Climate Risk & Adaptation Screening Checklists

About This Toolkit

Assessment Details

Project / program / asset / service

Organization / implementing entity

Location(s) / geographic scope

Sector / subsector

Project life / planning horizon

Assessor(s) / role(s)

Date / version

Purpose and Scope

You can use this toolkit at the concept, planning, design, or review stage to determine whether climate-related hazards might affect a project, program, asset, service, people, or intended results and to record appropriate adaptation actions. The toolkit is intended for public agencies, project teams, utilities, businesses, and development partners.

It is only a preliminary screening tool and should not be regarded as a thorough climate-risk and vulnerability assessment, engineering design, safeguard assessment, or certification. The purpose of screening is to identify matters that may require further investigation, not to prove a project is safe or climate-resilient.

Important: The checklist below evaluates the completeness of the screening and response process, not the seriousness of the climate risk. Record the risk individually in the risk register. A low process score does not imply low climate risk.

How to Use the Toolkit

Set the project boundaries, identify locations, specify components, determine intended outcomes, and define operating life.
Complete Checklist 1 to identify screening triggers and information gaps.
Complete Checklist 2 to note relevant climate hazards and time horizons. Use the best available local and authoritative climate information and record source, date, and limitations.
Complete Checklist 3 by selecting one process-readiness response for each question. Mark N/A only when truly not relevant and explain why.
Record key risks in Checklist 4, including who or what is exposed, potential consequences, uncertainty, and existing controls.
Complete Checklist 5 to assign adaptation actions, owners, timing, resources, and monitoring.
Escalate for specialist assessment when screening indicates significant, uncertain, long-lived, or potentially irreversible risk.

Checklist 1 — Initial Screening Triggers

For each prompt, tick Yes, No, or Unknown. Add a brief note or evidence source. A “Yes” or “Unknown” is a prompt for further consideration—not by itself a final risk rating.

Initial screening outcome

Continue to detailed screening belowSeek climate / sector specialist inputDocument rationale for limited further screening

Reason and next step

Checklist 2 — Climate Hazard and Time-Horizon Inventory

Tick hazards that are relevant or need checking. Relevance depends on location, sector, design, operating life, and project context. This list is illustrative, not exhaustive. Do not assume a hazard is absent just because local records are limited.

Time Horizons and Climate Information

Consider time horizons matching the project’s construction, operating life, maintenance cycle, and decisions. Adapt these periods if local planning standards require different horizons.

Key data gaps or uncertainties

Checklist 3 — Climate Risk & Adaptation Process Screening

Process-Readiness Scale

1: Not assessedNo systematic information or assessment is available.
2: InitialThe issue has been noted, but evidence or analysis is limited.
3: Partly assessedRelevant evidence and actions exist, but important gaps remain.
4: Assessed and integratedEvidence is documented, decisions reflect it, and actions are assigned and tracked.
–: Not applicableExplain why the item does not apply to the defined scope.

For each question, select the response that best describes the current screening process. Record the score and a short example. The questions cover scope, climate evidence, risk pathways, adaptation choices, safeguards, and delivery.

A. Scope and Climate Evidence

1. Project scope, location, and useful life

Have the project boundary, components, locations, intended outcomes, operating life, and important decision points been defined for climate screening?

1 · Not assessedScope, locations, or operating life are not defined well enough to screen.2 · InitialBasic project information is available, but key components, locations, dependencies, or time horizons are unclear.3 · Partly assessedMost relevant components and time horizons are defined, with some boundary or dependency gaps.4 · Assessed and integratedScope, geographies, components, outcomes, dependencies, and asset life are documented and used to set screening boundaries.N/A (not applicable)

Notes / example (optional)

2. Historical climate and disaster experience

Have observed climate conditions, local records, past events, damage, service disruptions, and community knowledge been reviewed?

1 · Not assessedHistorical events and local climate conditions have not been reviewed.2 · InitialAnecdotal information or limited records are available, but their relevance or quality is uncertain.3 · Partly assessedRelevant records and local knowledge have been reviewed, but coverage, quality, or interpretation has gaps.4 · Assessed and integratedAppropriate historical records, observed trends, event impacts, and relevant local knowledge are documented, checked, and applied.N/A (not applicable)

Notes / example (optional)

3. Future climate conditions and uncertainty

Have future climate conditions been considered over time horizons relevant to the project, using appropriate sources and acknowledging uncertainty?

1 · Not assessedFuture climate conditions are not considered.2 · InitialGeneral projections are mentioned, but the source, location, time horizon, or uncertainty is not clear.3 · Partly assessedRelevant projections are reviewed for some hazards or time horizons, but important uncertainties or scenarios are not addressed.4 · Assessed and integratedSuitable authoritative projections are assessed for relevant hazards and project life; scenarios, uncertainty, and limits are documented.N/A (not applicable)

Notes / example (optional)

4. Hazard identification and climate information quality

Have relevant acute and chronic hazards been identified using suitable local, sectoral, and authoritative information?

