Risk without place: Why most climate risk assessments fail to support place-based adaptation

Place-based climate adaptation requires spatially explicit risk information, yet most climate risk assessments fail to provide it. As cities worldwide respond to escalating climate risks, the effectiveness of their adaptation strategies depends critically on how well assessments integrate spatial risk analysis. This paper presents the Spatial Risk Analysis Rubric (SRAR), a framework for evaluating spatial risk practice, and applies it in a systematic review of 86 climate risk assessments from cities and regions globally. Using the SRAR across five dimensions (hazard, exposure, vulnerability, consequence, and risk representation), our findings reveal substantial variability in spatial risk integration. Over half of assessed reports contained no meaningful spatial risk analysis. Among those that did, hazard mapping scored highest (55% of possible points) but rarely addressed future scenarios, compound events, or intra-event dynamics. Exposure analysis was common but static, focusing narrowly on buildings and population counts. Vulnerability was the weakest dimension, scoring below 10% of possible points, with most assessments relying on generic indices disconnected from specific hazard-exposure interactions. Consequence modelling was largely absent; no assessment addressed cascading infrastructure failures or service disruption. These shortcomings have significant implications for adaptation effectiveness and equity. Without spatially disaggregated risk information, cities cannot identify priority areas, target vulnerable communities, or evaluate system interdependencies. We conclude that current practice falls substantially short of what spatial risk science can offer, and outline recommendations for improving spatial rigour in climate risk assessments.