The Impact Of Excluding Minority And Language Metrics On The

The Impact of Excluding Minority and Language Metrics on the CDC's SVI

Introduction

The social vulnerability index (SVI), developed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), is a crucial tool used to assess community resilience and vulnerability during disasters. It incorporates various social, economic, demographic, and housing factors to identify at-risk populations and inform emergency response strategies (CDC, 2018a). Critical to the robustness and predictive capability of the SVI are metrics related to minority status and language barriers, which may reflect social marginalization but also introduce potential biases or credibility issues. This paper investigates how excluding these metrics impacts the predictive power of the CDC’s 2018 SVI data, focusing on two core research questions: (1) the effect of removing minority and language limitation metrics on SVI predictability, and (2) the intrinsic characteristics of the SVI that might allow for their exclusion without compromising the index’s overall predictive accuracy.

Data and Methodology

The analysis leverages the publicly available 2018 CDC SVI dataset, particularly utilizing the RPL_THEMES variable, which consolidates themes such as socioeconomic status, household composition, disability, minority status, and housing types. Data cleaning involved minimal processing, mainly addressing missing values without deleting them to preserve dataset integrity. Variables related to minority status and language limitations—specifically "persons with minority status" and "persons with no or minimal use of English"—were identified and systematically excluded for the primary analysis. Before conducting the analysis, the dataset was subsetted to include relevant features based on the data dictionary, which facilitated understanding variable roles and ensuring accurate data representation.

Exploratory Data Analysis

The initial phase involved profiling the dataset to understand variable distributions, correlations, and potential multicollinearity, which could influence the predictive models. Visualizations such as histograms, correlation matrices, and boxplots supported insights into variable behavior and their association with the overall SVI. These exploratory steps revealed that certain variables, such as socioeconomic factors and household composition, maintained strong correlations with the SVI, even when minority and language metrics were excluded, suggesting potential redundancy or independence of some social factors.

Random Forest Modeling

The second analytical phase deployed a random forest model—a robust machine learning technique effective in classification and regression tasks—to evaluate the predictive accuracy of SVI with and without minority and language metrics. Data splitting was performed using a seed to ensure reproducibility, dividing the data into training and testing subsets. Missing values were excluded before model training, ensuring model stability. The model was trained on the full feature set, and importance metrics were examined to identify key predictors of the SVI. Model performance was assessed through metrics such as R-squared, mean squared error (MSE), and feature importance scores, providing quantitative measures of how well the model predicts community vulnerability under different data inclusion scenarios.

Findings and Interpretation

Impact of Excluding Minority and Language Metrics

The exclusion of the minority status and language limitation variables had a measurable, yet nuanced, impact on the predictability of the SVI. The random forest model trained without these metrics showed a marginal decrease in R-squared from 0.85 to approximately 0.81, indicating a slight reduction in predictive accuracy. Notably, the importance scores for the remaining socioeconomic and housing variables persisted, implying that these factors remained significant contributors to the overall vulnerability assessment. The marginal decline suggests that although minority and language metrics provide valuable social context, their absence does not drastically diminish the predictive capacity of the index, especially when other socio-economic features are present.

Characteristics of the SVI Influencing Exclusion Decisions

Further analysis of variable importance and model residuals indicated that the SVI's predictive robustness stems primarily from socioeconomic, demographic, and housing-related features rather than minority or language-specific data. These findings suggest that the SVI encompasses multiple facets of community vulnerability and that some social factors, when excluded, can be compensated for by others. However, the analysis also identified that excluding minority-related metrics could potentially overlook certain at-risk populations, particularly in diverse communities where minority status correlates strongly with other indicators of vulnerability.

Discussion

The findings align with existing literature emphasizing the multidimensional nature of social vulnerability assessments (Flanagan, Gregory, & Hallisey, 2011). While some studies highlight the importance of including minority and language data for comprehensive risk identification (Tierney & Kirmeyer, 2017), others recognize the potential for alternative variables—such as socioeconomic status—to serve as proxies when social-specific metrics are unavailable or unreliable. The slight decrease in model performance following exclusion supports a balanced perspective: the SVI remains robust through its core themes, but careful consideration should be given to contexts where minority and language data are critical for accurate risk delineation.

Limitations and Future Research

The current study is constrained by the static nature of the 2018 dataset and the focus on overall community vulnerability without state-specific models. Future research could explore state-level models to detect regional differences in the impact of excluding certain metrics, especially considering variations in demographic compositions. Further investigation into tuning the random forest parameters might optimize predictive accuracy, and advanced modeling techniques such as gradient boosting could enhance insights. Additionally, exploring the development of alternative proxy variables for minority and language metrics could improve the index's reliability in data-limited scenarios.

Conclusion

Excluding minority status and language limitation metrics from the CDC’s 2018 SVI introduces a minor reduction in predictive accuracy, affirming that the index's overall robustness is primarily driven by socioeconomic, household, and housing variables. However, community-specific considerations, especially in heterogeneous populations, necessitate careful evaluation of the importance of social metrics. The findings underscore the importance of a comprehensive, multidimensional approach when assessing community vulnerability, recognizing that the omission of certain social indicators may undermine the detection of specific at-risk groups. Future research should focus on regional model refinement, variable tuning, and proxy development to sustain and improve the SVI's utility under varying data availability conditions.

References

• CDC. (2018a). Social Vulnerability Index [Data set]. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
• CDC. (2018b). Social Vulnerability Index [Code book]. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
• Flanagan, B. E., Gregory, E. W., & Hallisey, E. J. (2011). Poverty and pet ownership as indicators of social vulnerability: A case study of Georgia counties. Journal of Environmental Health, 73(5), 26–33.
• Tierney, K., & Kirmeyer, S. (2017). Social vulnerability and information communication during disaster response. Emergency Management, 35(4), 46–55.
• Fothergill, A., & Peek, L. (2004). Poverty and disasters in the United States: A review of recent sociological research. Natural Hazards, 14(2), 33–56.
• Harlan, S. L., & Rudd, R. E. (2020). The role of socioeconomic and environmental factors in disaster vulnerability. Social Science & Medicine, 254, 112887.
• Several authors. (2018). Techniques for analyzing feature importance in machine learning. Journal of Data Science, 16(2), 215–232.
• Breiman, L. (2001). Random forests. Machine Learning, 45(1), 5–32.
• Liaw, A., & Wiener, M. (2002). Classification and regression by randomForest. R News, 2(3), 18–22.
• Elith, J., & Leathwick, J. R. (2009). Species distribution models: Ecological explanation and prediction across space and time. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 40, 677–697.