1 · Not assessedHazards have not been systematically identified.2 · InitialA few obvious hazards are listed, but local relevance or information quality has not been checked.3 · Partly assessedMain hazards and sources are identified, but coverage, resolution, seasonality, or source limitations need review.4 · Assessed and integratedA documented, location- and sector-relevant hazard screen uses credible sources; dates, resolution, limitations, and remaining gaps are recorded.N/A (not applicable)

Notes / example (optional)

B. Exposure, Vulnerability, and Consequences

5. Exposure of assets, people, services, and dependencies

Have potentially exposed assets, workers, users, communities, natural resources, supply chains, and essential services been identified and mapped where feasible?

1 · Not assessedExposed assets, people, services, or dependencies are not identified.2 · InitialSome project components or groups are listed, but location, dependency, or exposure information is incomplete.3 · Partly assessedMost key assets and groups are identified, though mapping, supply-chain, service, or off-site exposure gaps remain.4 · Assessed and integratedRelevant assets, people, services, ecosystems, and dependencies are systematically identified and spatially linked to hazards where practical.N/A (not applicable)

Notes / example (optional)

6. Sensitivity, criticality, and thresholds

Has the assessment considered how exposed components may be affected, including design limits, operating thresholds, downtime, and consequences for project outcomes?

1 · Not assessedSensitivity and potential consequences have not been considered.2 · InitialGeneral impacts are noted, but critical thresholds, failure points, or service consequences are unclear.3 · Partly assessedKey sensitivities and consequences are assessed for some components, but thresholds or indirect effects need further analysis.4 · Assessed and integratedRelevant thresholds, failure modes, service impacts, safety implications, and consequences for intended outcomes are documented.N/A (not applicable)

Notes / example (optional)

7. Vulnerability and adaptive capacity

Have existing vulnerabilities and capacities to prepare, respond, recover, and adapt been considered for people, institutions, assets, and ecosystems?

1 · Not assessedVulnerability and capacity are not considered.2 · InitialBroad vulnerabilities are acknowledged, but their causes or distribution are not assessed.3 · Partly assessedImportant vulnerabilities and capacities are assessed, but disaggregation, evidence, or response planning has gaps.4 · Assessed and integratedVulnerability and adaptive capacity are examined using relevant evidence, including differences among groups, locations, institutions, and ecosystems.N/A (not applicable)

Notes / example (optional)

8. Compound, cascading, and interdependent risks

Have combined hazards and knock-on impacts across connected infrastructure, sectors, supply chains, services, and communities been considered?

1 · Not assessedRisks are considered one hazard or asset at a time; dependencies are not assessed.2 · InitialSome interactions are recognized, but compound events and cascading consequences are not systematically examined.3 · Partly assessedImportant dependencies are reviewed, but cross-sector, supply-chain, or cascading impacts need further work.4 · Assessed and integratedRelevant compound hazards, critical dependencies, cascading failures, and cross-boundary consequences are explicitly assessed.N/A (not applicable)

Notes / example (optional)

9. Risk significance, uncertainty, and decision thresholds

Have risks been prioritized using transparent consideration of likelihood, consequence, time horizon, confidence, and the project’s risk tolerance?

1 · Not assessedNo documented basis exists for judging or prioritizing climate risks.2 · InitialRisks are described informally, with no consistent rating criteria or treatment of uncertainty.3 · Partly assessedA rating approach is used, but confidence, time horizon, thresholds, or stakeholder risk tolerance are not fully addressed.4 · Assessed and integratedA transparent, documented method considers likelihood and consequences, time, confidence and uncertainty, risk tolerance, and criteria for escalation.N/A (not applicable)

Notes / example (optional)

C. Adaptation Options, Safeguards, and Residual Risk

10. Identification of adaptation options

Have suitable adaptation options been identified for priority risks, including operational, structural, nature-based, planning, service, and preparedness measures where relevant?

1 · Not assessedNo adaptation or risk-management options have been identified.2 · InitialGeneral options are listed, but they are not clearly linked to specific risks or project components.3 · Partly assessedRisk-linked options have been identified for major issues, but the range of approaches or alternatives is limited.4 · Assessed and integratedA suitable range of options is identified and linked to priority risks, including non-structural and nature-based approaches where appropriate.N/A (not applicable)

Notes / example (optional)

11. Comparison, feasibility, and flexibility of options

Have options been compared for effectiveness over the project life, technical and institutional feasibility, cost, flexibility, and performance under uncertainty?

