Hidden Farmworker Labor Camps in North Carolina: An Indicator of Structural Vulnerability

We used geographic information systems (GIS) to delineate whether farmworker labor camps were hidden and to determine whether hidden camps differed from visible camps in terms of physical and resident characteristics. We collected data using observation, interview, and public domain GIS data for 180...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:American journal of public health (1971) 2015-12, Vol.105 (12), p.2570-2575
Main Authors: Summers, Phillip, Quandt, Sara A, Talton, Jennifer W, Galván, Leonardo, Arcury, Thomas A
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Accountability
Agriculture - manpower
Built environment
Camps
Community involvement
Crime prevention
Data collection
Detention centers
Farms
Farmworkers
Geographic Information Systems
Geography
Hispanics/Latinas
Housing - statistics & numerical data
Housing and Health
Housing conditions
Humans
Immigration
North Carolina - epidemiology
Occupational Health
Public health
Remote sensing
RESEARCH AND PRACTICE
Rural Health
Studies
Surveillance
Transients and Migrants - statistics & numerical data
Workers
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:We used geographic information systems (GIS) to delineate whether farmworker labor camps were hidden and to determine whether hidden camps differed from visible camps in terms of physical and resident characteristics. We collected data using observation, interview, and public domain GIS data for 180 farmworker labor camps in east central North Carolina. A hidden camp was defined as one that was at least 0.15 miles from an all-weather road or located behind natural or manufactured objects. Hidden camps were compared with visible camps in terms of physical and resident characteristics. More than one third (37.8%) of the farmworker labor camps were hidden. Hidden camps were significantly larger (42.7% vs 17.0% with 21 or more residents; P ≤ .001; and 29.4% vs 13.5% with 3 or more dwellings; P = .002) and were more likely to include barracks (50% vs 19.6%; P ≤ .001) than were visible camps. Poor housing conditions in farmworker labor camps often go unnoticed because they are hidden in the rural landscape, increasing farmworker vulnerability. Policies that promote greater community engagement with farmworker labor camp residents to reduce structural vulnerability should be considered.
ISSN:0090-0036
1541-0048
DOI:10.2105/AJPH.2015.302797