Inequitable Disaster Support for Socially Vulnerable Communities an Integrated Public Policy Framework for Equity Across the Disaster Management Cycle

Abstract

Disasters do not affect all communities equally. Socially vulnerable communities often face greater exposure, weaker preparedness support, delayed response assistance, reduced access to emergency information, and slower recovery after disasters. These inequities are not caused only by hazard severity or individual vulnerability; they are also shaped by public policy gaps, fragmented needs assessment, inaccessible communication, resource allocation barriers, administrative burdens, weak recovery tracking, and limited accountability. This article uses a qualitative document based conceptual analysis to examine inequitable disaster support and develop an Integrated Public Policy Framework for Equitable Disaster Support across the disaster management cycle. The analysis synthesizes social vulnerability theory, emergency management doctrine, official government oversight reports, disaster review evidence from the United States, Australia, and New Zealand, and qualitative document analysis literature. The findings show that disaster equity gaps are cycle-wide, that equal availability of assistance does not create practical accessibility, that recovery inequity is reinforced by administrative and documentation barriers, and that equity-oriented data governance is necessary to prevent invisible recovery disparities. The article develops a ten-component framework that integrates social vulnerability and needs assessment, inclusive preparedness and mitigation investment, accessible warning and risk communication, equitable evacuation and sheltering, priority resource allocation, culturally competent and community led response, recovery assistance access, equity focused recovery tracking, equity centered data governance, and policy accountability. The article contributes to disaster management and public policy scholarship by positioning equitable disaster support as a measurable governance responsibility rather than a narrow recovery issue.