Guaranteed income as an anticipatory action for climate change and disaster preparedness in the US

Introduction

Climate change is associated with more frequent and severe climate hazards, such as heatwaves, wildfires, floods, hurricanes, and droughts (Hung and Wang, 2022). National Centers for Environmental Information (NOAA) reports approximately 174 US billion-dollar disasters and approximately 17,000 deaths from 1980 to 2024 (2025). Disaster impacts from climate hazards are unevenly distributed, with some communities facing greater exposure and fewer protections. Migration and remigration in the wake of these shocks and stressors underscore how policy shapes vulnerability. In 2005, Hurricane Katrina displaced many New Orleans residents. Fussell et al. (2010) found that compared to their White counterparts, a higher percentage of Black community members lived in areas of the city with homes at greater risk of damage from strong winds, flooding, and lower rates of return-migration. Notably, differences in return migration were not statistically significant when “housing damage” was held constant, suggesting housing and financial policy, rather than race itself, structured post-disaster outcomes. That racism and classism factors into policy formation is not new in the United States; however, it is necessary to clarify that vulnerability and adaptive capacity are products of policy itself, not attributable to race or ethnicity. Current climate intervention mechanisms in the US fail to address pre-existing social conditions that require multi-level action to account for baseline adaptive capacity, in addition to event-driven, time-sensitive aid distribution. Gaps in state- and private-sector strategies highlight the viability of GI as an additional support to complement current US climate relief strategies.

Intervention mechanisms

Federal emergency management agency (FEMA)

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is the primary federal agency responsible for coordinating preparedness, response, recovery, and mitigation efforts. However, its main household relief mechanisms are largely activated after federally declared disasters, with a focus on recovery and rebuilding. FEMA's main household assistance program, the Individuals and Households Program, provides financial assistance and direct services to eligible households affected by disaster with uninsured or underinsured expenses and serious needs (Robert, 1988, § 408). Applications for federal disaster assistance are also tied to declared Individual Assistance areas. Thus, we observe that household aid depends on declarations, damage assessments, and demonstrated needs rather than early warnings. Research shows aid favors well-resourced metro areas, leaving rural, low-income, Black, Indigenous, and renter households underserved (Vilá et al., 2022). Proposed legislation, such as the FEMA Equity Act of 2022, recognizes these equity gaps and aims to bolster data collection and reporting requirements.

Insurance sector

Household wealth and economic security are deeply entwined with homeownership. Homeowners' insurance protects homeowners but also exposes them to costs as climate change and natural hazards reshape housing markets (Hemmati et al., 2025). Rising premiums and an expanding insurance retreat are raising barriers to homeownership (Nevitt and Pappas, 2024). That is especially harmful because insurance is often required to obtain a mortgage. The departure of major insurers highlights how insurance and mortgage markets shift risk onto low-income families (Sastry et al., 2024). Historically, policies addressing disaster relief or proactive incentives for climate-safe infrastructure have centered on property ownership (Potter and Godshall, 2024). Programs that help low-income households access weatherization technologies, efficient heating and cooling, and utility cost assistance are therefore key to alleviating economic and climate-related stressors.

Low income home energy assistance program (LIHEAP) and weatherization assistance program (WAP)

The LIHEAP and WAP assist low-income households in paying utility bills and achieving energy-efficiency improvements. LIHEAP block grant funding is state-administered. As such, program rules and funding levels vary across states, territories, and Tribal nations. Generally, program eligibility is not below 110% of the Federal Poverty Guidelines and capped at the greater of 150% of the Federal Poverty Guidelines or 60% of State Median Income (U.S. General Services Administration, 2026). WAP eligibility is set at 200% of the poverty line (with categorical eligibility options), and state implementation details vary (US Department of Energy, n.d.). Social justice scholars note that the US government allocates LIHEAP block grant funding differently across states, territories, and Tribal nations, potentially resulting in less generous allocations (Hammond, 2025). Contending with climate-related issues will require policymakers to consider short- and long-term, multi-level cost analysis. WAP has provided weatherization services to more than 7 million households since 1976 and has demonstrated that these services reduce monthly household energy consumption. In a 2018 randomized evaluation of WAP in Michigan, participants experienced a nearly 20% reduction in monthly household energy consumption (natural gas and electricity), but the realized savings fell short of engineering projections and did not fully offset the upfront investment costs in the cost-benefit analysis (Fowlie et al., 2018).

