Search

Beyond cultural ties and economic demands, considerations of the conditions of the natural environment may play a role in determining which U.S. state to reside within. Every year, millions of people suffer from the effects of natural hazards such as avalanches, blizzards, earthquakes, extreme cold, extreme heat, flooding, hurricanes, severe thunderstorms, tornadoes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, and wildfires. The recorded actual occurrence and frequency of these natural hazards, in addition to public perception of the danger of individual natural hazards, shapes an idea of relative concern for these natural hazards. In this study we combine actual hazard occurrence data recorded from 2009-2018, with concern values gathered from an online survey of 1,326 individuals to output "vulnerability" scores for each U.S. State. Ultimately, these values help to answer the question: which U.S. States have the highest vulnerability for natural hazards? The results show that Rhode Island, New Jersey, Delaware, Illinois, and Maryland in this order received the highest vulnerability scores. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This commentary responds to Craig, Swab, and DeBruin’s (2024) “Bowling for Better.” We welcome suggestions for how to improve the World Geography Bowl (WGB), and as described in this commentary, have consistently improved the WGB after suggestions provided to WGB leadership from competitors, volunteers, and American Association of Geographers leadership. We contend, however, that limitations in the methodology employed by Craig and colleagues—specifically their overreliance on the experiences of students from one university in a single year to represent the thousands of students who have participated in the WGB over several decades—provide a misleading representation of the WGB. From this spatially and temporally limited sample, they conclude that the WGB must be reformed because it does not build community and undercuts the development of the discipline by prioritizing rote memorization. This commentary synthesizes the perspectives of more than a dozen individuals who have participated in the WGB as competitors, both undergraduate and graduate, volunteers, and directors, from its inception until today to counter the image given by the authors. We also provide a brief response to their suggestions for change to the WGB. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]