Climate Risk score
Climate exposure, hazard frequency, and adaptation context for floods, heat, storms, and wildfires.
Climate Risk
Shreveport's climate-risk profile is a directional indicator combining regional hazard categories with national adaptation capacity. Climate Risk in Shreveport scores 46/100, placing it in the early-stage group of the indexed set.
Climate exposure, hazard frequency, and adaptation context for floods, heat, storms, and wildfires.
Directional indicator
Climate-risk framing combines regional hazard categories (heat, water, coastal, seismic) with national adaptation capacity.
Structured benchmark context
Adaptation capacity is interpreted against published references rather than a single risk-index value.
Pending integration
Source-backed climate-risk metrics will appear when the platform integrates verified city-level data.
This HTML table mirrors the visible score cards so important comparison data is never trapped in a browser-only chart.
| Metric | Value | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Hazard framing | Directional indicator | Use this section as context, not an official measurement. |
| Adaptation context | Structured benchmark context | See the methodology page for how the directional score is constructed. |
| Verified local dataset | Pending integration | Transparent fallback is shown until then. |
A crawlable comparison across a selection of same-country and top-scoring cities. The complete set is reachable via the rankings, the cities index, and each city profile.
| City | Score | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Shreveport (this page) | 46/100 | Shreveport's climate-risk profile is a directional indicator combining regional hazard categories with national adaptation capacity. |
| Chicago | 76/100 | Chicago carries moderate climate exposure from heat, intense rainfall, and lakefront stormwater pressure, balanced by active adaptation. |
| Seattle | 76/100 | Seattle faces moderate climate exposure from heat, atmospheric-river rainfall, and seasonal wildfire smoke, balanced by active adaptation. |
| Washington DC | 76/100 | Washington DC's climate-risk profile is a directional indicator combining regional hazard categories with national adaptation capacity. |
| Boston | 75/100 | Boston's climate-risk profile is a directional indicator combining regional hazard categories with national adaptation capacity. |
| Minneapolis | 74/100 | Minneapolis's climate-risk profile is a directional indicator combining regional hazard categories with national adaptation capacity. |
| Madison | 74/100 | Madison's climate-risk profile is a directional indicator combining regional hazard categories with national adaptation capacity. |
| Philadelphia | 72/100 | Philadelphia's climate-risk profile is a directional indicator combining regional hazard categories with national adaptation capacity. |
| Denver | 72/100 | Denver's climate-risk profile is a directional indicator combining regional hazard categories with national adaptation capacity. |
| San Diego | 72/100 | San Diego's climate-risk profile is a directional indicator combining regional hazard categories with national adaptation capacity. |
| Portland | 72/100 | Portland's climate-risk profile is a directional indicator combining regional hazard categories with national adaptation capacity. |
| Raleigh | 72/100 | Raleigh's climate-risk profile is a directional indicator combining regional hazard categories with national adaptation capacity. |
| Pittsburgh | 72/100 | Pittsburgh's climate-risk profile is a directional indicator combining regional hazard categories with national adaptation capacity. |
| Nashville | 70/100 | Nashville's climate-risk profile is a directional indicator combining regional hazard categories with national adaptation capacity. |
| Charlotte | 70/100 | Charlotte's climate-risk profile is a directional indicator combining regional hazard categories with national adaptation capacity. |
| Salt Lake City | 70/100 | Salt Lake City's climate-risk profile is a directional indicator combining regional hazard categories with national adaptation capacity. |
| Boulder | 70/100 | Boulder's climate-risk profile is a directional indicator combining regional hazard categories with national adaptation capacity. |
| Columbus | 70/100 | Columbus's climate-risk profile is a directional indicator combining regional hazard categories with national adaptation capacity. |
| Indianapolis | 70/100 | Indianapolis's climate-risk profile is a directional indicator combining regional hazard categories with national adaptation capacity. |
| Kansas City | 70/100 | Kansas City's climate-risk profile is a directional indicator combining regional hazard categories with national adaptation capacity. |
| Cincinnati | 70/100 | Cincinnati's climate-risk profile is a directional indicator combining regional hazard categories with national adaptation capacity. |
| Austin | 68/100 | Austin's climate-risk profile is a directional indicator combining regional hazard categories with national adaptation capacity. |
| St. Louis | 68/100 | St. Louis's climate-risk profile is a directional indicator combining regional hazard categories with national adaptation capacity. |
| Milwaukee | 68/100 | Milwaukee's climate-risk profile is a directional indicator combining regional hazard categories with national adaptation capacity. |
| Cleveland | 68/100 | Cleveland's climate-risk profile is a directional indicator combining regional hazard categories with national adaptation capacity. |
| Atlanta | 66/100 | Atlanta's climate-risk profile is a directional indicator combining regional hazard categories with national adaptation capacity. |
| Orlando | 66/100 | Orlando's climate-risk profile is a directional indicator combining regional hazard categories with national adaptation capacity. |
| San Francisco | 65/100 | San Francisco faces concurrent climate exposure from wildfire-smoke, heat, sea-level pressure, and seismic risk, balanced by strong adaptation work. |
| Dallas | 65/100 | Dallas's climate-risk profile is a directional indicator combining regional hazard categories with national adaptation capacity. |
| Detroit | 65/100 | Detroit's climate-risk profile is a directional indicator combining regional hazard categories with national adaptation capacity. |
| Baltimore | 65/100 | Baltimore's climate-risk profile is a directional indicator combining regional hazard categories with national adaptation capacity. |
Climate-risk scoring combines hazard exposure with adaptation capacity. Cities with active resilience programmes reduce expected loss even where exposure is meaningful. Across the indexed cities the climate risk average is 60/100, so Shreveport is 14 points below the median. Data year 2025; last updated 2026-05-16. Drawn from 4 institutional references.
Read this module with the main open the shreveport city profile and the read the scoring methodology page so single-topic pages do not hide tradeoffs across dimensions.
Structured indicators on this page are directional and intended for orientation. Verified datasets are being integrated; official sources should be used for critical decisions.
4 institutional references inform this view, listed below with reliability notes. Structured indicators on this page are directional and intended for orientation; verified datasets are being integrated and official sources should be used for critical decisions.
Used as a policy and methodology reference for urban exposure and resilience signals.
Used where United States city comparisons need air-quality benchmark context.
Used as an energy-resource and weather-normalization reference.
Used to explain urban climate vulnerability and adaptation scoring logic.
These links connect module pages back to city, ranking, and sibling topic paths with crawlable href values.
Return to the complete Shreveport profile with all module scores and source context.
Affordability, essential costs, and day-to-day financial pressure for residents.
Health-oriented air-quality conditions with context from WHO, EEA, and EPA benchmarks.
Clean-energy readiness, grid resilience, and solar or efficiency opportunity signals.
Personal safety, institutional trust, and resilience signals informed by international safety and crime data.
Broadband and mobile connectivity quality, latency, and digital-readiness signals for residents and remote workers.
A balanced ranking of cities across affordability, air quality, clean-energy readiness, and resilience.
Cities that combine strong services, mobility, safety, clean air, and resilience into a healthy day-to-day profile.