Across federal disaster relief, private insurance, and household energy assistance, access depends on income, tenancy status, housing quality, and the ability to navigate program rules. These elements systematically disadvantage low-income households and renters, thereby limiting baseline capabilities.

Vulnerability-stress-adaptation model (VSAM)

Since the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Third Assessment Report (McCarthy and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2001), the main components used to describe climate vulnerability have often been framed in terms of exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity. In applied adaptation research, this framework is used to identify constraints to adaptation and to guide policy-level decisions about resources (González Ornelas and Muñoz Meléndez, 2021). However, the framework is less clear about how adaptive capacity translates into household action–also known as the “action gap.”

The action gap emerges when households possess necessary resources but fail to take adaptive actions (González Ornelas and Muñoz Meléndez, 2021). A tendency in survey-based adaptation studies to mismatch individual-level predictors with household-level outcomes may obfuscate the intrahousehold dynamics that determine whether capacity becomes action (Hung and Wang, 2022). Bridging this gap requires a sense of “agency” or autonomous self-efficacy to mobilize resources (Chapagain et al., 2025). While agency is commonly treated as an individual property, intrahousehold research reveals it as shaped by relational and structural constraints within the household. Agency emerges from the internal relational structure and intrahousehold power dynamics, particularly the gendered division of labor and interpersonal influence (Hung and Wang, 2022). We adapt the VSAM framework to enable researchers to consider relational adaptation behavior as a household-level outcome¹. Table 1 presents the link between individual capacity and measurable climate response using a VSAM framework.

Table 1. Conceptual linkages.

Source of items in the factor column adapted from: Hung and Wang (2022); Karantzas et al. (2022)

Source of VSAM location adapted from: Karney and Bradbury (1995); Karantzas et al. (2022).

Through a VSAM lens, GI may support household climate adaptation by reducing financial precarity as a source of disaster vulnerability. However, relational and dyadic processes shape whether that added capacity becomes adaptive action under climate-related stress. The effects of these processes also vary across social strata, as seen in differential exposure to climate change hazards. VSAM is useful here because it examines the household processes that influence whether and in what ways capacity is exercised under stress. These processes include how household members interpret stress, negotiate decisions, manage conflict, and respond to one another over time (Karney and Bradbury, 1995; Karantzas et al., 2022).

Figure 1 presents VSAM's path-based diagram, illustrating how latent capacity is transformed into adaptive action via the agency link (Path B), while external stress (Path A) tests the adaptive processes that produce relationship quality and stability. “Adaptive Processes” are the “engine” of the model, where the actual work of adaptation happens (Karney and Bradbury, 1995), applied here within a climate adaptation context.

Program design elements likely to increase the effectiveness of AA initiatives include pre-agreed triggers, i.e. specific thresholds and decision-making rules based on reliable, timely and measurable forecasts; pre-agreed activities: actions to be implemented to support vulnerable communities between the initial trigger and the event(s); and prearranged financing: guaranteed funding automated for release based on the pre-agreed trigger toward the pre-agreed activities (United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, 2021). As described previously, the US has an extensive disaster-response and hazard mitigation system. However, we find that AA implementation within climate relief strategies in the US is largely underdeveloped, and federal disaster assistance for households remains largely reactive.

Guaranteed Income (GI): long-term/stable liquid asset vs. event driven Anticipatory Action

We consider GI provision under two perspectives: (1) cash as a long-term/stable liquid asset and (2) cash as an anticipatory action (AA)–a temporary enhancement of said asset, preemptively distributed before climate disaster impacts occur. This manuscript adapts the Active Learning Network for Accountability's (ALNAP) definition of AA which refers to actions taken before a predicted hazardous event to prevent or reduce harm to ALNAP (2022). Ongoing liquidity provides the foundation for a system's capacity, and acute financial events test its internal agency over time (Karney and Bradbury, 1995). For example, a system with stable liquidity is better able to use short-term subsidies strategically rather than for survival (González Ornelas and Muñoz Meléndez, 2021). Through a combined perspective of GI, the short-term contributing factors that shape what households can do with the same GI dosage (amount and frequency of cash disbursed), including caregiving burdens, health status, and institutional access, among others, may be more readily interpretable for policy development.

