The article examines a large-scale survey on climate preparedness across 68 low-emission, non-high-income countries. It asks both how prepared people feel and how prepared institutions are to anticipate and respond to extreme weather.
Conducted by Yale, Meta, and Rare with input from nearly 100,000 Facebook users, the study uses the ND-GAIN Readiness score to map the gap between personal and institutional capacity. It explores what that means for resilience and aid strategy.
What the study measures and why it matters
Climate preparedness is defined as the ability of governments, communities, and individuals to anticipate, prepare for, and respond to climate impacts. The ND-GAIN Readiness score, ranging from 0 to 1, blends economic, governance, and social dimensions to gauge institutional readiness.
In this study, Qatar recorded the highest institutional readiness at 0.55, while the Democratic Republic of the Congo posted the lowest at 0.21. The research highlights that institutional capacity does not automatically translate into public confidence or action at the household level.
How readiness was assessed
The analysis compared two concepts: institutional readiness (ND-GAIN Readiness) and personal readiness (individuals’ self-reported preparedness for extreme weather). Across 68 countries, only 13 had majorities who felt either “very” or “somewhat” prepared.
Vietnam led with 70% of respondents reporting personal readiness, while Azerbaijan stood at 17%. The disconnect between national scores and personal perception was striking, with an almost non-existent correlation (R² < 0.01).
This signals that people’s sense of safety often diverges from the formal capacity of their institutions.
Key findings on readiness across countries
The study categorized nations into four quadrants to illustrate how personal and institutional capabilities interact. These patterns reveal that people may compensate for weak institutions through community action, or conversely, overestimate their own abilities in the absence of robust governance.
A country can have strong institutions but low personal preparedness, or strong personal readiness even where governance is weak. Such nuances suggest that policy responses cannot rely on a single lever of strength to boost resilience.
The four readiness quadrants
The four patterns observed are:
- Low institutional and low personal readiness—the highest risk profile, with limited capacity at both levels.
- High institutional readiness, low personal readiness—governance and resources exist, but households are not actively prepared.
- Low institutional readiness, high personal readiness—individuals and communities mobilize themselves despite weak governance.
- High on both measures—the strongest overall resilience, where institutions and people reinforce each other.
Real-world examples of community-driven resilience
The report spotlights concrete models that blend grassroots action with external support. In Bangladesh’s Gaibandha district, community-led floating gardens and access to flood warnings demonstrate how local initiative, when coupled with external resources, can create adaptive advantages even in vulnerable settings.
Such cases illustrate that institutional capacity and community initiative are not mutually exclusive but complementary components of climate resilience.
Policy implications and the need for targeted aid
With most surveyed countries—48 of 68—in the bottom half of the ND-GAIN readiness measure, the study underscores urgent needs for investment, capacity-building, and sustained international aid. The situation is further complicated by recent cuts to USAID funding, which may constrain support for climate resilience efforts.
Policymakers must tailor interventions to local conditions:
- In countries with strong institutions but weak personal preparedness, focus on public awareness campaigns, behavioral risk reduction, and community engagement to translate governance capacity into daily protective actions.
- In places where grassroots readiness exists but governance is weak, prioritize governance reform, investment in infrastructure, and targeted aid to build institutional foundations that enable local action to scale.
What this means for researchers, practitioners, and the public
The study suggests that climate preparedness is not a single-resource problem. A balanced approach—strengthening governance while empowering communities and households—offers the best path toward durable resilience.
As climate risks rise, understanding the nuanced relationship between institutional readiness and personal preparedness will help funders, policymakers, and communities allocate resources more effectively and sustain progress even in the face of funding shifts.
Key actions to consider
- Support community-led adaptation projects and ensure they connect to formal governance channels.
- Invest in public awareness and practical preparedness measures in countries with strong institutions but low household readiness.
- Strengthen governance and investment where grassroots readiness is present but institutions are weak.
- Advocate for sustained international aid to preserve momentum in climate resilience programs.
Here is the source article for this story: Exploring climate preparedness in low- and middle-income countries