Climate-Health Investments Could Deliver Up to 68-Fold Returns, WRI Study Finds

Climate-health investments could deliver significant economic returns for low- and middle-income countries, according to new research from the World Resources Institute, supported by The Rockefeller Foundation.

The study, reported by Forbes, found that every $1 invested in preparing health systems for climate-related risks could generate between $3.60 and $68.40 in benefits. These returns come from reducing illness, preventing deaths, avoiding emergency costs and improving the ability of hospitals, governments and communities to respond before climate-related health threats escalate.

The research focuses on what WRI describes as “climate services for health”. These are data-driven tools and activities that help health systems anticipate and manage risks associated with rising temperatures, extreme weather, and climate-sensitive diseases. They include weather, climate and water data services, early warning systems, disease surveillance, climate-informed health planning, emergency preparedness, public awareness campaigns and climate-resilient health facilities.

For governments and development finance institutions, the findings strengthen the economic case for treating climate adaptation as a health investment rather than merely an environmental cost. Climate change is already increasing exposure to extreme heat, floods and disease risks. Without stronger intervention, climate-related health impacts in low- and middle-income countries could contribute to millions of premature deaths and major economic losses by mid-century.

Study Finds Strong Returns From Early Action

The study analysed 46 projects across 40 countries in Sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, Asia, and the Middle East and North Africa. It found that the cost of building a full climate-health services package for a low- or middle-income country with around 25 million people would be about $18 million per year, or roughly 72 cents per person. Individual components were estimated to cost between $1.4 million and $5.9 million annually.

These costs are relatively modest when compared with the potential value of avoided deaths, lower treatment costs and reduced service disruption. WRI said the expected investment need is small relative to the 2% to 4% of GDP that many countries typically spend on health, yet climate-health services remain underused and underfunded.

The report’s return estimates vary depending on the type of intervention, local exposure to climate hazards, implementation quality and the value of avoided damages. Even so, the findings suggest that prevention can be far less expensive than emergency response after a climate-related health crisis has already developed.

Resilient Hospitals Can Protect Lives and Reduce Losses

The strongest returns were found in measures that keep health systems functioning during climate shocks. In the Caribbean, the Pan American Health Organization’s SMART Hospitals initiative retrofitted health facilities across several climate-vulnerable countries. The programme was designed to improve structural safety, environmental performance and operational resilience during hurricanes, floods and other disasters.

According to WRI, facilities that achieved the highest safety and environmental standards remained operational during major events, helping protect access to care for hundreds of thousands of people. In countries such as Jamaica and St. Lucia, the estimated economic returns were especially high, with benefits well above $68 for every $1 invested.

For hospitals and clinics, resilience is not only a construction issue. It includes reliable power, water access, cooling, communications, emergency supplies, staff training and continuity planning. Health facilities that fail during storms or heatwaves can multiply the human and economic costs of disasters, particularly in regions where alternative medical services are limited.

Heat Warning Systems Show High Value

Urban heat warning systems also showed strong potential. In cities exposed to rising temperatures, these systems can alert residents, health workers and local authorities before dangerous conditions peak. When combined with cooling centres, public messaging, targeted support for vulnerable people and emergency response planning, heat alerts can reduce hospital admissions and prevent deaths.

WRI highlighted examples from European and Indian cities where every $1 invested in heat warning systems produced several times that value in avoided health costs and productivity losses. In Indian cities, estimated returns were particularly high, reflecting the country’s exposure to extreme heat and the large number of people working outdoors or in poorly cooled environments.

Heat is becoming an increasingly important risk for governments, employers and infrastructure operators. It can reduce labour productivity, increase electricity demand, disrupt transport systems and place pressure on hospitals. For businesses, heat adaptation is also becoming part of operational risk management, especially in construction, logistics, agriculture, manufacturing and energy-intensive sectors.

Community-Level Action Can Be Low-Cost and Effective

The study also points to more basic public health interventions. In Karachi, Pakistan, a heat emergency awareness and treatment programme trained community health workers to help residents prevent, identify and respond to heat-related illness. The programme was relatively inexpensive and generated savings by reducing hospitalizations and out-of-pocket medical costs.

This kind of intervention is important because many climate-health risks are experienced first at the household and community level. Public awareness campaigns, local health worker training, school-based education and targeted outreach to vulnerable groups can help people respond before risks become emergencies.

These measures are particularly relevant in areas where formal health systems are under-resourced. They can also be deployed quickly, making them useful for countries that need near-term adaptation while larger infrastructure investments are still being planned.

Climate Data Must Be Integrated Into Health Systems

A key message from the study is that better data can improve public health planning. Climate and weather information can help authorities anticipate heatwaves, flooding, air quality problems and disease outbreaks. When this information is linked with health surveillance, governments can identify where risks are rising and direct resources more effectively.

However, many countries still lack strong integration between meteorological agencies and health systems. Climate data may exist, but it is not always translated into practical health alerts, hospital preparedness plans or disease prevention strategies. This creates a gap between scientific information and frontline decision-making.

Closing that gap requires cooperation between health ministries, meteorological services, emergency agencies, local governments, researchers and community organizations. It also requires investment in digital systems, trained staff and clear protocols for acting on climate-risk information.

Implications for Net-Zero and Infrastructure Planning

For energy and infrastructure planners, the findings are directly relevant. Climate-resilient health systems depend on reliable electricity, clean water, cooling, transport access and communications. Hospitals and clinics exposed to storms, floods or heatwaves may need backup power, solar energy systems, battery storage, resilient roofs, efficient cooling and emergency operating plans.

These investments overlap with broader net-zero and adaptation strategies. For example, solar and battery systems can reduce dependence on diesel generators while improving energy security during disasters. Efficient cooling can reduce energy demand while protecting patients and medical staff during heatwaves. Better building design can reduce emissions and improve resilience at the same time.

For investors, the report adds to growing evidence that adaptation finance can produce measurable economic and social returns. While climate mitigation often focuses on emissions reductions, climate-health adaptation delivers value by avoiding losses, reducing emergency spending and protecting essential services.

A Stronger Case for Adaptation Finance

The study’s findings come at a time when developing countries are calling for greater international support for adaptation. Many low- and middle-income countries have contributed relatively little to historical emissions but face high exposure to climate-related health risks. Financing climate-health services could therefore become an important part of international climate and development policy.

The investment case is not limited to governments. Development banks, insurers, infrastructure investors, philanthropic organisations and private healthcare providers all have potential roles. Insurance markets, for example, may benefit from lower disaster-related losses if health facilities and communities are better prepared. Employers may also benefit from lower productivity losses during heatwaves and disease outbreaks.

However, the report also makes clear that returns are not automatic. Climate-health programmes need local data, strong institutions, reliable implementation and long-term funding. Poorly designed systems may fail to reach vulnerable communities or may not be maintained after initial funding ends.

Prevention is Cheaper than Crisis Response

The practical implication is clear: countries do not need to wait for fully developed climate-health systems before acting. Early warning systems, disease surveillance, heat action plans, community education and resilient clinics are relatively well-understood interventions. The challenge is scaling them quickly enough and ensuring that adaptation finance reaches the health systems most exposed to climate change.

As climate hazards intensify, the economic case for prevention is becoming harder to ignore. For governments, donors and infrastructure investors, climate-health services offer a route to protect lives, reduce public costs and strengthen resilience in some of the regions most exposed to warming.

Source: www.forbes.com