Context

Appalachian Ohio is a region defined not only by its rich cultural heritage and natural beauty, but also by persistent socioeconomic challenges and heightened vulnerability to natural hazards. Comprising 32 counties in the southeastern and eastern parts of the state, Appalachian Ohio has historically faced higher rates of poverty, lower median incomes, and limited access to resources compared to other regions of the state. These structural disadvantages are compounded by a disproportionate burden of federally declared disasters—particularly floods, severe storms, and winter weather events—that have repeatedly impacted its communities. This report explores the patterns of disaster declarations and FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) funding across Ohio, with a special focus on Appalachian counties. Using data visualization and spatial analysis, the goal is to examine whether disaster impacts and mitigation investments are equitably distributed, and to identify where gaps exist between need and support. By integrating FEMA data, U.S. Census indicators, and the CDC’s Social Vulnerability Index, this analysis provides a comprehensive view of risk, resilience, and equity in disaster preparedness across Ohio.

Comparing Disaster Counts Between Appalachian Ohio and the Entire State of Ohio

Out of 1,116 disasters declared in Ohio, 453 of them occurred in Appalachian Counties. This means that 40.59% of Ohio’s disasters occurred in Appalachia.

Disaster Types in Appalachia vs the Rest of the State

This bar chart compares the number of federally declared disasters by incident type in Appalachian Ohio versus Non-Appalachian Ohio. The most frequent disaster type in both regions is Severe Storms, followed by Floods and Snowstorms. Notably, Appalachian Ohio has experienced a higher number of federally declared floods, while non-Appalachian counties have seen more disasters attributed to Hurricanes, Snowstorms, and Tornadoes. This distribution highlights the distinct patterns of natural hazards affecting different parts of the state, underscoring the need for region-specific mitigation and preparedness strategies.

Disasters Over Time, Comparing Appalachian and Non-Appalachian Ohio Counties

This line chart shows the number of federally declared disasters over time in Appalachian Ohio and Non-Appalachian Ohio, spanning from the 1950s to the 2020s. While both regions show variability in disaster frequency over the decades, Non-Appalachian Ohio has generally experienced more declared disasters, with notable spikes in the early 1980s, mid-2000s, and early 2010s. Appalachian Ohio follows a similar pattern, though with slightly lower peaks. In recent years, the gap between the two regions appears to be narrowing, highlighting a growing need for disaster preparedness and mitigation efforts across all parts of the state.

Map of Disaster Counts by County Across Ohio

This choropleth map displays the number of federally declared disasters by county across Ohio. Counties in Appalachian Ohio, particularly in the southeastern region, stand out with the highest disaster counts, ranging from 16 to 20 declarations. In contrast, many counties in the western and northwestern parts of the state show lower counts, typically between 6 and 12. This geographic disparity highlights the increased vulnerability and disaster frequency in Appalachian counties, underscoring the importance of targeted resilience investments and mitigation planning in these communities.

Map of Disaster Counts Across Appalachian Counties

This map provides the same information as the previous map, the only difference is that only Appalachian counties are displayed.

Mapping Poverty, Population, Median Income, and Disaster Count

The Interaction Between Disasters and Population, Median Income, and Poverty Rates

This is a layered map, the colors show disaster declarations (the darker the color, the more declarations there have been). If you hover, you can see the disaster declaration count and population, disaster count and median income, and disaster count and poverty rate.

Bivariate Map of Disasters and Populations in Ohio by County

This bivariate choropleth map illustrates the relationship between federally declared disasters and population across Ohio’s 88 counties, using quantile classification to compare both variables simultaneously. Counties are shaded based on where they fall in the distribution of disaster frequency (horizontal axis of the legend) and population size (vertical axis). Dark red counties represent areas with high disaster counts but low population, while dark blue counties have high population but relatively fewer disasters. Dark purple counties fall high on both scales—experiencing both high population and high disaster frequency. In contrast, lighter-colored counties tend to have low levels of both population and disaster activity.

