What are the key recommendations from the mapping work? 


  Who for?



  • Employ a range of datasets and knowledge bases to inform adaptation responses, including the evidence provided elsewhere in this tool.
  • Take account of the limitations associated with mapping work and look to how limitations might be addressed through complementary work within local authorities, e.g. through the use of local data holdings, local knowledge and community participation. Follow-on work based on the Climate Just mapping has used a range of alternative externally licensed (e.g. MOSAIC and Ordnance Survey) and internal local datasets (e.g. from Adult and Children Social Services) to further develop and refine local profiles of vulnerability. Examples of follow-on work are described in the County perspective on social vulnerability assessment case study and the Creating a mapping tool for responding to climate change case study. Other relevant mapped indicators are also available in external tools like SHAPE and the Public Health Outcomes Data Tool.




  • A wider range of social indicators, explicitly geographical in nature, needs to be developed. This includes a formal measure of insurance availability and affordability.
  • A wider range of indicators of flood and heat exposure could be developed. For example, this could include a neighbourhood scale measure of potential property exposure and pre-processed datasets of key 5km resolution UKCP09 (Weather Generator) outputs, such as the potential for heatwaves.
  • The social vulnerability index could be further developed, formalised and made available alongside the social deprivation index


  • There is a need for multiple-scale and multiple method analysis to link national studies to local contexts.
  • Further research work is required to better understand the relative importance of different factors, domains and dimensions in terms of heat and flood socio-spatial vulnerability. One central question is how the relative weighting (or importance of each factor) should be determined. One possibility is to use expert groups. However, another is to combine expert weightings with citizen participation.1,2,3,4 Given the importance of voice and participation as part of a socially just response to climate adaptation, there is a strong case to be made for citizen engagement in the assessment of the different importance and weights that should be placed on different factors. These may be different in individual local areas.  




  1. Burgess, J., Stirling, A., Clark, J., Davies, G., Eames, M., Staley, K. and Williamson, S. (2007) ‘Deliberative mapping: Developing an analytic-deliberative methodology to support contested science-policy decisions’. Public Understanding of Science, 16, pp. 299–3225.
  2. Davies, G., Burgess, J., Eames, M., Mayer, S., Staley, K., Stirling, A. and Williamson, S. (2003) Deliberative Mapping: Appraising Options for Addressing ‘the Kidney Gap’. London: Wellcome Trust
  3. De Marchi, B., Funtowicz, S., Casio, S. and Munda, G. (2000) ‘Combining participative and institutional approaches with multicriteria evaluation’. Ecological Economics, 34, pp. 267–82
  4. Stirling, A. (2008) ‘ “Opening up” and “closing down”: Power, participation and pluralism in the social appraisal of technology’. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 33, pp. 262–94