Disaster Resilience and Recovery
The Global Centre for Risk and Innovation (GCRI)
An early warning system works only when the whole chain holds: risk knowledge, detection and forecasting, dissemination and communication, and preparedness to respond. Readiness is the last link, and it is where many systems break. This page sets out how warnings lead to action or fail to, how readiness is measured, and what evidence serves the authorities and communities that must act on warnings.
The interactive map needs JavaScript; the layer list and sources are below.
Layers 3
Hazards now, for this page
Keyboard, with the map focused
Hold Ctrl or ⌘ and scroll to zoom
Latest available
NASA GIBS / EOSDIS · ASTER GDEM (METI, NASA) · Blue Marble (NASA) · © OpenStreetMap contributors (ODbL) · Natural Earth
Loading the latest NASA imagery.
Drag to move. Ctrl or ⌘ and scroll, pinch or the buttons to zoom; hover for the values under the pointer; reset returns to the region.
For early warning readiness, in GCRI's spatial-intelligence reading, the map opens on flood water, population density and true-colour imagery, framed on the Philippines; every other NASA layer, live feed and forecast waits in the layer list.Satellite and model products as NASA publishes them, each with its own date; indicators, not assessments of any place; claim ceiling INTEGRATED.
Layers and dates
Early warning readiness is the ability of authorities and communities to act effectively when a warning arrives, the final link in a chain that runs from risk knowledge through detection and dissemination. Many systems break here, because messages are unclear, trust is low or people lack the means to act.
The working screen behind this subject: its structure, terms and states. Names are placeholders and values illustrative.
Early warning readiness · Province C · Monsoon season
| Cash to at-risk households | 72 h | 52 | Yes |
| Livestock evacuation | 48 h | 13 | Partial |
| Shelter kits | 72 h | 26 | Yes |
Warnings, communication and last-mile issues. The dossier below sets out how the risk develops, what is measured, where the data come from, how it is modelled and who decides.
Monitoring, forecasting, warning issue, transmission, understanding and action are separate steps run by different actors. A delay or gap at any step removes the value of the others.
Warnings in technical language, a single language or inaccessible formats fail to reach many people. Clear messages say what will happen, where, when and what to do.
People told to evacuate need transport, a safe destination, information about their homes and confidence that the warning is real. Without these, warnings are heard and ignored.
False alarms, mixed messages from several sources and past experience shape whether people act. Drills and community involvement build the trust that makes action likely.
Each term as this page uses it. Where a standard-setting body defines the term, the wording follows that body.
| Term | Definition |
|---|---|
| Early warning system | An integrated system of hazard monitoring, forecasting, risk assessment, communication and preparedness that enables timely action. |
| Last mile | The final step in which warnings reach the people at risk. |
| Evacuation plan | A plan setting routes, transport, shelters and responsibilities for moving people out of danger. |
Each indicator carries its unit, its cadence, the kind of source behind it and the evidence label a value would carry. No values are shown: a programme supplies them under its own authority.
| Indicator | Unit | Cadence | Source type | Label |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Countries with multi-hazard early warning systems | status as reported | annual | Sendai Framework Monitor target G | OFFICIAL |
| Population covered by warnings | percent of population | annual | Sendai Framework Monitor target G | OFFICIAL |
| Local governments with evacuation plans | percent of local governments | annual | Sendai Framework Monitor target G | OFFICIAL |
| Warning received before impact | percent of surveyed households | per event survey | Post-event surveys | REPORTED |
| People who took protective action | percent of surveyed households | per event survey | Post-event surveys | REPORTED |
| Time from warning to dissemination | minutes | per event | Warning logs | OBSERVED |
The topic as a computational graph: named sources feed the methods, an evidence review gates the outputs, and the decisions stay with the authorities that hold them.
Fig. 02Nodes carry their type, two metric rows and a state; connectors show what feeds what; dashed frames name the owners; the timeline is the cadence. Design of the pipeline, not a record of a run.
Named public datasets and institutional records, each with its licence class. Sources by agreement are used only under their terms and never republished.
| Source | What it gives | Licence class |
|---|---|---|
| Sendai Framework Monitor, target G | National reporting on early warning coverage, plans and risk information | Public, UN terms of use |
| Early Warnings for All initiative reports and country assessments | Progress on the four pillars of early warning | Public, terms per publishing agency |
| WMO Register of Alerting Authorities | Official alerting authorities and their alert feeds | Public, WMO terms |
| IFRC and national society post-event evaluations | How warnings were received and acted on | Public, terms per publisher |
| Global status reports on multi-hazard early warning systems | Joint UNDRR and WMO assessment of early warning coverage | Public, UN terms of use |
Disaster Resilience and Recovery prepares evidence. The decisions below are taken by the authorities named, under their own rules, and never by the platform.
| Who decides | The question | Evidence this page serves |
|---|---|---|
| National disaster management authorities | Which links in the warning chain need strengthening first | Warning chain reviews; readiness assessments |
| Local governments and civil protection | How evacuation, shelters and transport are organized for warned communities | Evacuation plan coverage; post-event surveys |
| National meteorological and hydrological services | How warning content and format should change | Survey evidence on understanding and action |
Warning researchers ask what happens between a forecast and a protective action.
Warning is a chain, and it breaks at its weakest link. Forecasts may be skilful but issued in technical terms; messages may be clear but sent through channels that some groups do not use; people may receive and understand them but lack transport, a safe place to go or the means to protect livelihoods. Social research shows that people typically seek confirmation from others before acting, and that trust in the source, past experience and the specificity of the message all shape response.
The last mile is where warnings most often fail: remote communities, people with disabilities, migrants who do not speak the language of the warning, and those without phones or power. Impact-based warnings, which describe what a hazard will do rather than only its physical parameters, and messages that state specific actions, generally improve response.
Measuring forecast skill with forecasting and time-series analysis. Skill on hazard does not measure warning effectiveness.
Surveys and interviews on how people received and acted on warnings, with social and behavioural science. Recall after events is imperfect.
Mapping channel reach against population with geospatial information systems. Reach is not the same as reception or understanding.
Tracing the warning chain in a real event. Reviews are often internal and unpublished.
The current service level is R0: information and enquiries. An enquiry receives a reference and names the next step; applications, payments, compute allocations and registrations open only when their team, terms and review capacity exist.