One meter resoulution might help in a few SAR cases, such as when looking for a lost vehicle or downed aircraft. Looking for lost hikers, not so much. (Unless, as chaosmagnet says, they make a really big symbol.)

Note that any quoted figure on "resolution" (such as 'one meter') probably refers to optimal conditions. As chaosmagnet also implies, weather is always the bane of satellite visual imagery. Any image taken from space will always have to penetrate the entire thickness of atmosphere. Any clouds, smoke, haze, etc will degrade the quality of the image. Aircraft imagery will always have an advantage in this regard. Besides being much closer to the target (hence not requireing nearly as much optical magnification), an aircraft will be below at least part of the atmosphere. I was reminded of this while landing in Anchorage yesterday, after our Christmas visit down south. As we approached Anchorage at altitude, all one could see was the tops of a few mountains poking up through the clouds. Once we descended below the clouds on our approach, it was quite clear.

The great advantage of satellite imagery (for civilian use) is being able to see large areas at one time. Near realtime satellite views with 1 m resolution could be extremely valuable for disaster management. Think of something like a flood, hurricane, tsunami, or earthquake. An emergency response planner could immediately see which areas were hardest hit, to help decide where to deploy assets. He/she could see which bridges were still standing, and which roads were blocked. This would be very useful for routing convoys of relief supplies.

Air photo missions have been launched especially for SAR. I don't have a link handy, but I recall hearing of one a few years ago looking for missing climbers in the Alaska Range. My recollection is that they never found the missing party they were looking for, but did spot the body of a Japanese climber who had gone missing some years before. Just a bit of red parka was visible in the ice on a wall.