Early Warnings Save Lives but Gaps Persist: World Bank Calls for Inclusive Systems

A new World Bank Policy Research Working Paper, produced by the Urban, Disaster Risk Management, Resilience and Land Global Department with contributions from Paris-Saclay University, AgroParisTech, INRAE, and the Centre for Net Zero, offers a wide-ranging investigation into the reach and benefits of early warning systems (EWS). While such systems are among the most cost-effective measures for disaster risk reduction, the report reveals that their coverage is uneven, their reception deeply influenced by socioeconomic and geographic factors, and their benefits dependent on how well households can act once alerted. The study blends international data from the World Risk Poll with national and local surveys in Tanzania, Bangladesh, and Indonesia, building a bottom-up perspective on how warnings save lives and reduce losses.

The Scale of the Challenge

The backdrop is grim: disasters now inflict global losses of around $170 billion annually, with floods and tropical cyclones accounting for much of the damage. Developing countries face sharper setbacks than wealthier ones, often pushed deeper into poverty with every event. Against this, EWS provides a rare bright spot, offering lead times ranging from minutes to days and allowing households to protect lives and property. The study points to striking figures: with just 24 hours’ notice, families may save a few possessions and poultry; with seven days, they can harvest crops, relocate livestock, and safeguard entire offices. Cost-benefit ratios cited range from 1:4 to 1:400, underscoring the extraordinary efficiency of early warnings. Yet as of 2024, only about 55 percent of countries reported having multi-hazard systems, and even within those, coverage is far from complete.

Unequal Coverage Across Nations

Analysis of the 2023 World Risk Poll reveals wide global disparities. In wealthier countries, between 60 and 80 percent of people reported receiving a warning before their last disaster. By contrast, much of Sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America, Central Asia, and the Middle East lag behind. The Caribbean and Southeast Asia, long accustomed to recurrent hazards, show stronger performance. Statistical modeling confirms GDP per capita strongly correlates with EWS coverage, but explains only part of the story. Countries with frequent and predictable hazards, such as cyclones or floods, achieve better coverage, while those facing less predictable events like earthquakes or tsunamis see far weaker systems. Income, hazard type, and disaster experience together shape who gets warned, but gaps persist even among countries at similar income levels.

Who Hears the Warning at Home

The research digs into household-level disparities that define how warnings are received in practice. Higher incomes, better education, and residence in towns or suburbs all increase the likelihood of receiving alerts. Conversely, rural residents, women, and those out of the workforce are less likely to be covered. Case studies sharpen this picture: in Dar es Salaam, migrants and residents of informal settlements were less likely to hear warnings, while owning durable assets or monitoring weather forecasts improved chances. In Bangladesh, having a mobile phone or living in flood-protected zones raised the odds of being warned. Interestingly, households connected to humanitarian networks, for example, those receiving dignity kits from aid agencies, also proved more likely to receive alerts. The findings show that technology alone is insufficient; social networks, literacy, and community integration matter just as much.

From Alerts to Action

What people do once warned is crucial. Surveys in Tanzania show that warned households were significantly more likely to clear drains, dig protective ditches, or lay sandbags before the rainy season. In Bangladesh, early alerts prompted families to evacuate loved ones and livestock, buy food, reinforce homes, and alert neighbors. These proactive measures directly reduced exposure and losses. The World Risk Poll’s Resilience Index adds a psychological dimension: while experiencing a disaster lowers perceived resilience, receiving an early warning boosts it by more than four points on a 100-scale, more than compensating for the negative impact of the disaster itself. Perhaps the most compelling evidence comes from Indonesia, where villages with EWS recorded dramatically fewer casualties during floods and cyclones, sometimes up to 19 times lower than villages without them. Regression analysis confirmed that EWS presence reduced casualty rates fivefold, even after accounting for road access, evacuation routes, and medical facilities.

A Call for Inclusive and Integrated Systems

Early warning systems are indispensable but insufficient on their own. Policymakers are urged to prioritize both expansion and inclusivity, ensuring that warnings reach marginalized populations in disaster-prone regions. Communication channels must be diversified, since people depend variously on radio, television, social media, local officials, or community organizations. In low-income countries, community groups remain a lifeline, while in wealthier states, digital platforms and government alerts dominate. But warnings only matter if recipients know what to do: governments must provide clear evacuation plans, resilient shelters, and accessible infrastructure. Communities need training, and households must prepare strategies to safeguard assets and act swiftly. Without this integration, alerts risk going unheeded. The message is stark: expanding and improving early warning systems is not just a technical fix but a social imperative. If achieved, the benefits are immense: lives saved, livelihoods protected, and resilience strengthened in the face of escalating climate risks.