and enjoy the outdoors

while reducing human impacts.

Flooding Emphasis on rainfall, flooding, and the ability to

get to work.

Emphasis on the ability to get to work, but also

focused on human impact (including issues such

as infrastructure, construction, pollution),

agriculture, extreme heat, and food insecurity.

Extreme heat No clear theme, but a range of issues such as

shade, gardens, human impact, and trash.

Patterns of emerging themes around extreme

heat related to crops, worker stress, storms/

flooding, and food insecurity.

Storms Emphasis on storms related to rainfall, traffic,

flooding, and hurricanes.

Focused on hurricanes related to damage, safety,

food insecurity, and crops, with additional

emphasis on rainfall.

Health and

wellbeing

Only one story related to health and wellbeing,

focused on insecurity and safety, combined with

SLR, hurricanes, human impact, and energy.

15 stories related to health and wellbeing, with

themes around negative effects of pollutions,

food insecurity, crops, extreme heat, worker

stress/resiliency/fatigue, and the impacts of

pollution.

Valence 1 positive, 5 negative, 18 mixed 14 positive, 30 negative, 15 mixed

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000041.t002

PLOS CLIMATE

Advancing a hyperlocal approach to community engagement in climate adaptation

PLOS Climate | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000041 June 8, 2022 13 / 26

The key concerns related to climate change expressed by community members through the

photovoice exercise grew organically from the participants and as anticipated, differed from

the geospatial risk factors of the ICRA. Based, for example, on objective measures of greenness

as identified by the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) and park proximity,

Fig 1. Little River photovoice examples.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000041.g001

PLOS CLIMATE

Advancing a hyperlocal approach to community engagement in climate adaptation

PLOS Climate | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000041 June 8, 2022 14 / 26

neither community ranked notably poorly in relation to the MDCUA average. Little River

ranked 9th in risk for low levels of greenness, and 19th for low levels of proximity to parks.

Homestead ranked 8th for low levels of greenness and 18th for park proximity. From an objective perspective, both study areas experience a slightly higher risk for low levels of greenness

Fig 2. Homestead photovoice examples.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000041.g002

PLOS CLIMATE

Advancing a hyperlocal approach to community engagement in climate adaptation

PLOS Climate | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000041 June 8, 2022 15 / 26

Fig 3. Integrated climate risk assessment for Miami-Dade County.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000041.g003

PLOS CLIMATE

Advancing a hyperlocal approach to community engagement in climate adaptation

PLOS Climate | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000041 June 8, 2022 16 / 26

than urban Miami Dade County, and both are at lower risk for low levels of proximity to

parks. Residents in both communities, however, featured greenness as a significant area of

concern, and identified greenness as a desired strategy, illustrating the potential for the community engagement process to serve as an important guide and integral part of designing climate adaptations that meet residents’ needs.

Similarly, objective measures ranked the risk of Disability at 12th for Little River and 1st for

Homestead in relation to MDCUA. Using the ICRA to aggregate this data with average household income indicates that Homestead experiences significantly greater at risk for health and

well-being than Little River. Integrating the photovoice and design thinking outcomes, reveals

15 photovoice health and well-being stories for Homestead compared to just 1 for Little River,

and greater emphasis on mobility strategies proposed in the Homestead sessions.

The hyperlocal scale of the ICRA provide a further advantage for analysis through the illustration of a more detailed distribution of risk (Fig 4). The neighborhood of Little River, for

example, represents a much higher risk than many of its surrounding neighborhoods or proximate municipalities such as El Portal. Similarly, the climate risk for the Laura Saunders Area

of the Homestead study area is also high in relation to surrounding areas.

Table 3. Integrated climate risk assessment scores by raster layer and community.

Climate Risk

Factor

Scale Miami- Dade

County

MDC Urban

Area

Homestead

Score

Homestead

Rank

Homestead

Difference

Little River

Score

Little River

Rank

Little River

Difference

Water 1–10 8.4 9.7 9.7 10 0.0 9.7 13 0.0

Slope 1–10 8.9 8.8 8.8 14 0.0 8.7 16 -0.1

Avg Household

Income

1–10 8.7 8.0 8.7 2 0.8 8.6 5 0.7

Elevation 1–10 7.7 7.7 8.0 4 0.4 7.4 18 -0.2

Septic 1–10 4.8 7.6 7.4 19 -0.2 8.5 3 0.8

Depth to

Groundwater

1–10 7.4 7.3 7.6 5 0.3 6.7 20 -0.7

Surface

Temperature