Notably, many counties in Appalachian Ohio—particularly in the southeast—stand out in shades of red and reddish-purple, indicating a disproportionately high number of disasters relative to their population size. This pattern suggests increased vulnerability in these less densely populated areas, where fewer resources and limited infrastructure can make disaster response and recovery more challenging. Meanwhile, urban counties such as Franklin (Columbus), Cuyahoga (Cleveland), and Hamilton (Cincinnati) fall into darker blues or purples, reflecting higher population levels with varying degrees of disaster exposure. Several rural counties in western and northwestern Ohio appear in pale shades, indicating minimal disaster activity and lower population.

Overall, the map highlights that disaster frequency does not always correlate with population density. It underscores the need for targeted mitigation and preparedness strategies, particularly in Appalachian counties that face recurring federal disaster declarations despite having smaller, more resource-constrained populations.

Bivariate Mapping Disaster Declarations and Poverty Rates in Ohio Counties

This bivariate choropleth map illustrates the relationship between federally declared disasters and poverty rates across Ohio counties. Each county is colored based on a 3-by-3 quantile classification, where the horizontal axis represents the number of disaster declarations and the vertical axis represents poverty rates. The resulting color scheme allows both variables to be visualized simultaneously. Light-colored counties in the lower left represent areas with both low disaster frequency and low poverty, while darker shades convey higher values of one or both variables. Counties shaded in dark blue have high poverty rates but relatively few disaster declarations, whereas dark red counties have experienced more disasters but have lower poverty rates. The darkest purple counties—those in the upper-right of the color key—are of particular concern, as they experience both a high number of disasters and high poverty rates.

Notably, several counties in southeastern and Appalachian Ohio appear in these darker purple shades, indicating that they face both a high burden of disaster declarations and elevated levels of economic hardship. These overlapping challenges suggest that such communities may be especially vulnerable to the long-term impacts of disasters and may lack the resources necessary for effective preparedness, response, and recovery. This map provides an important tool for identifying where risk and vulnerability intersect and can help inform equitable, data-driven decisions about the allocation of mitigation funding, emergency planning efforts, and support services across the state.

Bivariate Mapping Disasters and Median Income in Ohio Counties

This bivariate choropleth map displays the intersection of federally declared disaster frequency and median household income across Ohio’s 88 counties. Each county is color-coded based on a 3-by-3 quantile classification: the horizontal axis of the legend represents disaster frequency (increasing from left to right), while the vertical axis reflects income level (increasing from bottom to top). Counties shaded in dark red represent areas with both high disaster frequency and high income, whereas counties shaded in dark blue have high income but experience relatively few disasters. Light-colored counties in the center of the legend reflect lower values of both variables. Of particular interest are the counties shaded in dark purple, which signify areas where disaster frequency is high and median income is low—a combination that suggests heightened vulnerability.

A noticeable trend in the map is that many southeastern and Appalachian counties, including Meigs, Vinton, and Lawrence, appear in these darker purple shades, highlighting the dual burden of high disaster activity and limited economic resources. Conversely, several urban or suburban counties in the western and northern parts of the state show up in shades of red, indicating they experience frequent disasters but have relatively strong economic capacity, which may enhance their ability to prepare for and recover from those events. This map underscores the importance of considering both risk exposure and socioeconomic conditions when designing policies and allocating resources for hazard mitigation, especially in communities with fewer financial assets to manage the impacts of disasters.

From this, we see that out of 731 mitigation projects in Ohio, only 160 of them took place in Appalachian Ohio, despite the fact that they face more disasters than the rest of the state.

Number of FEMA-Funded Mitigation Projects in Each Ohio County

This choropleth map displays the total number of FEMA-funded mitigation projects by county across Ohio. Counties are shaded using a color gradient from deep blue (fewer projects) to bright yellow (more projects), allowing for quick visual comparison of where mitigation funding and activity have been most concentrated.

The map reveals a significant geographic disparity in the distribution of mitigation projects. Only a few counties—most notably Lucas County in the northwest and Hamilton County in the southwest—stand out in bright yellow, indicating they have received over 30 FEMA-funded mitigation projects. These counties are urban centers with higher population densities and more developed infrastructure, which may contribute to their greater capacity to apply for and manage federally funded mitigation efforts.

In contrast, the majority of counties, especially those in Appalachian and southeastern Ohio, are shaded in darker blues and purples, indicating relatively low project counts, often fewer than 10. This suggests that many of these counties, which also tend to be rural and have higher social vulnerability indicators, may have more limited access to resources for applying to or implementing mitigation grants, despite experiencing repeated federal disaster declarations.

