Events like floods, power outages or disease outbreaks can impact everyone, but some people are more likely to suffer serious impacts because of emergencies than others. The Covid Inquiry highlighted that during the pandemic, these differences were not always fully considered. Planning often focuses on people already known to be vulnerable, for example due to age, disability, reliance on medical equipment or illness. These people might already be on lists for support, such as a Priority Service Register for energy or water companies.
However, vulnerability isn’t fixed – it changes over time depending on different scenarios. Therefore, these lists cannot capture everyone that might be disproportionately impacted. Departments must consider all the ways people might be affected to improve the UK’s resilience.
To help with this and as a response to the UK’s 2025 Resilience Action Plan, the Government Office for Science’s Social and Behavioural Science team reviewed research into social vulnerability during disasters and emergencies. They worked closely with academic experts to challenge and refine the findings, and tested ideas with practitioners and local teams on the ground who work in resilience, such emergency responders, to make sure the guidance would work in practice.
Partnering with the Cabinet Office, they produced clear, easy-to-use guidance to help planners think about which people could be most affected during emergencies, and why, based on the best available social and behavioural science. The guidance supports government to look widely at who might be vulnerable and to consider those harmed by secondary effects rather than the emergency itself. These are people who may not be directly affected by the hazard but experience disproportionate harm due to knock‑on consequences. For example, people whose routine healthcare is disrupted (e.g. during COVID, delayed cancer screening) or children whose parents lose access to welfare payments during a cyber incident. The guidance helps to think beyond pre‑existing lists, use data and expert insight, and consider both unintended consequences of response actions.
By using science to understand these differences, planners can take steps to reduce harm and make emergency responses more effective. This work ensures that science is at the heart of resilience planning, helping government and emergency services protect those who need it most.
