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

Journal Article (2026)
Author(s)

Adam B. Pollack (University of Iowa, Dartmouth College)

Lisa Auermuller (Rutgers University–New Brunswick)

Casey D. Burleyson (Pacific Northwest National Laboratory)

Jentry Campbell (Dartmouth College)

Matteo Coronese (Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna)

James Doss-Gollin (Rice University)

Prabhat Hegde (Dartmouth College)

Casey Helgeson (The Pennsylvania State University)

Jan Kwakkel (TU Delft - Policy Analysis)

undefined More Authors (External organisation)

DOI related publication
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2422157123 Final published version
More Info
expand_more
Publication Year
2026
Language
English
Journal title
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
Issue number
3
Volume number
123
Article number
e2422157123
Pages (from-to)
e2422157123
Downloads counter
35
Reuse Rights

Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download, forward or distribute the text or part of it, without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license such as Creative Commons.

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.