The map highlights a potential inequity in the distribution of mitigation investments, underscoring the need for technical assistance, outreach, and policy support to help under-resourced counties—especially in Appalachian Ohio—better access FEMA mitigation funding. This is particularly important given that many of these areas face persistent risks from flooding, severe storms, and other natural hazards.

Mitigation Dollars Spent Across the State by County

This choropleth map illustrates the total FEMA mitigation funding received by each Ohio county, using a graduated color scale to represent funding tiers from under $50,000 to over $50 million. Counties are labeled with both their name and the total dollar amount received, offering a detailed view of funding distribution across the state. Darker shades of red and maroon indicate counties that received the highest levels of funding, while lighter yellow tones represent counties that received the least.

The map reveals significant disparities in mitigation funding across Ohio. Counties such as Montgomery, Hamilton, and Franklin stand out as top recipients, each securing more than $11 million in FEMA mitigation grants. Several other counties, including Lucas, Mahoning, and Lawrence, also received substantial funding, falling into the $5–10 million range. These higher-funded counties tend to include urban centers or counties with recurring disaster impacts, which may give them greater capacity to apply for and implement FEMA-funded projects.

In contrast, many rural counties—particularly in the northwest and south-central parts of the state—received relatively modest amounts of funding, often less than $100,000. This includes several Appalachian counties, which, despite experiencing frequent disaster declarations, appear to have received disproportionately low mitigation investments. This disparity suggests that resource limitations, application capacity, or awareness of federal programs may act as barriers to accessing mitigation funding in more vulnerable, lower-income areas.

Overall, the map highlights an opportunity for more equitable distribution of mitigation resources, particularly through increased technical assistance and outreach in underfunded counties. Supporting these areas could enhance resilience and reduce long-term disaster costs, especially in regions like Appalachian Ohio that face consistent natural hazard threats but lack the same administrative capacity as larger counties.

Bivariate Mapping HMGP Funding with Poverty Rate by County

This bivariate choropleth map illustrates the intersection of FEMA mitigation funding and poverty rates across Ohio’s 88 counties. The horizontal axis of the legend represents the total amount of mitigation funding received, while the vertical axis reflects county-level poverty rates. Colors are based on quantile classification, allowing both variables to be visualized at once. Counties shaded in dark purple represent areas where both poverty and mitigation funding are high, whereas dark red counties have received high levels of funding but have relatively low poverty rates. Dark blue counties, on the other hand, have high poverty but received lower amounts of funding. Light-colored counties in the center reflect low levels of both funding and poverty.

Notably, a number of Appalachian and southern Ohio counties appear in dark blue, suggesting a potential equity gap where areas with high poverty have received relatively little mitigation support. Conversely, several counties in central and western Ohio show up in dark red, indicating they have received substantial funding but may face fewer socioeconomic challenges. Counties in dark purple, such as parts of southeastern and south-central Ohio, are especially important to highlight — these are communities that are both economically vulnerable and have received notable investments, potentially indicating targeted support or repeat disaster exposure.

This map provides a critical lens into the distribution of disaster mitigation resources across the state. It highlights where support may be aligned with need — and where gaps remain. Decision-makers can use this type of analysis to guide more equitable distribution of future resources, ensuring that the most socially vulnerable communities are not left behind in building resilience to disasters.

Mapping HMGP Funding and Population by County in Ohio

This bivariate choropleth map examines the relationship between total FEMA mitigation funding and county-level population across the state of Ohio. The color scheme is derived from a quantile-based bivariate classification, allowing both variables to be visualized simultaneously. The horizontal axis of the legend represents the level of mitigation funding received by each county, while the vertical axis reflects population size.

Counties shaded in dark purple received high levels of mitigation funding and have high populations, suggesting a strong investment in more densely populated areas that may face greater infrastructure exposure or damage potential. Dark red counties received high levels of funding but have relatively low populations, which could indicate targeted support for rural areas with recurring disasters or specific vulnerabilities. Dark blue counties, by contrast, have high populations but relatively low funding, signaling potential gaps in per-capita investment or underserved urban/suburban communities. Light-colored counties represent areas with low values for both population and funding.

