Author
Listed:
- Ben Hoehn
- Hannah Salzberger
- Sven Bienert
Abstract
Purpose - The study aims to assess the effectiveness of prevailing methods for quantifying physical climate risks. Its goal is to evaluate their utility in guiding financial decision-making within the real estate industry. Whilst climate risk has become a pivotal consideration in transaction and regulatory compliance, the existing tools for risk quantification frequently encounter criticism for their perceived lack of transparency and comparability. Design/methodology/approach - We utilise a sequential exploratory mixed-methods analysis to integrate qualitative aspects of underlying tool characteristics with quantitative result divergence. In our qualitative analysis, we conduct interviews with companies providing risk quantification tools. We task these providers with quantifying the physical risk of a fictive pan-European real estate portfolio. Our approach involves an in-depth comparative analysis, hypothesis tests and regression to discern patterns in the variability of the results. Findings - We observe significant variations in the quantification of physical risk for the pan-European portfolio, indicating limited utility for decision-making. The results highlight that variability is influenced by both the location of assets and the hazard. Identified reasons for discrepancies include differences in regional databases and models, variations in downscaling and corresponding scope, disparities in the definition of scores and systematic uncertainties. Practical implications - The study assists market participants in comprehending both the quantification process and the implications associated with using tools for financial decision-making. Originality/value - To our knowledge, this study presents the initial robust empirical evidence of variability in quantification outputs for physical risk within the real estate industry, coupled with an exploration of their underlying reasons.
Suggested Citation
Ben Hoehn & Hannah Salzberger & Sven Bienert, 2024.
"Assessing climate risk quantification tools – mere fulfilment of duty or actually beneficial?,"
Journal of Property Investment & Finance, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 43(2), pages 142-167, May.
Handle:
RePEc:eme:jpifpp:jpif-01-2024-0008
DOI: 10.1108/JPIF-01-2024-0008
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eme:jpifpp:jpif-01-2024-0008. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Emerald Support (email available below). General contact details of provider: .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.