text.js

export default {
  pageTitle: "Unequal access to water",
  components: {
    introNarrative: {
      title: "",
      paragraph1: `Imagine you live in a big house in the suburbs where clean water flows out of every faucet. There’s enough water for you and your family to grow a nice garden every year. The public water supplier treats the water and maintains the distribution system regularly, so you know the water is safe for you to drink. A small, clean stream flows through town, offering a cool place to swim and play during the hot summer months.`,
      paragraph2: `Now imagine you live in a small rural community on the outskirts of town. You have your own well, but in recent years, you and your neighbors have had to dig deeper and deeper to reach water. Dangerous metals are leaching into the water belowground, but you have no way of treating your water before your family drinks it. Because of an ongoing drought, the sparse vegetation surrounding your house has turned a crispy brown. A nearby pond shrinks each summer and acquires a ghastly green hue as it’s choked by harmful algae blooms.`,
      paragraph3: `This nightmarish scene may sound like the backdrop of a post-apocalyptic movie, but this nightmare is the unfortunate reality for many Americans. More than 2.2 million Americans lack running water and basic plumbing in their homes, and millions more experience other elements of water insecurity, or insufficient access to clean water for livelihoods, development, and human and ecosystem health. Populations cannot maintain access to adequate quantities of water at an acceptable quality to sustain livelihoods, development, and human and ecosystem health.`,
      paragraph4: `Everyone needs and deserves sufficient access to clean water, but some are more likely to experience <span class="tooltip-span">water insecurity<span class="tooltiptext">Water insecurity tooltip text</span></span> than others. <span class="tooltip-span">Social vulnerabilities<span class="tooltiptext">Conditions in which societal factors shape exposure to hazards, susceptibility to suffer harm, and ability to cope and recover from losses.</span></span>, characterized by demographic characteristics, living conditions, socioeconomic status, and exposure to stressors (like drought or pollution) influence access to clean water.`,
      paragraph5: `How do these social determinants influence water insecurity? To begin answering this question takes us one step closer to equitable water access for all.`,
    },
    agVersusMunicipalText: {
      title: "Social vulnerabilities in agricultural versus municipal sectors",
      paragraph1: "Agricultural and municipal water use are the two largest water-use sectors in the western United States. Studies of social vulnerability to water insecurity in these two sectors tend to focus on different determinants. For the agricultural sector, studies have mostly looked at exposure to external stressors (where water insecurity is happening) and living conditions. On the other hand, studies of the municipal sector have focused on demographic characteristics and socioeconomic status. Many studies of the municipal sector have emphasized exposure, as well. Because of the different focuses of these studies, we understand the influence of determinants like demographics and socioeconomics better in the municipal sector than we do in the agricultural sector. Which brings us to an important point…"
    },
    bubbleChartText: {
      title: "What do we know about how social factors affects water insecurity?",
      paragraph1: "Color = dimension of social vulnerability to water insecurity<br>Bubble = determinant (nested within dimension)<br>Details = indicator (nested within determinant)<br>Size = how much evidence do we have that the determinant contributes to water insecurity<br>Evidence = how much research has been done to assess the effect of the determinant on water insecurity<br>Agreement = how many studies agreed that the determinant increased water insecurity<br><br>Hover on a bubble to learn more",
      paragraph2: "Who we are and where we live affect our access to clean, plentiful water. Certain categories of social factors (called “dimensions”) make us more vulnerable to water insecurity. These dimensions—demographic characteristics, living conditions, socioeconomic status, and exposure to external stressors like drought or pollution—have been studied by many researchers, most of whom agree the dimensions affect water insecurity. But certain aspects of those dimensions of social vulnerability (called “determinants”) are better studied than others. How much do we know about the effects of these determinants on water insecurity? Which determinants are we confident about, and which do we need to understand better? The Socioeconomic Drivers Program of the USGS Water Resources Mission Area is working to find out. "
    },
    mapText: {
      title: "Demographic characteristics and socioeconomic status across the Western states ",
      paragraph1: "Infrastructure and institutional factors are major determinants of access to and reliability of water delivery in the United States (Drakes and others., in review). <a href='https://wires.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wat2.1486' target='_blank'>Meehan and others (2020)</a> found 471,000 households or 1.1 million people lacked piped water access between 2013 and 2017, with the majority (73%) of these households located in metropolitan areas, and nearly half (47%) in the 50 largest urban areas. The reviewed literature showed indicators of household size, female-headed households, female population, and percentage of females in the labor force were all predominantly positively related and statistically significant/important to water insecurity conditions. Displayed below are county level maps, using 2022 U.S. Census Bureau data, of total households and total female householders where counties with the greatest total households and female householders, in dark orange, include Los Angeles County, California, Harris County, Texas, and Maricopa County, Arizona.",
      paragraph2: "The meta-analysis identified income to be positively correlated to to water insecure conditions with a medium level of agreement and large amount of evidence. Income inequality is a highly significant predictor of plumbing poverty. Research shows that neighborhoods with higher rates of income inequality—relative to the metropolitan area as a whole—are more likely to be plumbing poor <a href='https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.2007361117' target='_blank'>(Meehan and others, 2020)</a>. The county level map below displays median household income in the past 12 months (in 2022 inflation-adjusted dollars) where counties with the greatest median household income, in dark orange, include Santa Clara County, California, San Mateo County, California, and Marin County, California.",
