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

## TL;DR

This paper discusses how transparency and reusability in climate risk science can improve decision-making, but finds that few studies actually share their data and code as recommended.

## Contribution

The paper identifies a significant gap between transparency principles and practice in climate risk research and proposes actionable steps to bridge it.

## Key findings

- Only 4% of top-cited climate risk studies fully share their data and code, despite it being a standard for transparency.
- Noncommercial actors are expected to lead in transparency but face challenges in practice.
- Low-cost measures and cross-sector collaboration are needed to improve transparency and reusability.

## 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.