Which statement best describes how risk maps differ from exposure maps?

• A. Risk maps show asset locations.
• B. Exposure maps show weather forecasts.
• C. Risk maps show only hazard magnitudes.
• D. Exposure maps show where assets are located; risk maps combine exposure with probability and consequence to indicate expected loss, often with a risk score.

Answer: (D)

At the heart of this idea is how risk is quantified. Exposure maps simply show where assets are and what value they hold, so you can see what could be affected. Risk maps, on the other hand, add two additional pieces: how likely a hazard is to occur (probability) and how bad the impact would be if it happens (consequence). By combining exposure with probability and consequence, risk maps produce an expected loss or a risk score, which helps you prioritize where to act.

In other words, exposure maps tell you where assets sit in relation to potential threats, while risk maps translate that exposure into actionable risk levels by accounting for both likelihood and impact. That’s why the statement that risk maps combine exposure with probability and consequence to indicate expected loss, often with a risk score, best captures the difference.

The other ideas are less informative: showing asset locations is the job of exposure maps, not risk maps; weather forecasts are not what exposure maps depict; and focusing only on hazard magnitudes misses how likely and how severe the downstream losses would be, which risk maps integrate to produce a meaningful risk picture.