Guaranteed Income (GI) As an Anticipatory Action (AA) for Climate Change and Disaster Preparedness In the US

Background and Purpose: From 1980 to 2024, the US has experienced 403 billion-dollar weather and climate disasters with total costs exceeding USD 2.91 trillion. The financial and human costs of such events are unevenly distributed, with some communities facing greater exposure and fewer protections. 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. This review presents the Vulnerability-Stress-Adaptation (VSA) model as a methodological framework for assessing Guaranteed Income (GI) as a potential Anticipatory Action (AA) instrument for climate change and disaster intervention in the United States. The objective is to understand how pre-existing, policy-driven vulnerabilities shape community adaptive capabilities to identify gaps that GI may help address.

Methods: To understand the factors that shape community adaptive capabilities to stressful situations and how GI may help address potential service gaps, we review existing climate relief strategies in the US and the cash transfer literature on climate interventions. The review includes a systematic review of cash transfer studies (2000-2015, n = 165) in low- and middle-income countries and a scoping review of GI studies (n = 25; 2000-2022; 60% US-based) examining health outcomes. The research design also incorporates a comparative analysis of the Alaska Permanent Fund and Renda Basica de Cidadania, assessing operational models, financing, dosage, and durability. Lastly, we outline how the temporal element of the VSA enables the examination of relational outcomes to stressful events as an iterative process.

Results: We found that federal FEMA fund disbursements demonstrate inequitable distribution of aid, favoring "high-capacity" metropolitan areas over rural counties, communities of color, renters, and Tribal communities. The scoping review yielded promising evidence, finding significant positive impacts of GI on health outcomes, especially among program participants with greater resource scarcity. Furthermore, in over 50% of studies, household workforce participation and intensity rates were unaffected by cash transfers. Findings indicate that by providing ongoing, predictable income, GI reduces cognitive taxation and allows for long-term planning and decision-making. Additionally, anticipatory cash transfers were associated with increased post-disaster herd sizes and spending in specific contexts.

Conclusions and Implications: GI shows promise as an AA intervention providing both long-term financial stability to enhance adaptive capacity and short-term anticipatory aid to address immediate disaster needs. GI programs are adaptable to both sudden-onset disasters—such as wildfires or floods—and slow-onset events, such as extreme heat and sea-level rise. The study implies that GI reduces the gap-to-baseline conditions that allow for long-term planning and mitigates the pervasiveness of harm incurred long after the initial event. Finally, coordinating GI trials under a harmonized global research agenda offers a platform for cross-site comparative analysis to determine program effectiveness.