resolution could be used for a geospatial analysis to inform risk and design standards in many regions of the world. Data on water availability for cooling is also central to planning for electricity generation.

In each sector, and for all spending scenarios, we thus explore two extreme scenarios in terms of the knowledge on the spatial distribution of natural hazards and the ability to target strengthening to the places exposed to them.

- In the first scenario, it is assumed that the location and intensity of the hazard are perfectly known, now and in the future, and that different standards can be applied in different locations, depending on the level of risk.

- In the second scenario, it is assumed that the hazard is unknown, or too uncertain to be acted on, and that a uniform standard has to be applied to the full network.

Results for these two scenarios are compared here for three infrastructure systems: power, transport, and water and sanitation.

For the first set of scenarios, it is assumed that future infrastructure assets are exposed in a similar fashion to the existing infrastructure on average in each region (in other words, the sites available for future infrastructure construction are exposed to the same level of hazards, on average, as the sites already in use). We use the exposure to natural disasters calculated by Koks et al (2019) for transport and Nicolas et al (2019) for power. For water and sanitation, since we have no exposure data, we assume that the infrastructure has the average exposure of transport and power infrastructure in each region.

# Power

In the power sector, baseline investment needs range from $298 billion to $1 trillion a year in low‐ and middle‐income countries between 2015 and 2030 assuming current resilience levels. The position within this range depends on energy efficiency, and the timing of the transition towards carbon‐free power generation (which creates stranded assets, such as coal power plants that need to be decommissioned before the end of their lifetime). An additional $106 billion and $282 billion a year would be needed for maintenance. How does building in more resilience to power systems increase these costs?

- _Scenario 1._ If only the assets exposed to hazards are made more resilient to those hazards, the incremental cost would be between $9 billion and $27 billion a year (depending on the initial spending scenario), which represents a 3 percent cost increase on average across the spending range, and a 6 percent cost increase in the most expensive case. These investments would reduce the risk of damage by a factor of two to three for new infrastructure assets.

- _Scenario 2._ If instead all new power assets were made more resilient to wind, floods, and earthquakes, because the spatial distribution of natural hazards is unknown, then an additional $96 billion to $296 billion a year would be needed. This is a 30 percent increase in capital cost on average over the spending range, and a 10‐fold increase compared with that in the scenario for which hazard data are available.

# Transport

In the transport sector, baseline investment needs—with current resilience standards—could range from $157 billion to $1.1 trillion a year between 2015 and 2030 in low‐ and middle‐income countries. The exact value would depend on the choice of mode (such as personal cars versus public transit in cities) and on the policies put in place to encourage those needing transport to switch to rail and public 5