Disasters occur when a community or population lacks the capacity to manage the hazard’s effects with the available resources at their disposal.^1, Reference Prasad and Francescutti² Climate-related disasters are escalating rapidly worldwide, increasing in frequency, severity, and geographic distribution.Reference Pavlinovic^3, Reference Smith⁴ The United States (US) has incurred 190 separate billion-dollars in disaster-related damages from 2015 to 2024, resulting in over 6300 fatalities and an estimated $1.4 trillion in total economic losses.Reference Smith⁴ Among these events, tropical cyclones (including hurricanes) have caused the greatest financial impact, with cumulative losses totaling $1543.2 billion and an average cost of $23.0 billion per event.Reference Smith⁴ These storms severely disrupt critical infrastructure, particularly food systems, by impacting food availability, accessibility, and distribution, further exacerbating vulnerabilities in affected communities.Reference Khan, Anwar and Batool^5, Reference Abimibayo Adeoya, Sasaki, Fuda, Okamoto and Egawa⁶ Beyond immediate disruptions, disasters have lasting social, environmental, and economic repercussions,Reference Prasad and Francescutti² underscoring the urgent need for effective disaster response and resilience strategies.Reference Smith^4, Reference Clay, Slotter, Heath, Lange and Colón-Ramos^7–Reference Fitzpatrick, Willis, Spialek and English¹⁶

The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) defines food security as the “condition in which all people, at all times, have both physical and economic access to sufficient, safe, and nutritious food that aligns with their dietary needs and preferences, promoting an active and healthy life.”Reference Programme¹⁷ To be food secure, 4 dimensions—availability, accessibility, utilization, and stability—must be met simultaneously.Reference Programme¹⁷ Disasters elevate the risk of food insecurity, particularly for households experiencing financial strain, housing instability, or shifts in composition.Reference Rose¹⁸ Given the widespread impacts,Reference Keim^19, Reference Clay²⁰ effective policies and regulations are crucial to ensuring post-disaster access to adequate nutrition. Without such measures, prolonged food supply disruptions could exacerbate health risks, deepen disparities, and destabilize local food systems.Reference Marrero, Tamez, Rodríguez-Orengo and Mattei²¹

In the US and its territories, the 1990 National Nutrition Monitoring and Related Research Act mandates food assistance align with federal Dietary Guidelines for Americans.Reference Colón-Ramos, Roess, Robien, Marghella, Waldman and Merrigan¹³ However, prior to Hurricane Katrina (2005), many states lacked adequate disaster response plans. Katrina’s aftermath prompted the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006, restructuring the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and leading to the creation of the National Response Framework (NRF),Reference Logan, Bradley and Chen²² a comprehensive federal disaster response guide.^{23, 24} The NRF coordinates across local, state, and federal authorities, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), faith-based groups, and private businesses. Under this framework, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) leads the Emergency Support Function-11, overseeing disaster nutrition assistance. Another critical reform, the Stafford Act, grants the Secretary of Agriculture the authority to implement the Disaster Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (D-SNAP) with a presidential major disaster declaration. If enacted, D-SNAP provides eligible survivors 1 month of financial benefits that can be used to purchase food, except in extraordinary circumstances. State agencies evaluate the need for D-SNAP or other feeding programs after disasters and submit detailed requests to Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), which offers disaster nutrition assistance through 3 methods.^{23, 24} (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) disaster services: overview of assistance provided to affected populations.

Source: Authors’ modified version of the original exhibit in Food and Nutrition Service: USDA Foods in Disaster Manual.²³

Although the NRF and Stafford Act provide general guidance, each state develops its own disaster response plan, which may result in wide variations in food security after hurricanes. Yet, despite the critical role of food and nutrition assistance in disaster response,²⁵ there is scant evidence on how food distribution functions in the aftermath of disasters across states and territories. Understanding these differences is essential for developing disaster response plans that effectively mitigate food insecurity amid disasters, particularly among vulnerable populations. However, the US lacks a strong evidence base on how to effectively meet food and nutrition needs in disaster response. Without data-driven strategies, policies risk overlooking vulnerable populations or distributing food that fails to meet actual needs.

