From risk to resilience: the new metric housing markets need

Recently, Zillow retired its climate risk score in the United States of America, stating that it seemed inaccurate and was hurting home sales. Other major real estate listing websites in the United States are considering similar steps. Meanwhile, in much of the world, this type of information has never been available to homebuyers in the first place.

The decision has ignited debate across both the real estate industry and the disaster risk reduction (DRR) community. For some, it reads as a step backwards for transparency. For us, it exposes a more fundamental problem: households are not being given the right kind of risk intelligence to make informed decisions. If the underlying data is simplistic or misleading, removing the score isn't the issue-the issue is that the score was never designed to measure what truly matters.

This moment is an opportunity not to remove risk data, but to enhance it so it becomes a tool of confidence rather than concern.

The real problem: not too much risk data, too little resilience insight

The debate ignited by Zillow's decision reflects frustration on both sides of the market. The disaster risk reduction community argues for accountability and transparency, while real estate actors point to the economic consequences of flawed or oversimplified ratings. However, the shared root cause is rarely addressed: the old model of scoring disaster risk is overly reliant on maps and insufficiently informed by buildings themselves. This is not only an issue in the US housing market but also in global markets for investor confidence and insurance providers.

Hazard exposure based on ZIP codes or geospatial layers tells us where danger might be. It does not tell households whether their home can withstand it. Two houses on the same block in the same hazard zone can have vastly different levels of resilience depending on engineering, elevation, maintenance, materials, storm-proofing, ventilation, or energy redundancy. Traditional risk scores collapse these differences into one label. The result is a blunt tool: at best incomplete, at worst misleading, leading to the uproar which made Zillow take its tool down.

Households need more than labels. They need tools

A house is the largest financial commitment most families will ever make. In many countries, it represents up to 70% of household lifetime assets: often including savings, remittances, informal income, or inherited family land. When that much wealth is tied to one physical structure, families deserve to understand:

• If it is engineered to endure shocks and stresses;
• What specific features reduce or amplify its risk;
• How it compares to other local building types;
• What level of loss one may experience if no improvement is made;
• And what can be done to make it stronger.

Most families aren't afraid of understanding risk. They are afraid of discovering too late that they were never given the information to assess it properly. Consumer protection in housing means translating technical resilience into accessible signals, actionable diagnostics, and financial pathways for upgrades so families can choose homes with confidence or invest in improvements with clarity. Spending on resilience measures can save at least $4 for each dollar spent, according to the National Institute of Building Science.

A growing body of work, including a new book on resilience economics, shows how undervaluing resilience leads to lost property value, higher long-term costs, and cascading economic harm for communities and, ultimately, entire countries. When resilience isn't measured, it isn't managed-and families pay the price.

Why resilience scores change the game

Rather than ask: Is this home located inside a hazard zone? Resilience-based scoring asks a better question: "How does this building perform under stress and why?"

Tools like the International Finance Corporation (IFC) Building Resilience Index (BRI) offer a glimpse of that future by scoring building construction quality and risk mitigation measures, in addition to location-specific hazards. A true resilience score helps households differentiate danger from durability, exposure from engineering, and vulnerability from mitigation. The index itself is important. However, the bigger value is how it can anchor a suite of household-facing tools that explain resilience rather than declare it.

Maybe it's time for Zillow, and other platforms, to upgrade the metric, not the mission

The debate shouldn't be framed as DRR versus housing markets. The danger to the economy is not transparency. The danger is inaccurate transparency.

Housing markets are strengthened when households are equipped to demand better quality and understand resilient value. If platforms like Zillow adopted resilience scores supported by building intelligence, they could:

• Restore public trust;
• Shift resilience from a "warning" to a confidence signal;
• Incentivise builders and lenders to compete on performance;
• Improve demand quality so families buy smarter, not blindly.

This is not about saving sales or hiding hazards. It is about giving households the tools to make informed housing decisions, while nudging markets to build, finance, insure, and regulate homes that are engineered to last and adapt.

Olivia Nielsen is a Principal at Miyamoto International where leads the company’s affordable housing practice. From Haiti to Papua New Guinea, she has developed critical housing programs in over 45 countries. Olivia has over a decade of experience in housing policy, finance, housing public-private partnerships and post-disaster reconstruction. Through her work she hopes to make affordable, resilient and green housing accessible to all.

Ommid Saberi serves as the Global Lead for the Building Resilience Index Program and co-lead for IFC's EDGE Green Buildings Program. Additionally, he co-chairs the Finance Hub of the Global Alliance for Building and Construction. In his role, Ommid collaborates on various projects within the World Bank Group, including IFC investment and advisory initiatives. He has conducted extensive work with the property sector, as well as with funds and commercial banks, to redirect investments towards resource efficient and resilient projects. Notable examples of his work include green affordable housing projects in Africa, resilient and zero-carbon commercial assets, portfolio retrofits, green construction finance, and green mortgages, with a total value exceeding US$20 billion.Prior to joining IFC, Ommid provided advisory services on sustainability strategies for property development projects in the U.K., Middle East, and Asia. His work included the development of energy efficiency codes for multiple countries. Ommid has also served on regional government advisory panels as an expert in low-energy buildings and has held the position of Technical Director for Energy Conservation at the city scale.