The Global Wellbeing and Resilience Index

About the project

The Global Wellbeing and Resilience Index (GWRI) measures the wellbeing and resilience of populations across various dimensions. It provides a comprehensive assessment of how well countries are ensuring the wellbeing and resilience of their populations. The GWRI is multidimensional. It uses a multidisciplinary approach to measure the factors driving societal wellbeing and resilience, especially in settings affected by armed conflict and fragility.

The GWRI is led by Professor Mazeda Hossain at Nottingham Trent University (NTU) with Dr Giulia Ferrari at the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE), and colleagues at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (LSHTM), and University College London (UCL).

The GWRI combines quantitative data (e.g. pollution levels, population health, biodiversity) and qualitative assessment data (e.g. societal trust, institutional integrity) to assess countries’ performance in a range of areas relevant to wellbeing and resilience. Between 2020 and 2024, we developed the GWRI using a multidisciplinary and multi-staged approach. 158 women peacebuilders, experts in health, policy and law, gender, economics, development, fragility, and conflict identified key areas for peacebuilders, policymakers, civil society, service providers, and international institutions to understand and improve societal wellbeing. The project used these areas and a literature review of existing indices to develop a new framework and index. The research team mapped the index’s dimensions and items to 48 publicly available datasets and identified 435 candidate variables for the GWRI. The team then assessed all variables for methodological soundness and coverage, and reduced redundancy in the data. The final index reports scores for 120 countries using 189 indicators organised in five dimensions. 

Dimensions and Sub-Dimensions: The GWRI has five dimensions, which peacebuilders and experts identified as essential to wellbeing and resilience – health, the environment, state institutions, livelihoods and social cohesion. Within and overlapping these dimensions, we identified 34 sub-dimensions.

Using the Global Wellbeing and Resilience Index (GWRI)

The Global Wellbeing and Resilience Index (GWRI) is a new tool for peacebuilders, policymakers, civil society and researchers. It accounts for the complexity of systems that promote societal wellbeing and resilience, especially in fragile and conflict-affected settings (FCAS). It can be used in multiple ways at the local, national and global levels.

Identifying Areas of Need:

The GWRI produces scores for each dimension. In addition to a country’s global ranking, it also offers an indicator-level breakdown and ranking. This will enable peacebuilders and other stakeholders to identify areas that require urgent attention and learn from similar settings.

Resource Allocation and Mobilisation:

Peacebuilders, policymakers, service providers and international organisations can use the GWRI to understand where a country is struggling. The GWRI can support more effective allocations of resources to address the most pressing needs.

Monitoring and Evaluation:

The GWRI provides a framework for monitoring peacebuilding and societal wellbeing initiatives over time, helping to assess whether interventions are improving wellbeing and resilience.

Policy Development and Strategic Planning:

Policymakers can develop targeted policies that address specific needs in dimensions where their country scores are low. The GWRI can be used to inform long-term strategic planning.

Advocacy and Awareness:

Civil society can use the GWRI data to develop local advocacy initiatives.

Programme Design:

The GWRI can guide the design and implementation of programmes aimed at improving specific dimensions of wellbeing, such as health or social cohesion.

Priority Setting:

International organisations can use the GWRI to identify priority areas and countries that require additional support.

Research:

The GWRI is a comprehensive multidimensional dataset that can be used to analyse factors that contribute to wellbeing and resilience, especially in fragile and conflict-affected settings. It can also be used to identify research gaps in existing research.

Policy Recommendations:

Researchers can use the GWRI to develop evidence-based policy recommendations aimed at improving societal wellbeing and resilience.

Key findings

The GWRI shows that health, the environment, formal and informal institutions, livelihoods and social cohesion are the pillars of wellbeing and resilience, according to women peacebuilders and fragility and conflict experts.

Within these dimensions, the most important areas that peacebuilders and experts identified are: environmental threats such as climate change, air pollution, and natural resource management (e.g. biodiversity and water and sanitation); quality of institutions (e.g. right to personal expression, societal trust and power sharing); structural violence (e.g. conflict and government oppression); socio-economic outcomes (such as education, labour conditions and employment and management of resources in the household); health status (such as child and adolescent health and reproductive health); interpersonal violence (against children, women and online); and health systems performance (e.g. processes and delivery, and some specialist services, such as mental health, disability and elder care). The GWRI measures how countries fare in these and other domains to provide insights for action to peacebuilders, policymakers, civil society and researchers.

