Understanding Barriers to Equitable Disaster Recovery: A Concept Mapping Study

Background:
Underserved communities frequently experience heightened challenges in recovering from disasters due to systemic inequities, limited access to resources, and historical patterns of marginalization. In the wake of Hurricane Ida (2021), which caused widespread damage across Southeastern Louisiana, these disparities became particularly evident (Ferreira et al., 2024). This study was designed to explore and analyze the differing perspectives between grassroots community organizations (COs), which are often embedded in and directly serve local populations, and established institutional stewards of aid (ESoAs), including governmental and large nonprofit entities responsible for coordinating and delivering disaster recovery efforts. The goal was to better understand perceived barriers to recovery and to identify areas of convergence and divergence between these critical stakeholders.

Methods:
To capture the complex and often nuanced views held by both COs and ESoAs, the research team employed a Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR) methodology, emphasizing equity, inclusivity, and collaboration throughout the research process. Recruitment was conducted through extensive networks of the research team within the disaster recovery sector. Group Concept Mapping (GCM), facilitated through the groupwisdom platform, was used as a structured mixed-methods approach to collect and organize participant input. GCM was chosen for its ability to combine qualitative insights with quantitative rigor, facilitating stakeholder-driven data organization. GCM systematically transforms qualitative input—such as participant-generated statements—into quantitative data through sorting and rating activities, which are then analyzed using multidimensional scaling to reveal spatial relationships and thematic clusters among ideas. In total, fifty-eight participants (33 COs, 25 ESoAs) engaged in structured brainstorming, sorting, and rating activities. Statements were clustered and analyzed using multidimensional scaling and hierarchical cluster analysis. Groups rated each barrier based on importance and difficulty in addressing it. T-tests were used to compare perceptions between groups.

Results:
Analysis identified eight barrier clusters: Accessibility, Infrastructure, Individual Vulnerability, Psychological Barriers, Government/Institutional Shortcomings, Lack of Coordination, Mismatched Resources to Needs, and Marginalization. Both groups rated Government/Institutional Shortcomings as highly important and difficult (p < .001). However, significant differences emerged in other areas. COs rated Psychological Barriers as low in importance and high in difficulty, while ESoAs rated them as important and easier to address. Marginalization was the top concern for ESoAs but received lower emphasis from COs. Lack of Coordination was identified as both important and relatively solvable by COs, offering a promising point for intervention.

Conclusions:
The findings underscore a substantial gap in how institutional actors and community-based organizations perceive and prioritize disaster recovery barriers. Although there is consensus on the significance of institutional shortcomings, the two groups differ in their views on what constitutes the most pressing and solvable issues. These perceptual gaps can impede effective collaboration and equitable recovery outcomes. Therefore, fostering dialogue, promoting mutual understanding, and developing joint strategies that bridge these divides are essential. Interventions that enhance coordination and promote co-designed recovery frameworks may serve as catalysts for more inclusive and effective disaster recovery efforts, particularly in historically underserved communities. Future disaster preparedness frameworks should integrate these insights to build adaptive, equity-focused recovery systems.