A new study from Rutgers University advises America’s wealthiest to think carefully about where they live. The research compared the concentration of hazards and associated risks between the richest and poorest counties and municipalities across all 50 states.

The findings are surprising. Wealthy communities face higher economic losses from natural hazards like hurricanes and droughts and greater exposure to air pollution compared to poorer, mostly rural areas. In contrast, residents in low-income areas suffer from higher suicide rates, homicides, and firearm fatalities.

A complex picture

The study aims to show that the relationship between income and hazard geography is complex. Low-income areas face many hazards, but affluent suburbs also can’t escape risks, especially those near industrial and waste facilities.

One metric used was the National Risk Index, a FEMA tool showing which communities are most at risk for natural hazards. It revealed that seven of the ten highest natural hazard risk areas are in California, with others in Houston, Texas; Huntsville, Alabama; and Oklahoma City, Oklahoma—all prone to earthquakes, fires, floods, and tornados.

“Wealthy people often choose to live in dangerous places,” the researchers explain, citing coastal southern California as an example, where affluent neighborhoods face drought, wildfires, flooding, and landslides.

A hazard has the potential to harm, and risk is the probability of that harm occurring. The study also considered anthropogenic hazards like air pollution and toxic waste, health risks such as homicide and suicide rates, and social assets like food security and access to healthcare.

Key findings include:

For High-Income Communities:

• They face higher economic losses from natural hazards because they have more assets at risk.
• They live in densely populated urban-suburban areas with higher concentrations of air pollution and hazardous waste.
• They have better access to high-quality healthcare, education, entertainment, and communication facilities.

For Low-Income Communities:

• They have fewer assets to lose but less capacity to respond to disasters.
• They are less exposed to urban hazards like dense traffic and air pollution, often living in rural areas.
• They suffer from higher social vulnerability, with struggles in accessing information and services.
• They face higher rates of suicide, homicide, firearm fatalities, smoking, and lower life expectancy.
• They have a 40% higher risk for lack of educational achievement compared to high-income counties.

The study suggests that individuals can learn about their community’s risks using free databases like the EPA’s EJScreen, which provides demographic, social, economic, and air quality information.

A demographic comparison highlights income disparity effects between the richest and poorest municipalities in four states: California (Atherton vs. Mecca), North Carolina (Marvin vs. Enfield), New York (Scarsdale vs. New Square), and Ohio (Indian Hill vs. East Cleveland).

For instance, Marvin, a wealthy suburb of Charlotte, is over 85% non-Hispanic white with an A+ school rating, while Enfield, a poor, mostly African American community, has a D-rated school system.

“Marvin represents growing affluence, and Enfield represents an overlooked poor African American community,” the authors conclude.