ReviewiScience2025
Insights on the process to develop Australia's first national climate risk assessment.
Review in iScience, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Countries are undertaking national climate risk assessments to help decision-makers respond effectively to climate change impacts. Australia has also started this process, with the release in early 2024 of the first pass assessment report of its National Climate Risk Assessment. This paper describes our experiences of the process undertaken in Australia to conduct a first pass qualitative assessment of climate risks and compare it with the learnings gathered from a desktop review of 15 other national climate risk assessments. Highlighting similarities and differences in approaches, this paper offers insights for others embarking on a similar journey or improving existing ongoing processes. It identifies four process themes that could contribute to a common framework for these assessments, while acknowledging the need for tailored approaches. Having a common framework could increase awareness and incentives for international collaboration on common or shared risks, and lead to more coordinated climate mitigation and adaptation actions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.