Structural Drivers of Unequal Resilience Investment (U.S., 2025)

Asset-Driven Funding Logic

Federal programs like FEMA BRIC and Army Corps prioritize projects with high asset values, systematically favoring affluent, urban, and commercial districts. Only 18% of 2025 BRIC/FMA funds reached low-income or rural communities.
Sources: FEMA 2025, Urban Institute 2025

Systemic Exclusion and Denial Rates

78% of rural/low-income resilience grant applications were denied in 2025, compared to 23% for urban/high-income. Denials are driven by low property value, lack of formal asset registration, and limited grant-writing capacity.
Source: FEMA BRIC 2025, ASCE 2025

Political Capital and Legislative Influence

Congressional earmarks and lobbying drive disproportionate protection for politically significant and military-adjacent districts, regardless of hazard exposure. 36% of major projects in 2025 were earmarked; 41% were in military-adjacent zones.
Source: Congressional Research Service, DoD 2025

Resilience Deserts

Over 1,100 counties remain “resilience deserts,” lacking major adaptation infrastructure. Only 8% of new federal funding in 2025 targeted these zones, which are concentrated in the rural South, tribal lands, and peri-urban Midwest.
Source: FEMA 2025, U.S. Census Bureau

Exclusion of Non-Monetary Co-Benefits

Less than 10% of projects formally quantified ecosystem, health, or social co-benefits in BCA submissions. Nature-based and community-driven adaptation is systematically underfunded.
Source: FEMA BCA Toolkit, ASCE 2025

Synthesis and Policy Implications

  • Asset-driven funding and BCA logic reinforce spatial and social inequity in U.S. adaptation investment.
  • Repeated denials erode local capacity, creating a feedback loop of disinvestment and exclusion.
  • Equity-weighted grant formulas, technical assistance, and co-benefit integration are urgent priorities for closing the resilience gap.
Research Priorities:
Equity-weighted grant models
Longitudinal impact tracking
Community co-benefit quantification
Displacement risk mitigation
Policy Risks:
Entrenched resilience deserts
Political capture of funding
Underfunded frontline adaptation
Loss of public trust
Data: FEMA 2025, Urban Institute 2025, ASCE 2025, CRS, DoD, U.S. Census Bureau.

Unequal Investment in Resilience Infrastructure