Social factors give a picture of the social situation around a property — from access to services and safety to economic and demographic conditions. The assessment is based on open data from OpenStreetMap, Kolada (the Swedish municipal and regional database), the Swedish Police (Polisen) and Statistics Sweden (SCB).
Social factors currently consist of seven parts:
This article explains what lies behind the assessments — categories, factor levels, scoring and data sources.
How the different factors are weighed against each other in the combined index is described in more detail in Weighting for Risk Index.
Important: The classification (low, medium and high factor) is produced by Kliva based on statistical data and averages. Kliva is not an expert on social conditions, and the assessment should be seen as an indication and guidance — not as a definitive truth about an area.
The function is in beta. Both the underlying data and the weighting between the factors may be updated and adjusted going forward.
How Social factors are assessed
Factor levels
Each indicator, dimension and the overall assessment receives a score between 0 and 100, where a higher score means a better social outcome. The score is then translated into a factor level:
Score | Factor level |
≥ 80 | Low factor |
20–79 | Medium factor |
< 20 | High factor |
missing | Not risk-assessed |
If an indicator has no data in an area, Not risk-assessed is shown — it is not counted as a zero and is not included in the average for the dimension.
How the score is set
The indicators are scored in different ways depending on what is being measured:
Percentile — most indicators.
The area is ranked against comparable areas across the country, and the score reflects where in the distribution the area falls. There is no fixed threshold — the level is always relative. Roughly the best 20 % of comparable areas land on Low factor, the middle 60 % on Medium factor and the bottom 20 % on High factor. The direction depends on the indicator — high income counts as good, high unemployment as bad.
Distance — used for Service and proximity.
The shorter the distance to a public service, the higher the score. The thresholds are fixed per point type:
Indicator | Low factor | Medium factor | High factor |
Nearest school | ≤ 322 m | 322–2,322 m | > 2,322 m |
Nearest healthcare facility | ≤ 483 m | 483–3,483 m | > 3,483 m |
Nearest preschool | ≤ 241 m | 241–1,741 m | > 1,741 m |
Nearest commuter stop | ≤ 161 m | 161–1,161 m | > 1,161 m |
The same thresholds apply in Sweden and Finland.
From indicator to dimension level
Each dimension is set as an average of the indicators that have data. The average is then translated into a factor level using the same scoring table as above. Indicators that lack data are skipped — they are not counted as zero.
All indicators carry equal weight, with one exception: within Safety and security in Sweden, police-designated area counts double.
Example — Economy and health (SE): 6 of 8 indicators have data and give the scores 90, 85, 70, 60, 40 and 25. The average is 62, which corresponds to Medium factor.
Overall index and weights
The overall index for Social factors combines all the rows under the umbrella into a single level. The weights differ between Sweden and Finland:
Row | Weight Sweden | Weight Finland |
Population trend | 17 % | — |
Vulnerable area | 33 % | — |
Service and proximity | 10 % | 20 % |
Safety and security | 10 % | 20 % |
Participation and community | 10 % | 20 % |
Economy and health | 10 % | 20 % |
Education and upbringing | 10 % | 20 % |
In Sweden, all seven rows under the umbrella contribute to the index. In Finland, neither Population trend nor Vulnerable area currently exists as its own row — the entire weighting therefore rests on the five dimensions in Social factors.
Sweden and Finland
The assessment is carried out in both countries, but the indicators differ because data availability is not the same. In Finland, indicators for Safety and security are not yet available, which means the dimension is shown as Not risk-assessed. Finland, on the other hand, has an addition within Service and proximity: public transport reach, scored with the percentile method.
Dimension | Sweden | Finland |
Service and proximity | School, healthcare, preschool, commuter stop | School, healthcare, preschool, commuter stop + public transport reach |
Safety and security | Residential burglary, violent crime, police-designated areas | Not assessed |
Participation and community | Voter turnout, children's participation in sports | Voter turnout |
Economy and health | Economic assistance, low economic standard, median income, unemployment, long-term unemployment, ill-health days, sick-leave days, overcrowding | Median income, unemployment, economic assistance, life expectancy at 25 |
Education and upbringing | Children in households with low economic standards, compulsory education only, preschool participation, eligible for vocational upper-secondary school, Grade 9 merit rating, upper-secondary completion within 3 years, young people aged 16-24 outside of work and studies | Share with post-secondary education |
Read More
Would you like to continue learning? Here you will find additional articles to guide you further:
See social factors in context in Risk & Environment – Property Card.
Introduction to Climate Risk Analysis