View in EDS

Unlocking the benefits of transparent and reusable science for climate risk management.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Unlocking the benefits of transparent and reusable science for climate risk management.
Authors: Pollack, Adam B., Auermuller, Lisa, Burleyson, Casey D., Campbell, Jentry, Condon, Madison, Cooper, Courtney, Coronese, Matteo, Dangendorf, Sönke, Doss-Gollin, James, Hegde, Prabhat, Helgeson, Casey, Kopp, Robert E., Kwakkel, Jan, Lesk, Corey, Mankin, Justin, Nicholas, Robert E., Rice, Jennie, Roth, Samantha, Srikrishnan, Vivek, Scheeler, Moira
Source: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America; 1/20/2026, Vol. 123 Issue 3, p1-8, 8p
Subject Terms: CLIMATE change, INFORMATION sharing, SUSTAINABILITY, HONESTY, STATISTICAL decision making, COLLECTIVE action, UNIVERSITY research, FAIRNESS
Abstract: People around the world seek climate risk information to guide their decisions. For instance, projections about future flood risk inform where households choose to live, how lenders manage credit risks, and which communities receive federal funding. Yet data limitations and fundamental validation challenges raise important concerns about the reliability of such projections. The principles of transparency and reusability help address these concerns by enabling scrutiny of assumptions and methods, development of foundational data and tools, and consistent application of evaluation standards. While there is ongoing debate about how much transparency commercial climate risk services should provide, many expect noncommercial actors to lead the way on operationalizing transparency and reusability to fulfill their knowledge-building role in the climate risk ecosystem. However, despite prominent success stories, we find a substantial gap between principles and practice: Only four percent of the most-cited peer-reviewed climate risk studies in recent years fully share their data and code although this is a widely accepted minimum standard for transparency. We highlight low-cost measures that noncommercial researchers can take now to improve transparency and reusability. We also emphasize that transformative progress requires substantial investment, cross-sector collaboration, and careful consideration of tradeoffs, data rights, and multiple perspectives on equity. We hope this perspective accelerates both immediate actions and longer-term conversations to improve the ability of science to effectively support timely, evidence-based, and sound climate risk management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America is the property of National Academy of Sciences and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database: Complementary Index
Description
Abstract:People around the world seek climate risk information to guide their decisions. For instance, projections about future flood risk inform where households choose to live, how lenders manage credit risks, and which communities receive federal funding. Yet data limitations and fundamental validation challenges raise important concerns about the reliability of such projections. The principles of transparency and reusability help address these concerns by enabling scrutiny of assumptions and methods, development of foundational data and tools, and consistent application of evaluation standards. While there is ongoing debate about how much transparency commercial climate risk services should provide, many expect noncommercial actors to lead the way on operationalizing transparency and reusability to fulfill their knowledge-building role in the climate risk ecosystem. However, despite prominent success stories, we find a substantial gap between principles and practice: Only four percent of the most-cited peer-reviewed climate risk studies in recent years fully share their data and code although this is a widely accepted minimum standard for transparency. We highlight low-cost measures that noncommercial researchers can take now to improve transparency and reusability. We also emphasize that transformative progress requires substantial investment, cross-sector collaboration, and careful consideration of tradeoffs, data rights, and multiple perspectives on equity. We hope this perspective accelerates both immediate actions and longer-term conversations to improve the ability of science to effectively support timely, evidence-based, and sound climate risk management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
ISSN:00278424
DOI:10.1073/pnas.2422157123