Climate Exposure Map Calculator

Exposure Inputs and Coverage

This calculator converts location and hazard assessments into two screening metrics. It accepts latitude and longitude, six hazard scores on a 0–100 scale, and a planning scenario with horizon options from 2030 to 2100. When weights sum to any value, they are normalized to 100%, preserving relative materiality across flood, cyclone, wildfire, heatwave, drought, and sea‑level rise. Analysts can start with desk‑based signals and refine values as evidence improves.

Weighting and Comparability

Weights act as a policy setting for the organization. A logistics portfolio might allocate 25% to flood and 25% to heat, while coastal facilities can increase sea‑level rise weight above 10%. Normalization enables consistent comparisons between assets, even when analysts start with different raw totals, and the contribution table shows how each hazard adds points to exposure. For governance, keep one approved weight profile per sector and document exceptions.

Risk Scoring and Resilience

Risk integrates vulnerability and adaptive capacity, both entered as 0–100 sliders. Vulnerability scales exposure upward, while adaptive capacity reduces it through the (1 − A) term. Business criticality adds a multiplier from 0.7 to 1.3, reflecting revenue dependency. Operational buffer days can reduce calculated risk by up to 35%, representing redundancy and inventory cover. This structure separates “where the hazard is” from “how well the asset can cope.”

Reporting Outputs and Audit Readiness

Results are displayed immediately after submission, including exposure, risk score, rating band, and key driver. CSV export supports traceable fields such as scenario, horizon, and notes, useful for ESG workpapers. The PDF summary provides a one‑page snapshot for internal reviews, supplier engagement, and board reporting packs. Capture version dates and reviewers alongside exports to strengthen assurance readiness across teams and audits.

Portfolio Use Cases and Governance

Use the tool to triage sites for deeper analysis, prioritize adaptation budgets, or track improvements across refresh cycles. Apply a standard weight set per sector and record any deviations in notes. Re‑run assessments annually or after major upgrades, and compare risk score shifts to validate resilience investments and continuity planning. Set internal triggers, such as reviewing sites above 60 and escalating those above 80. Align results with CAPEX plans and supplier scorecards.

FAQs

1) What does the exposure index represent?

The exposure index is the weighted average of hazard scores, scaled 0–100. It summarizes hazard pressure at the location before factoring vulnerability, resilience, or operational buffers.

2) How should I choose hazard weights?

Set weights based on sector materiality and asset context. Keep one standard weight profile per sector, then document any site-specific adjustments to preserve comparability across your portfolio.

3) Why does adaptive capacity reduce risk?

Adaptive capacity represents defenses, response plans, and recovery strength. Higher capacity reduces the risk score through the (1 − A) term, reflecting better ability to withstand and recover.

4) What are buffer days and why do they matter?

Buffer days approximate operational flexibility, such as inventory cover or redundancy. More buffer days reduce risk by up to 35%, lowering sensitivity to short-term disruption.

5) Can I use this for formal disclosure?

It supports screening, prioritization, and documentation, but it is not a replacement for hazard models or engineering studies. Pair outputs with trusted datasets and internal controls for disclosure readiness.

6) How do I compare assets fairly?

Use the same hazard weights, scoring guidance, and scenario/horizon settings across assets. Then compare exposure, risk score, and key driver to prioritize deeper analysis and adaptation planning.