1 · Not assessedOptions have not been compared or tested.2 · InitialOptions are discussed, but effectiveness, lifecycle cost, feasibility, or uncertainty is not assessed.3 · Partly assessedSeveral options are compared, but lifecycle performance, flexibility, or implementation constraints need more analysis.4 · Assessed and integratedOptions are transparently compared for risk reduction, lifecycle costs, feasibility, robustness, flexibility, and performance under plausible future conditions.N/A (not applicable)

Notes / example (optional)

12. Maladaptation, trade-offs, and unintended consequences

Have proposed actions been checked for the possibility of transferring risk, increasing emissions, harming ecosystems, worsening inequity, or locking in future vulnerability?

1 · Not assessedPotential adverse side effects or transferred risks are not considered.2 · InitialSome trade-offs are noted, but there is no structured review or mitigation plan.3 · Partly assessedMajor trade-offs are assessed, though distributional or long-term consequences need further review.4 · Assessed and integratedOptions are screened for maladaptation and trade-offs across locations, groups, ecosystems, emissions, and time; measures address identified harms.N/A (not applicable)

Notes / example (optional)

13. Stakeholder participation and inclusion

Have affected people and relevant stakeholders—including groups facing greater climate risk—been engaged in identifying risks and shaping adaptation choices?

1 · Not assessedAffected stakeholders have not been identified or engaged.2 · InitialEngagement is limited or one-off, and accessibility or representation is unclear.3 · Partly assessedRelevant stakeholders are consulted, but feedback, inclusion, or influence on decisions is inconsistent.4 · Assessed and integratedEngagement is timely, accessible, inclusive, and ongoing; feedback and how it affected decisions are documented.N/A (not applicable)

Notes / example (optional)

15. Residual risk and contingency planning

After existing and proposed measures, have remaining risks, emergency arrangements, and limits to adaptation been documented?

1 · Not assessedResidual risks and contingency needs are not considered.2 · InitialRemaining risks are acknowledged, but response responsibilities or contingency measures are unclear.3 · Partly assessedMajor residual risks and some response measures are documented, but triggers or responsibilities need strengthening.4 · Assessed and integratedResidual risks, adaptation limits, contingency plans, warning and response arrangements, and accountable parties are documented and reviewed.N/A (not applicable)

Notes / example (optional)

D. Implementation and Learning

16. Integration into project design and operations

Are climate risks and adaptation measures reflected in design criteria, siting, procurement, construction, operations, maintenance, and service continuity plans as relevant?

1 · Not assessedScreening findings do not influence project decisions or delivery documents.2 · InitialSome findings are acknowledged, but design, procurement, or operations requirements are not clear.3 · Partly assessedPriority measures are reflected in some design or delivery documents, but responsibilities or lifecycle coverage have gaps.4 · Assessed and integratedRelevant climate requirements and measures are assigned and embedded in design, procurement, construction, operations, maintenance, and continuity arrangements.N/A (not applicable)

Notes / example (optional)

17. Governance, resources, monitoring, and review

Are adaptation actions assigned owners, resources, measurable indicators, review dates, and triggers for updating the assessment?

1 · Not assessedNo clear action owner, resources, monitoring, or review process exists.2 · InitialSome actions have owners, but budgets, indicators, reporting, or review arrangements are weak.3 · Partly assessedActions and indicators are established for major risks, but funding, accountability, or updating triggers are inconsistent.4 · Assessed and integratedActions have accountable owners, resources, indicators, reporting, and scheduled reviews; assessments are updated as evidence, project conditions, or climate information changes.N/A (not applicable)

Notes / example (optional)

Checklist 4 — Climate Risk Register

Use one row for each material risk pathway. Add rows as needed. Record the hazard and the exposed element together with the potential consequence; do not list a hazard alone as a complete risk statement.

Risk pathway: hazard → exposed element → consequence	Location / group / service	Time horizon	Likelihood / confidence	Consequence / severity	Initial risk level	Existing controls / evidence	Further assessment or action needed

Risk rating method / criteria used

Important: Use the organization’s approved risk criteria where available. If there is no approved method, explain how ratings were assigned. Record uncertainty explicitly; do not treat missing data as evidence of low risk.

Checklist 5 — Adaptation Action and Follow-Up Plan

Priority risk / finding	Selected adaptation or further-study action	Owner / partner	Target date / stage	Budget / resource need	Indicator, trigger, or evidence of completion	Status

Prioritization Prompts

Before confirming an action, check whether it:

Addresses a clearly described climate risk pathway and protects the project’s intended outcomes.
Is proportionate to the risk, location, project life, and level of uncertainty.
Remains useful across plausible future conditions and can be adjusted as new information becomes available.
Avoids shifting risk to other communities, locations, sectors, or future generations.
Considers affordability, inclusion, ecosystems, emissions, operations, maintenance, and lifecycle costs.
Has a responsible owner, realistic schedule, required approvals, and resources.

Scoring and Interpretation

Calculate the process-readiness average by adding the scores for Questions 1–17 and dividing by the number of questions scored. Exclude N/A items from both calculations.