Health is the dimension in which countries generally fare best.

The health dimension had an average score of 71. There is a 46-point difference between Sweden – the best performer – and Haiti, the worst. Top ranking high-income countries like Sweden, Ireland and Norway ranked at the top in the other dimensions, too. Fragile and conflict affected settings, such as Yemen, Afghanistan and Haiti ranked lowest, highlighting a negative association between instability and health. Regional disparities were evident, with western European and Nordic countries generally outperforming regions such as sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. Conflictaffected countries reported worse health conditions. Middle income countries such as Brazil, Colombia and Thailand showed more variation across dimensions but maintained right to be high health schools gender disparities were significant, with women facing higher risks of mental disorders and worse oral health, while men were a greater risk from air pollution, substance use, and road injuries. Age also impacted health outcomes, with young people in low-income countries more sub susceptible to infectious diseases. Globally, young women experienced a higher mental health burden compared to older men. 

Livelihoods is the dimension with the greatest disparities around the world.

Yemen ranks lowest with 19 points and Norway highest with 92 points. These are the lowest and highest scores across all dimensions. Fragile and conflict-affected countries such as Afghanistan, Haiti and Mali also rank poorly, reflecting severe economic instability and limited opportunities. The Livelihoods dimension examines economic stability and opportunities, revealing that more young women are not in employment, education or training (NEET) than young man globally, with larger gaps in regions such as Central, Western and Southern Asia, Latin America and Africa. Financial inclusion is poor in low- and middle-income countries, especially for women, with only 11% having a bank account compared to 47% in high income countries. These findings underscore the urgent need for targeted interventions to improve economic opportunities and financial inclusion, particularly in the lowest-ranked and most vulnerable countries.

There is considerable room for improvement in the environmental performance of all countries.

The environment dimension examines how well countries address environmental challenges. Austria is the top performer with 71 points, a score between 10 and 20 points lower than that of top performers in other dimensions. High- income countries such as Austria, Denmark and Germany, generally perform better due to robust environmental policies. In contrast, low- performing countries such as Iraq (38 points) and Afghanistan (37 points) face severe environmental challenges, including air pollution, inadequate waste management unlimited access to clean water and sanitation. These issues are exacerbated in fragile and conflict-affected settings, where environmental degradation can have significant economic and health consequences. The worst environmental performers have similar scores to the worst performers in health and cohesion. Key priorities should include preserving habitats, preventing biodiversity loss, managing flooding risks and addressing local consequences of climate change. Overall, the GWRI underscores the critical need for global efforts to enhance environmental resilience unsustainability. 

Fragile and conflict-affected countries (FCAS) face significant challenges in achieving high levels of wellbeing and resilience.

Countries such as Yemen, Afghanistan, and Haiti consistently rank at the bottom across all dimensions. FCAS fare worse than other countries in the health, livelihoods, and environment domains, with people in these settings experiencing poorer socio-economic outcomes. On average, FCAS score 37-points lower compared to the rest of the world. Autocracies also perform worse than democracies across all five domains, with democracies scoring an average of 11 points higher (67.38 vs. 56.48). Countries experiencing active conflicts and considered extremely fragile, such as Yemen, Iraq, Haiti and Afghanistan, report worse environmental conditions. Their average score is 17 points lower than non-fragile countries (41.01 vs 58.15). These poor environmental conditions worsen health outcomes, as evidenced by the low health scores in conflict-affected countries such as Afghanistan and Yemen. This suggests inadequate healthcare access and poor overall health outcomes in these countries.

Systemic oppression and interpersonal violence are higher among women.

Women are more than twice as likely to experience physical or sexual intimate partner violence in fragile settings than in the rest of the world. Average femicide rates are higher in Latin America and the Caribbean compared to the rest of the world. Nine of the 10 countries with the highest femicide rates fall within this region. Women experience higher levels of discrimination on average, especially based on gender and religion, compared to men globally. 