This study sought to examine how locality-specific disaster response plans address food security in hurricane-prone US states and territories through the following research objectives: (1) analyze variations in food distribution strategies between Florida, Texas, Louisiana, Puerto Rico (PR), and the US Virgin Islands (USVI) disaster response plans; (2) identify disparities in disaster food response plans; and (3) highlight areas for policy and programmatic improvement. To achieve these objectives, this study is guided by the following research question: How do disaster response plans and media coverage address the 4 dimensions of food security following hurricanes, and how do food distribution strategies compare between US states and territories? The South, Central, and Southeast US, including the Caribbean territories, have suffered the highest cumulative disaster costs, reflecting their exposure to extreme weather events.Reference Smith⁴ Florida leads the US in total disaster costs ($450 billion), followed by Texas ($436 billion), and Louisiana (~$314 billion).Reference Smith⁴ PR and the USVI have also faced severe economic and infrastructural losses, particularly following the devastating 2017 hurricane season, which was the costliest on record, exceeding $300 billion in damages.Reference Smith^{4, 26} Findings from this study will contribute to the development of evidence-based recommendations to enhance disaster preparedness and response efforts, ensuring equitable access to nutritious food in disaster-affected communities.

Methods

A comparative content analysis was conducted, utilizing a deductive coding approach guided by the Disaster Food Security Framework (DFSF), a theoretical model developed for assessing food insecurity in disaster settings.Reference Clay, Koyratty and Rogus²⁷ The DFSF comprises 4 key domains—availability, accessibility, agency, and acceptability—that collectively influence food security in disaster contexts. This framework was chosen because it is the only model specifically designed to assess food security in the context of disasters, making it uniquely suited for this study. Unlike broader food security models, which often focus on chronic food insecurity, DFSF directly accounts for disruptions in food access, distribution networks, and emergency food assistance—critical elements in disaster response. Availability categorizes food accessible through mainstream sources, including grocery stores and food provided through assistance and donation programs. This is crucial, given that food assistance programs, food banks, food pantries, and other donation approaches constitute vital sources of food in post-disaster settings. Accessibility addresses economic, physical, and social access, emphasizing affordability, the use of the D-SNAP, transportation, distribution networks, number of food sources, and safety practices. Agency focuses on households’ ability to prepare and safely store food, considering factors such as equipment (e.g., stoves, sinks, refrigerators, and freezers), services (e.g., electricity, water, and waste disposal), and other necessities (e.g., ingredients and a functional kitchen). Acceptability addresses individual health needs, dietary restrictions, preferences, and nutrition aspects, including food quantity, quality, and safety.Reference Clay, Koyratty and Rogus²⁷ The DFSF was utilized to assess state-mandated policies and procedures. The focus was on Florida, Texas, and Louisiana—and US Territories, PR, and the USVI—as these localities have experienced the costliest hurricanes since 2017.Reference Broach²⁸

The main unit of analysis was each locality’s disaster response plan, sourced from official state and territorial websites, where available. These documents outline detailed response strategies, agency responsibilities, and implementation procedures. Comprehensive state-level disaster plans were accessible for Florida, Texas, and Louisiana, whereas equivalent documents were limited or unavailable for PR and USVI. Given the variability in available plans, the analysis was supplemented with gray literature and media sources (Table 1) to capture disaster food security efforts in contexts where official plans were unavailable, particularly in PR and USVI. Media sources were selected to provide real-time insights into post-disaster food security challenges, particularly where government-issued documents lacked details. To mitigate potential biases, sources were drawn from a diverse range of organizations, including FEMA, USDA, NGOs (relief organizations, food banks, and service providers), and major news outlets. A systematic online search was conducted using Google, applying predefined search term combinations by location (“hurricane,” “food distribution,” “food insecurity”) and restricting results to the first 3 pages per search. The search focused on major hurricanes affecting the region since 2017, namely Hurricanes Ian (2022), Harvey (2017), Ida (2021), and Maria (2017). Exclusions were made for sources lacking relevant content, unavailable weblinks, and repetitive information. In cases where a source contained insights relevant to multiple locations, it was referenced across different study sites.

Table 1.

Selected characteristics of media sources in the specified states and territories (2017-2022)

Source: Authors’ analysis of data from media sources, 2017-2022.

The study methodology follows guidelines from the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ), ensuring rigor, transparency, and consistency in qualitative coding and reporting.Reference Tong, Sainsbury and Craig²⁹ Data sources were coded using NVIVO and MAXQDA to ensure a structured and systematic qualitative analysis. The DFSF framework guided the initial coding process, organizing data into predefined categories related to the 4 dimensions. To ensure methodological rigor and inter-coder reliability, the analysis was conducted by 2 independent coders, with coding discrepancies resolved by consensus through regular calibration meetings. In cases where consensus was not immediately achieved, a third senior reviewer adjudicated differences to ensure consistency in coding application. Additionally, emerging themes were discussed with the broader research team to validate interpretations. As this research involved the review of public documents, IRB approval was not required. This integrated methodological approach, combining official disaster response plans, gray literature, and media analysis, provides a comprehensive understanding of food security planning, illuminating nuances within the broader disaster response context.