This average is not a climate-risk rating and is not a pass/fail result. Review individual answers and the risk register. A high process average cannot cancel a single critical risk.

Escalation — When to Seek a Detailed Assessment

Consider a detailed, location- and sector-specific climate risk and vulnerability assessment, with qualified technical input, when one or more of the following apply:

Screening identifies high, very high, or unknown risk to life, health, critical services, major assets, or intended outcomes.
The project is long-lived, difficult to relocate, costly to retrofit, or has irreversible consequences.
Climate information is insufficient to make a material siting, design, investment, or service decision.
Multiple hazards, cascading failures, vulnerable groups, or cross-boundary impacts may interact.
Adaptation measures could create significant environmental or social effects, transfer risk, or cause maladaptation.
The project involves safety-critical infrastructure or sector-specific engineering decisions requiring technical standards.

Screening decision

Proceed with documented actionsObtain specialist reviewCommission detailed assessmentRevisit at next design stage

Decision rationale / approver

Review and Sign-Off

Role	Name	Signature / confirmation	Date
Assessment lead
Technical / climate reviewer (if applicable)
Project owner / decision-maker

Remark

This checklist is an original, practical screening aid informed by the IPCC risk framing of climate hazards, exposure, vulnerability, and impacts, and by the World Bank’s early-stage climate and disaster risk screening approach. Users should apply applicable national requirements, sector standards, organizational risk criteria, and locally appropriate climate information.

Readiness Self-Assessment Summary Results

–out of 4

Score the questions above to see your readiness level.

0 of 17 questions scored. N/A answers are left out of the average.

Average	Process-readiness interpretation
1.00–1.74	Early / Not Yet Assessed — Establish project scope, gather basic climate and asset information, identify hazards and dependencies, and determine whether specialist screening is needed.
1.75–2.49	Initial — Close evidence and analysis gaps; clarify exposure, vulnerabilities, consequences, and responsibilities before key project decisions.
2.50–3.24	Partly Integrated — Strengthen option appraisal, inclusion, safeguards, design integration, ownership, resources, and monitoring.
3.25–4.00	Systematically Integrated — Maintain implementation, monitor performance and residual risk, and update the screening when project or climate information changes.

About The Readiness Checklist

This checklist provides a self-reported snapshot of your current readiness. It is not a verified diagnosis, engineering opinion, investment recommendation, or substitute for specialist advice. It gives a directional summary of potential exposure and preparedness gaps, not a site-specific engineering or financial-impact assessment. A comprehensive assessment requires validating the underlying data, conducting analysis, confirming priorities, and developing a tailored readiness roadmap.

Recommended Next Steps for an In-Depth Climate Risk and Adaptation Assessment

Epsilon Innovation Group shall use the screening results to scope a proportionate Climate Risk and Adaptation Assessment that defines adaptation measures and incorporates responsibilities and monitoring into project planning and implementation.

Contact us to discuss the scope, timeline, and cost.

See the full assessment Contact us

Download Your Checklist

Save the completed checklist, with your results and all your answers, as a PDF.

Climate Risk & Adaptation Screening Checklists

About This Toolkit

Assessment Details

Purpose and Scope

How to Use the Toolkit

Checklist 1 — Initial Screening Triggers

Checklist 2 — Climate Hazard and Time-Horizon Inventory

Time Horizons and Climate Information

Checklist 3 — Climate Risk & Adaptation Process Screening

Process-Readiness Scale

A. Scope and Climate Evidence

1. Project scope, location, and useful life

2. Historical climate and disaster experience

3. Future climate conditions and uncertainty

4. Hazard identification and climate information quality

B. Exposure, Vulnerability, and Consequences

5. Exposure of assets, people, services, and dependencies

6. Sensitivity, criticality, and thresholds

7. Vulnerability and adaptive capacity

8. Compound, cascading, and interdependent risks

9. Risk significance, uncertainty, and decision thresholds

C. Adaptation Options, Safeguards, and Residual Risk

10. Identification of adaptation options

11. Comparison, feasibility, and flexibility of options

12. Maladaptation, trade-offs, and unintended consequences

13. Stakeholder participation and inclusion

14. Environmental and social safeguards

15. Residual risk and contingency planning

D. Implementation and Learning

16. Integration into project design and operations

17. Governance, resources, monitoring, and review

Checklist 4 — Climate Risk Register

Checklist 5 — Adaptation Action and Follow-Up Plan

Prioritization Prompts

Scoring and Interpretation

Escalation — When to Seek a Detailed Assessment

Review and Sign-Off

Remark

Readiness Self-Assessment Summary Results

About The Readiness Checklist

Recommended Next Steps for an In-Depth Climate Risk and Adaptation Assessment

Discuss Your Results With Us

Download Your Checklist