The extent of missing data is of concern.

Out of 226 countries in the world, 106 do not have enough data to be included in the index rankings. Countries without a score are among the most fragile and lowest income. The majority are in Africa, suggesting the need for greater data collection efforts on this continent. This missing data hinders our ability to address the critical issues driving societal wellbeing. Limited disaggregated data: No country has enough data to compute a gender or age breakdown of the index or its dimensions. Only 119 indicators offer a gender breakdown for at least some countries, and only 77 indicators have an age breakdown.

Recommendations

The Global Wellbeing and Resilience Index (GWRI) can be used by a range of stakeholders to make informed decisions, design targeted interventions and enhance collaborative efforts to improve the wellbeing and resilience of populations, especially in fragile and conflict-affected settings. The recommendations aim to address the multiple challenges highlighted by the GWRI: promote gender equality, improve health outcomes, protect the environment, improve livelihoods and support countries affected by conflict. Intersectoral and collaborative efforts are essential to achieve progress.

Governments

Focus on closing the livelihoods gap by addressing the following challenges. Reduce the proportion of the population who lives in urban slums (49% LMICs vs 2% in HICs), and tackle poverty. Increase rates of completion in tertiary education: HICs record twice the completion rates LMICs. Improve financial literacy and access to financial services: 69% of people in HICs can save money and 49% have access to a bank account, compared to 43% and 13% in LMICs, respectively. Widen social protection coverage: HICs reach 78% of the population in need, compared to LMICs’ 31% average coverage; food safety programmes in HICs achieve complete coverage, compared to LMICs’ 59%. Tackle the NEET problem: in LMICs, 24% of youth are not in employment, education or training (NEET), versus 12% in HICs. More girls are NEET than boys everywhere. All countries should address the NEET issue, though LMICs face a bigger challenge. Improve access to accommodation services for people with disabilities: LMICs record 50% access, one-third less than HICs, which record 76%.

Improve the environmental performance of countries by addressing the following challenges: Improve the protection of endangered species (current coverage: 60% HIC vs 30% LMICs). Reduce soil pollution: (HICs 69% vs LMICs 53%). Renew efforts and investments in policies and regulations: though LMICs lag behind HICs (11% vs 67%; and 41% vs 69%), both groups need to increase efforts toward a net zero economy and toward implementing regulations for energy efficiency.

Implement policies and programmes to prevent and respond to gender-based violence and promote gender equality. Invest more resources in the collection of disaggregated wellbeing and resilience-related data, including by sex and age, at a minimum. Invest in improving girls’ access to, and completion of, school. Improve access to the labour market for women. Address local barriers to labour market participation. Integrate GBV survivor services into mainstream sexual and reproductive services and collect systematic data on these.

Focus on improving potential causes of fragility to improve wellbeing and reduce the risk of conflict. These areas include governments’ capacities to raise tax revenue, their willingness to share resources across the political spectrum and redistribute resource rents equitably.

For conflict-affected countries: prioritise the protection of civilians, especially vulnerable groups during and post-conflict; invest in rebuilding healthcare infrastructure and providing essential services; and promote inclusive governance and reconciliation efforts to facilitate the transition to peace and stability.

International Institutions

Provide technical assistance to governments with weak statistical offices to support the regular production of wellbeing statistics and reduce the amount of missing data

Promote an increase in technical assistance to fragile settings to foster long-term institutional quality and government capacity.

Civil Society and Service Providers

Identify and work to change harmful gender norms (for example, men have more right to a job, it’s ok to hit your wife, girls should not go to school) that perpetuate intimate partner violence, conflict-related violence, discrimination, and gender inequality across all settings.

Provide gender-sensitive health and support services including mental health support, reproductive and sexual health services, substance abuse services, and disability-aware services.

Collaborate with governments and international institutions to improve healthcare access, especially in conflict-affected and rural areas.

Researchers

Further investigate the causes of fragility and its consequences for for societal wellbeing.

Develop and validate measurement tools that reflect local understandings of wellbeing, and the understanding of marginalised populations.