This archive includes census tract and block group shapefiles with three selected Social Vulnerability Indices (SVIs) that span a range of methodological approaches and institutional origins. The CDC/ATSDR SVI is a nationally produced, deductive index widely used in disaster management (Flanagan et al. 2011; Flanagan et al. 2018). The Hazard Reduction and Recovery Center (HRRC) SVI, developed at Texas A&M University, was first outlined in Van Zandt et al. (2012) and was validated using post-disaster survey data. SVInsight, developed by the University of Texas, employs an inductive, PCA-based approach, and emphasizes context-specific customization (Bixler et al. 2021; Preisser et al. 2022; Preisser et al. 2023; Preisser et al. 2025). These indices differ in structure, indicator selection, and scale of application, providing a useful basis for comparative analysis in Southeast Texas. In total there are 5 SVI options (census tract CDC, HRRC, and SVInsight+ census block group HRRC and SVInsight).
Note that the primary variables to use are
C202090012 Index Total CDC Overall Percentile Ranking for Texas
H202090012 Index Total HRRC TAMU Statewide Percentile Rank
U202090012 Index Total SVInsight Factor Analysis Scaled 0 to 1 Normalized Across Texas
The SVI values represent a percentile rank and should be split into discreet ranges.
Examples
Low SV 0 to 0.333
Medium SV 0.334 to 0.666
High SV 0.667 to 1.0
For basic analysis the CDC SVI has been determined to be the "best" option. Though, it is recommended to compare results using all 5 SVI options.
CDC (2022). CDC/ATSDR SVI data and documentation download. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. https://atsdr.cdc.gov/place-health/php/svi/svi-data-documentation-download.html
Preisser, M., P. Passalacqua and R. P. Bixler (2025). SVInsight. Zenodo.org, Zenodo. Retrieved. https://github.com/mdp0023/SVInsight
Van Zandt, S., W. G. Peacock, D. W. Henry, H. Grover, W. E. Highfield and S. D. Brody (2012). "Mapping social vulnerability to enhance housing and neighborhood resilience." Housing Policy Debate 22(1): 29-55. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2011.624528.