Results

Table 2 presents selected characteristics of the localities included in this study, showcasing key contextual differences in food security and disaster response. The US territories show the greatest prevalence of poverty and food insecurity,Reference Martinez-Brockman, Hromi-Fiedler and Galusha³⁰ with the USVI experiencing a food insecurity rate more than double that of Louisiana, the most food insecure US state in this study. Despite the USVI and PR both being US territories, differences in policy implementation, notably, food assistance and maritime laws (e.g., Jones Act), influence disaster food security responses differently. These factors are further addressed in the next section.

Table 2.

Case descriptions of specified states and territories

Source: Persons in poverty (percent) retrieved from US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2022.^31ǁPersons in poverty (percent) retrieved from US Census Bureau, Puerto Rico Community Survey 2022.³² Prevalence of household-level food insecurity, average 2020-2022 (percent) data comes from USDA ERS – Key Statistics & Graphics.³³ Totals exclude households for which food security status is unknown because household respondents did not give a valid response to any of the questions in the food security scale. These exclusions represented about 0.2 percent of all households in 2020, 0.2% in 2021, and 0.2% in 2022. ƗPrevalence of household-level food insecurity, average 2020-2022 (percent) data comes from a cross-sectional analysis of baseline ECHORN cohort study data between 2013 and 2018 (n = 1939).Reference Martinez-Brockman, Hromi-Fiedler and Galusha³⁰ This paper emphasizes SNAP and NAP due to the provision of temporary food assistance benefits to eligible households affected by natural disasters through DSNAP.^{34, 35} Jones Act Status retrieved from the US Customs and Border Protection.³⁶ Hurricanes mentioned are among the most recent and devastating.Reference Broach²⁸

The analysis revealed that food availability, accessibility, and acceptability during disaster periods were the primary themes emphasized in disaster plans and media communications. Few disaster plans addressed agency (Table 3, see Supplemental File for more details). While US states prioritized coordinated food distribution strategies and infrastructure resilience, PR and the USVI faced significant deficiencies across all DFSF domains, particularly in accessibility and agency. The following examines each dimension separately, concluding with an analysis of how these dimensions interact.

Table 3.

Analysis of existing disaster response plans and post-disaster response efforts addressed food security in affected areas (2017-2022)

Availability

State response plans comprehensively addressed all subdomains of food availability, ensuring adequate supply at distribution points such as grocery stores and emergency food aid programs. In contrast, US Territories lacked adequate support for the supply and provision of food. Donation assistance was emphasized in state response plans and recognized as crucial in US territories by media accounts, with local and national food banks playing a central role in storing and supplying food aid in regions with high rates of food insecurity, such as Louisiana, PR, and the USVI (Table 3). There were notable differences between states and territories for supply and provision at food distribution points. State response plans emphasized coordination and cross-state collaboration. Texas and Louisiana, for example, established dedicated food teams at the local level for emergency food response during disasters. Texas coordinated with national food networks to emphasize stockpiling for sustained provision, while Louisiana’s plan detailed inventory management and a 3-phase timeline for food provision, including partnerships with food service providers. In contrast, PR and the USVI lacked food stockpiling measures, making them heavily reliant on FEMA distribution sites post-disaster. Unlike US states that could restock supplies via road networks, PR and the USVI required shipments by air and sea. Media documents highlighted that shipments were often delayed as a result of logistical inefficiencies and maritime restrictions. The Jones Act, which requires that goods transported between US ports be carried on US-built and US-operated vessels, exacerbated supply delays despite waivers granted post-disasters.^37–39 Even with waivers, inefficiencies persisted, with average delivery times reaching 69 days for PR,^40, Reference Pribyl, Morrissey, Nolan, Foley and Cavanaugh⁴¹ leaving only a 30-day grocery supply.Reference Palin, Hanson, Barton and Frohwein⁴² Although the USVI is exempt from the Jones Act, limited port capacity and resource competition between relief and commercial supply chains created additional delays.