Guaranteed Income (GI): event-driven Anticipatory Action

Research teams across the globe are experimenting with anticipatory cash transfers alongside existing social aid in response to climate disasters and extreme weather. Ongoing research on the impact of anticipatory cash distribution among Mongolian pastoralist communities suggests that preemptive cash transfers enabled herders facing greater resource scarcity to maintain and rebuild their herds and improve food security following the harsh winter season (Mogge et al., 2025; Sodokin and Nyatefe, 2021). Within the policy context of the United States, though certainly not exclusively, an anticipatory Emergency Basic Income (EBI) modeled after the COVID-19 pandemic emergency fund distribution highlights the potential agility and reach of short-term GI interventions operating within existing welfare programs (De Wispelaere et al., 2024). Given the unpredictable household priorities leading up to and following a natural disaster, unrestricted cash transfers may help instill greater agency by expanding choice, thereby enabling self-determination under stressful situations.

Ongoing distribution

While anticipatory aid offers a short-term response to climate disasters, ongoing GI, along with current welfare programs, can help to enhance individual and household adaptive capabilities by providing a baseline level of financial security. Individuals and families experiencing poverty are more susceptible to economic stress stemming from constrained budgets and income volatility (month-over-month fluctuations) (West and Castro, 2023). The urgent demands imposed by limited financial resources reduce cognitive capacities such as attention, executive control, and working memory. Cash transfer programs help to support improvements in absorptive and adaptive capabilities, though transformative or long-term effects are typically less pronounced (Wang et al., 2020; Bastagli et al., 2019). As a climate intervention, GI reduces the gap-to-baseline conditions that allow for long-term planning and for the pervasiveness of harm incurred by climate disasters long after the initial event. A systematic review of cash transfer studies (2000–2015, n = 165) in low- and middle-income countries found that more than half reported no change in household labor participation or intensity (Bastagli et al., 2019). A scoping review of 25 GI studies from 2000–2022 found that all used quantitative methods and 60% were US-based, evaluating outcomes such as maternal and child health, healthcare use, and mental/behavioral health. The review found some positive effects of GI on health outcomes, though the evidence is mixed and benefits vary across studies and populations (Nishimura et al., 2025). Improved baseline health strengthens households' capacity to withstand incremental, persistent climate change factors such as an annual increase in the number of hot days.

Evidence transferability

Most evidence on anticipatory cash transfers comes from research outside the US. Substantive outcomes related to health, wellbeing, and economic recovery, as evidenced by international studies on anticipatory cash transfers and ongoing cash transfer programs, warrant further investigation. Absorptive capacity gains are readily transferable, though the US welfare policy landscape remains a region-specific barrier. Longitudinal data are needed to assess GI's impact on autonomy within relational dynamics, identify who benefits from cash transfers, and examine its impact on relational adaptive behavior under climate-related stressors.

The concept of predictable, pre-climate-shock cash transfer systems emerged in the mid-2010s and was associated with forecast-based financing (Coughlan De Perez et al., 2015). Political dynamics shape trial design and policy frameworks. As such, trial outcomes are, in part, dependent on and reflect the political context throughout their life cycle (Howard and Widerquist, 2012; De Wispelaere et al., 2024). The US welfare system presents additional barriers for examining GI at the policy level. The lack of a federal or state exemption from counting GI payments as income or toward welfare benefit eligibility creates obstacles for pilots evaluating cash transfers (West and Castro, 2023). Differences in design, target groups, payment amounts, frequency, and duration between trials present barriers to building a strong body of evidence. Limited and varied long-term effects likely reflect measurement error and short follow-up in pilot trials rather than a true absence of effect (Bastagli et al., 2019).

