ArticleRisk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis2026
Lost in Projection: Uncertainty is Misrepresented in Climate Risk and Vulnerability Assessments.
Article in Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In practice, many climate change risk assessments fail to capture the true depth of uncertainty. Despite widespread scientific recognition of deep uncertainty (large ranges of possibility) in climate conditions, this nuance is often lost in translation to policy and planning contexts; instead, conditions are presented as single projections. This means that communities are making large-scale infrastructure investments and long-term policy commitments based on false precision, leaving them unprepared for climate surprises or potentially wasting resources and disrupting communities unnecessarily by overadapting. To examine how climate uncertainties are represented and accounted for in adaptation planning, we conducted a structured review of 39 climate risk and vulnerability assessments from across the world, using sea level rise as a case study. These documents inform policy that guides billions of dollars in infrastructure investments and shape community preparedness strategies. Our analysis reveals that only 54% of these documents correctly represent sea level rise as deeply uncertain. This issue is compounded when making decisions; 71% of decisions were made by misapplying scenarios as individual projections to plan for, rather than as a tool for exploring potential future conditions, directly contradicting their intended use. This demonstrates a gap between scientific understanding of climate uncertainty and planning practice. Addressing this gap requires improved uncertainty communication, moving beyond just quantifying uncertainty to also characterizing uncertainty. This must be done in conjunction with the support of decision makers to incorporate a stronger understanding of uncertainty into planning by using tools designed specifically for decision making in deeply uncertain environments.
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.