      paragraph3: "The meta-analysis identified that median rent was negatively correlated with water insecurity, likely reflecting greater access to resources for wealthier populations <a href='https://www.sciencebase.gov/catalog/item/63f79d49d34e4f7eda456572' target='_blank'>(Hines and others, 2023)</a>. Additionally, high levels of agreement aligned with medium amounts of evidence for the influence of median rent costs, and house value. Research have shown disaster recovery programs place renters at a disadvantage versus homeowners. Renters are more likely to relocate, are less likely to apply for and receive less assistance post disaster. Renters also often lack the authority and means to enact structural changes to their domiciles for hazard mitigation, response, or recovery, which raises the hazard exposure and susceptibility of renters while lowering their capacity to cope <a href='https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.102010' target='_blank'>(Drakes and others, 2021) </a>. The county level map below displays median gross rent where counties with the greatest median gross rent, in dark blue, include San Mateo County, California, Santa Clara County, California, and Marin County, California.",
      paragraph4: "There was a large amount of evidence for the influence of Hispanic populations as well as was high agreement that measures of Hispanic populations were significant and positively correlated to water insecure conditions <a href='https://www.sciencebase.gov/catalog/item/63f79d49d34e4f7eda456572' target='_blank'>(Hines and others, 2023)</a>. Hispanic households are likely to lack adequate plumbing, with much of this ‘plumbing poverty’ clustered in the western United States. In fact, research shows Hispanic-headed households make up 12.5 percent of all U.S. households and 16.7 percent of those with incomplete plumbing <a href='https://doi.org/10.1080/24694452.2018.1530587' target='_blank'>(Deitz & Meehan, 2019)</a>. Displayed below county level maps, using 2022 U.S. Census Bureau data, of total Hispanic or Latino and percent of Hispanic or Latino where counties with the greatest total latino, in dark orange, include Los Angeles County, California, Harris County, Texas, and Maricopa County, Arizona and greatest percent Latino counties include Kenedy County, Texas, Starr County, Texas, and Webb County, Texas.",
      paragraph5: "Factors associated with social vulnerability to water insecurity are not equally distributed across the Western United States. Certain races and ethnicities are more heavily concentrated in some geographic areas than in others. Similarly, some counties have much higher median household incomes than other counties do. Understanding where these vulnerable populations live is important information for water-resource managers to make equitable decisions about water availability and use."
    },
    metaAnalysisText: {
      ttitle: "Meta-analysis of social vulnerability to water insecurity ",
      paragraph1: "Line thickness = how much evidence do we have that the determinant or indicator contributes to water insecurity ",
      paragraph2: "In 2023, the USGS Social and Economic Drivers Program (SED, for short) and partners in the USGS Integrated Information Dissemination Division (IIDD) conducted a meta-analysis of studies that measured factors of social vulnerability associated with conditions of water insecurity. A meta-analysis is a type of review study, where researchers combine data from many different studies to try to identify bigger patterns across all the results. The team focused their analysis on studies published between 2000 and 2022 that took place in the conterminous United States (lower 48 states) west of the Mississippi River <a href='https://www.sciencebase.gov/catalog/item/63f79d49d34e4f7eda456572' target='_blank'>(Hines and others, 2023)</a>. The Western states face a slew of water availability challenges, including increasing population growth, dependence on groundwater, and generally low precipitation (see <a href='https://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/2005/circ1261/pdf/C1261.pdf' target='_blank'>Anderson and Woosley, 2005</a> for a discussion of water availability in the Western United States). But not all populations across the West  experience the same levels of water insecurity.",
      paragraph3: "“The goal of our meta-analysis was to provide baseline metrics supporting the development of a set of indicators describing social vulnerability of key water-use sectors (agricultural and municipal) to conditions of water insecurity,” explains Oronde Drakes, social geographer and lead author of the meta-analysis. “This includes understanding the inherent vulnerabilities of populations dependent on these water-use sectors as well as those decision-making processes that can exacerbate vulnerabilities.” (Drakes and others, in review)",
      paragraph4: "What the SED-IIDD team found was that a small subset of social vulnerability indicators was not only studied a lot but was consistently associated with water insecurity. Multiple demographic characteristics (age, race/ethnicity, family structure, gender, and language proficiency), dependence on specific sources and uses of water, wealth, and exposure to water-related hazards all had large amounts of evidence and high levels of agreement for their influence on water insecurity."
    },  
    socialVulnerabilityText: {
      title: "How we think about social vulnerability matters",
      paragraph1: "There are two main ways to frame social vulnerability. In one framing, we understand social vulnerability as an outcome of events produced by external stressors (for example, exposure and socioeconomic status). In another framing, we view social vulnerability as a preexisting condition from which water insecurity arises as an outcome of unequal social conditions (for example, health, perception of water-related risk, and living conditions). Which frame we choose affects which determinants and locations we invest time and resources in studying.",
      paragraph2: "In general, studies have approached social vulnerability more commonly as a product of external stressors rather than a preexisting condition for water insecurity. In other words, they’ve focused more on where water insecurity happens than who experiences it and why. This focus has the potential to misdirect well-intentioned decision makers. For example, the SED-IIDD team found that exposure to external stressors was one of the most frequently measured dimensions in the scientific literature. Of the 8 determinants of exposure assessed, however, only hazard extent had high levels of agreement among studies. That is to say, exposure may be studied a lot, but there isn’t much agreement on which elements of exposure are the most important predictors of social vulnerability to water insecurity.",
      paragraph3: "There is a lot of uncertainty around other potentially important social factors for water insecurity. For example, disability status has been found to be strongly associated with water insecurity but has only been assessed by two studies in our sample. Similarly, multiple health indicators, like sanitation and life expectancy, appear to have strong relationships with water insecurity but have only been measured by a single study."
    }

  }
}