The assessments of future climate risks are common; however, usually, they focus on climate projections without considering social changes. We project heat risks for Finland to evaluate (1) what kind of differences there are in heat vulnerability projections with different scenarios and scales, and (2) how the use of socio-economic scenarios influences heat risk assessments. We project a vulnerability index with seven indicators downscaled to the postal code area scale for 2050. Three different scenario sets for vulnerability are tested: one with five global Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs) scenarios; the second with three European SSPs (EUSSPs) with data at the sub-national scale (NUTS2); and the last with the EUSSPs but aggregated data at the national scale. We construct projections of heat risk utilizing climatic heat hazard data for three different Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs) and vulnerability and exposure data for five global SSPs up to 2100. In the vulnerability projections, each scenario in each dataset shows a decrease in vulnerability compared to current values, and the differences between the three scenario sets are small. There are evident differences both in the spatial patterns and in the temporal trends when comparing the risk projections with constant vulnerability to the projections with dynamic vulnerability. Heat hazard increases notably in RCP4.5 and RCP8.5, but a decrease of vulnerability especially in SSP1 and SSP5 alleviates risks. We show that projections of vulnerability have a considerable impact on future heat-related risk and emphasize that future risk assessments should include the combination of long-term climatic and socio-economic projections.

对未来气候风险的评估很常见；然而，通常情况下，他们专注于气候预测而不考虑社会变化。我们为芬兰预测热风险，以评估 (1) 不同情景和规模的热脆弱性预测存在哪些差异，以及 (2) 社会经济情景的使用如何影响热风险评估。我们预测了一个包含 7 个指标的脆弱性指数，缩小到 2050 年的邮政编码区域规模。测试了三种不同的脆弱性情景集：一种具有五个全球共享社会经济途径 (SSP) 情景；第二个是三个欧洲 SSP（EUSSP），具有次国家级数据（NUTS2）；最后一个是 EUSSP，但在全国范围内汇总了数据。我们利用三种不同的代表性浓度路径 (RCP) 的气候热危害数据以及截至 2100 年的五个全球 SSP 的脆弱性和暴露数据构建热风险预测。在脆弱性预测中，每个数据集中的每个情景与当前值，并且三个场景集之间的差异很小。将具有恒定脆弱性的风险预测与具有动态脆弱性的预测进行比较时，空间格局和时间趋势都存在明显差异。RCP4.5 和 RCP8.5 中的热危害显着增加，但脆弱性的降低，尤其是 SSP1 和 SSP5 中的脆弱性降低了风险。