Why a hazard map
is not a risk map.

A map of where flooding, heat or landslides might occur is useful. But it does not, by itself, show who will be harmed or which places should receive adaptation support.

Start with the distinction

A hazard describes a potentially damaging process or event, such as river flooding, a slope failure or an extreme-heat episode. Exposure asks whether people, buildings, livelihoods or ecosystems are situated in the affected area. Vulnerability concerns how susceptible those systems are to harm and what capacities they have to respond or adapt. Risk emerges through the interactions of these factors.

Why geography matters

Two settlements can occupy the same mapped flood-hazard zone and yet face different consequences. Building design, income, access to transport, public services, social networks and early-warning arrangements may vary. A scientifically responsible risk assessment therefore needs more than a physical hazard layer: it needs contextual information, clear assumptions, and attention to the quality and resolution of the available data.

Moving toward decisions

For adaptation planning, the important question is not only where a hazard exists, but where investments could meaningfully reduce harm. Spatial methods can help reveal overlaps between hazard intensity, exposure, social vulnerability and infrastructure. Results are most useful when their limitations are stated, local knowledge is considered and maps are interpreted alongside institutional priorities.

A practical checklist

When reading any climate-risk map, ask: What is the mapped variable? Which populations or assets were included? What time period and climate scenarios were used? How is vulnerability measured? Have data limitations and uncertainty been communicated? Those questions turn a colourful map into a more transparent basis for discussion.