System mechanism and standard operating procedures (SOPs)

Anticipatory tools for immediate response to weather events and natural hazards rely on Early Warning Systems (EWS) (United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, 2017). The focus of EWS is shifting toward impact-based forecasts (IBFs) and impact-based forecast warnings (IBFWs), in which estimates of how likely and how severe an event will be (Coughlan De Perez et al., 2022) determine cash amounts and disbursement timing (Coughlan De Perez et al., 2015). Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) with clear institutional responsibilities and prearranged funding mechanisms create a decision-making mechanism that is not reliant on any one individual entity, but rather a network of responsible parties with designated actions triggered by an agreed-upon pre-determined threshold and resources committed prior to the event (Coughlan De Perez et al., 2015).

In the Red Cross/Red Crescent model, National Societies develop Early Action Protocols (EAPs) that specify the forecast source, threshold, geography, early actions, roles, and budget (International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, 2026, 2020). In the case of CERF, OCHA coordinates the allocation process and approves life-saving activities and funding levels before funds are released (UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, 2021; United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, 2021). The technological and data-analytic capacity within the NOAA/National Weather Service (NWS) forecast infrastructure provides field-specific, data-driven approach foundational to establishing trigger thresholds for a US-based system. FEMA's disbursement architecture, alongside the existing SNAP/Internal Revenue Service (IRS) electronic and mail delivery systems—as demonstrated during COVID-19—provides the operational mechanism for distributing prearranged cash disbursements. The absence of a standing authority linking a forecast trigger to automatic cash release remains a key gap.

Challenges with EWS and IBFWs remain in communicating information, community receptivity, and distributing aid to remote or damaged communities (Coughlan De Perez et al., 2022). EWS and IBFW implementation is resource-intensive, requiring significant financial, technological, and personnel investment to build, operate, and maintain. Within low-income rural communities and smaller cities, this likely necessitates a tiered, participatory approach that draws on local knowledge and trusted institutions to build capacity and community buy-in.

Discussion

Existing payment systems (demonstrated during COVID-19) can deliver regular disbursements, but pilot lifecycles (1–2 years) differ sharply from permanent programs like the Alaska Permanent Fund (APF). Although the cases represent adjacent models—a resource dividend² and a municipal basic-income³ program, respectively- the Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend and Maricá's Renda Básica de Cidadania are discussed because they offer lessons on financing recurring payments, setting benefit levels, maintaining political support, and administering broad-based social provision. In the US, pilot programs have typically been funded by not-for-profit organizations, such as philanthropic organizations and service providers, as well as local governments.

Programs funded by such organizations are highly targeted, offering valuable insights into community-specific needs, which makes it difficult to generalize findings to the larger population. In the case of extant ongoing programs, the APF (established in 1976) is a constitutionally established permanent fund and a member of the International Forum of Sovereign Wealth Funds. Determining the amount of the Permanent Fund Dividend paid to eligible residents is driven by both market and political factors. A statutory/policy formula determines the fund's investment of mineral earnings, so annual amounts vary with investment performance and policy decisions. Similarly, Renda

Básica de Cidadania (RBC) (Citizens' Basic Income) is an unconditional monthly transfer funded by oil royalties, distributed to 93,000 Maricá residents in the form of mumbuca, a local currency spendable only within Maricá (Balakrishnan et al., 2024). The APF and RBC present a blueprint for operating ongoing basic income programs and raise an important question regarding the valuation of the social cost of carbon, the global reliance on combustible fuels, and the rate of transition away from fossil fuels.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declared that Generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher's note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Footnotes

Edited by: Md. Jakariya, North South University, Bangladesh

Reviewed by: Raquel Guimaraes, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Austria

Footnotes

Adaptation here is inclusive of Bullard (2000) presentation of “coping” in the case of risk of exposure to hazardous conditions as both “action-orientied” and “intrapsychic” “manage, i.e., master, tolerate, reduce, minimize, environmental and internal demands, conflicts among then, which tax or exceed a person's resources” (Lazarus and Launier, 1978, pp. 297-327).

Resource dividend: “a resource-financed basic income” (Howard and Widerquist, 2012, pg. 9).

“Basic income: a regular income paid in cash to every individual member of society irrespective of income from other sources and with no strings attached” (Van Parijs and Vanderborght, 2017, pg. 6).