A number of rural counties in southern and western Ohio fall into the dark red category, reflecting relatively high funding levels despite lower populations — possibly due to flood risk, repeat declarations, or proactive mitigation planning. Meanwhile, several densely populated counties in northeastern Ohio appear in dark blue, which may point to a mismatch between population exposure and the amount of FEMA mitigation investment received to date.

This map provides insight into whether mitigation dollars are distributed proportionally to population, or whether other factors — like hazard risk, past declarations, or project readiness — are more strongly driving funding decisions. Policymakers and planners can use this analysis to evaluate equity in mitigation efforts and explore whether high-population counties are being adequately supported.

Bivariate Mapping the Social Vulnerability Index and HMGP Funding

This bivariate choropleth map visualizes the intersection between FEMA mitigation funding and county-level social vulnerability across Ohio, using data from the CDC’s 2020 Social Vulnerability Index (SVI). The CDC SVI is a composite metric that measures a community’s relative social vulnerability based on 15 variables grouped into four key themes: socioeconomic status, household composition & disability, minority status & language, and housing type & transportation. Each county is given a percentile score from 0 to 1, with higher scores indicating greater vulnerability in the face of disasters and public health emergencies.

In this map, counties are shaded using a two-axis color scale. The horizontal axis (rightward) represents increasing levels of FEMA-funded mitigation projects, while the vertical axis (upward) reflects increasing social vulnerability. Counties shaded in dark purple experience both high social vulnerability and high levels of mitigation funding, suggesting that investments are being targeted toward the communities most in need. In contrast, dark blue counties have high vulnerability but relatively little funding, potentially highlighting underserved areas. Dark red counties, on the other hand, have received significant mitigation funding despite low SVI scores—possibly due to repeat disasters, higher capacity to apply for grants, or existing infrastructure priorities.

Notably, several Appalachian and southern Ohio counties appear in dark purple or dark blue, underscoring both their elevated social vulnerability and, in some cases, lower access to mitigation funding. This visualization can help federal, state, and local decision-makers evaluate whether mitigation resources are equitably distributed and aligned with the populations most at risk of adverse disaster impacts.

By overlaying these two critical variables—risk and response—this map provides a powerful lens for identifying funding gaps, prioritizing future investments, and advancing equity in disaster resilience.

Analysis: Understanding Disasters and Mitigation in Appalachian Ohio

This analysis paints a detailed portrait of disaster impacts and mitigation investment patterns in Ohio, with a particular focus on the Appalachian region. The findings reveal that while Appalachian counties account for over 40% of all federally declared disasters in Ohio, they receive a disproportionately low share of FEMA-funded Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) projects. Of the 731 mitigation projects statewide, only 160 have occurred in Appalachian counties. This imbalance is further emphasized in the spatial distribution of mitigation dollars, which show urban and better-resourced counties receiving tens of millions of dollars in support, while many rural Appalachian counties—despite recurring disasters—receive minimal funding.

Bivariate maps comparing disaster declarations and mitigation funding with county-level indicators such as poverty, population, median income, and the CDC Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) provide powerful visual insight into where risks and vulnerabilities intersect. These maps consistently show that several Appalachian counties experience high disaster frequency combined with low income, high poverty, or high social vulnerability, often without receiving a commensurate level of mitigation investment. For example, southeastern counties like Vinton, Meigs, and Lawrence frequently appear in high-disaster, high-poverty classifications yet lack significant funding—a signal of systemic underinvestment.

The CDC’s SVI adds a particularly valuable lens. Designed to help emergency planners and public health officials identify at-risk communities, it combines 15 factors across socioeconomic status, minority status, household composition, and housing conditions. Counties with high SVI scores are more likely to suffer adverse effects during disasters. In this context, Appalachian counties scoring high on the SVI but receiving low levels of HMGP funding point to an equity gap that deserves urgent policy attention.

Together, these insights suggest that disaster risk in Appalachian Ohio is not solely a function of geography or climate, but also shaped by structural vulnerabilities—limited economic resources, lower populations, and constrained institutional capacity. Moving forward, policymakers should consider reforming grant processes, providing technical assistance to under-resourced counties, and prioritizing equity in federal mitigation programs to ensure the communities most at risk are not also those most left behind.