Accessibility

Disaster response plans prioritized economic and physical accessibility by integrating financial food aid programs, like D-SNAP and FNS waivers, to alleviate income changes and support affected households in the aftermath of disasters.²⁵ Florida implemented a hybrid D-SNAP model, combining in-person and virtual enrollment, and the USDA issued SNAP benefits in advance of Ian’s landfall to provide early financial relief. Similarly, Texas’ plan facilitated access to food assistance programs through information referral networks. A key contrast in this area was the case of PR. Unlike SNAP, which provides automatic funding increases based on need, PR relies on the Nutrition Assistance Program (NAP), a block grant with a fixed maximum allocation. As a result, benefit amounts are limited based on a projection of the number of participants, which may not accurately reflect need in times of disasters. NAP has no equivalent to D-SNAP; therefore, disasters or emergencies require new appropriations by Congress. After Hurricane Maria, PR residents waited 6 months for additional food aid, highlighting a major accessibility gap.Reference Enchautegui Román, Blakely Vallecillo and Aguirre Mercado⁴³ In the USVI, media reports underscored challenges in D-SNAP implementation, compounded by power and communication outages that prevented electronic food purchases. Physical accessibility was addressed through mobile feeding units and expanded food distribution sites in state plans. Louisiana prioritized cross-agency coordination to deploy supplies, while PR and the USVI struggled with port congestion, leaving food undistributed despite availability. Social factors such as trust, worry, fear, stigma, or coping behaviors were not directly accounted for in the disaster plans.

Agency

Agency, the ability of individuals to prepare, store, and utilize food, was almost entirely absent from state and territory response plans. Only Texas explicitly addressed agency. Texas focused on infrastructure only, and emphasized the restoration of utilities to enable residents to cook meals at home and purchase food in stores. In contrast, Florida, Louisiana, and US territories relied on NGOs and local restaurant coalitions to provide ready-to-eat meals, as opposed to the provision of infrastructure or measures to augment self-efficacy. The lack of attention to agency has significant long-term implications, particularly in fostering dependency on external aid rather than promoting resilience and autonomy. In PR, for example, post-Hurricane Maria recovery efforts prioritized short-term food distribution without parallel investments in local food systems or household-level food preparation infrastructure. Media reports from this period indicated limited community capacity to transition from emergency relief to self-sufficiency. Similarly, in the USVI, extended reliance on mass feeding sites highlighted the absence of disaster plans supporting residents’ ability to store and prepare their own food, exacerbating vulnerabilities when external aid diminished.

Acceptability

All state disaster plans addressed nutrition. They primarily focused on food and water safety. Additional considerations included providing nutritionally appropriate food and addressing the specific nutritional needs of various populations (infants, children, and those receiving meals from mass feeding sites). While plans briefly addressed needs (i.e., individual dietary requirements), no locality explicitly mentioned medical, health, religious, or cultural preferences. Florida’s disaster plan prioritized providing food for mass feeding sites using the USDA foods inventory. In contrast, Texas briefly mentioned dietary considerations and collaboration on feeding menus. Media coverage of Texas emphasized efforts to provide nutritious foods. Louisiana’s plan referenced nutritional guidelines and aimed to meet specific dietary requirements. In PR, the nutritional quality of food aid was questioned after Hurricane Maria due to the presence of highly processed foods with low nutritional value. Issues concerning food preferences and specific dietary needs were not acknowledged.Reference Colón-Ramos, Roess, Robien, Marghella, Waldman and Merrigan¹³ Similarly, in the USVI, nutritional aspects and specific preferences were not comprehensively addressed.

Interconnectedness of the 4 Dimensions

The 4 dimensions of food security (availability, accessibility, agency, and acceptability) are not isolated; they are deeply interconnected, particularly in disaster contexts where disruptions in one domain often trigger cascading effects in others. For instance, when food availability is limited, as observed in PR and the USVI, this scarcity directly exacerbates accessibility challenges. Disruptions in supply chains, damaged transportation infrastructure, and economic shocks can create both physical and financial barriers that prevent communities from obtaining essential food supplies. These accessibility constraints further undermine agency. Without reliable access, households lose the capacity to make informed choices about their food, especially when critical infrastructures such as electricity, refrigeration, and safe water are compromised. This lack of agency means that even if food is eventually available, households may not be able to store or prepare. The inability to store and prepare food further exacerbates food insecurity, making it more difficult to meet dietary and nutritional needs. Furthermore, when agency is diminished, individuals are often forced to consume whatever food is available, regardless of whether it aligns with their cultural, dietary, or nutritional preferences. Thus, further compromising acceptability. This forced compromise not only impacts immediate well-being but can also have long-term effects on health and community resilience.