4.1 Assessing possible adaptation options in terms of effects, time, costs, benefits and efforts

4.1 Assessing possible adaptation options in terms of effects, time, costs, benefits and efforts

Decision-makers should prioritize adaptation options that offer clear benefits regardless of future climate change:

• "Win-win" actions minimize climate risks (or exploit opportunities) while also providing significant social, environmental, or economic co-benefits (e.g., creating jobs, improving air quality).
• "No-regret" actions are beneficial and worthwhile regardless of the extent of future climate change.

Each option needs to be assessed in two ways:

1. to which extent will the option help to achieve the adaptation target,
2. what are the impacts on broader social and environmental aspects.

The assessment of possible options and their comparison should include:

• Identifying the risks the option addresses (i.e. each option may have an effect on or address multiple risks) and by how much the option will likely reduce the risks.
• The urgency of the climate hazard or risk that the option aims to mitigate. Some adaptation actions will be suited for the implementation in the short term to address urgent risks or opportunities; others will require lengthy preparation and planning. Considering the time frame to implement the option and when it shall become effective, reflecting identified risks and the range of urgency to act is crucial.
• Performance against general and wider objectives and avoidance of maladaptation. Maladaptation refers to a situation when actions do not achieve their aims or cause side-effects that impede adaptation elsewhere or in the future. For example, building a dyke in one location can cause more flooding in another location and might prove inadequate protection for the flood levels of the future.
• If the option is of incremental or transformative nature. Transformational adaptation involves questioning the effectiveness of existing systems and processes in light of changing circumstances. It is a way of adaptation that changes the fundamental attributes of a system in response to climate and its effects.
• Addressing direct and indirect effects of the option in economic and environmental terms (including effects on climate change mitigation) with an emphasis on potential benefits. Measures with multiple benefits should be preferred.
• Considering justice in adaptation, assessing how the adaptation option may affect different social groups, including both benefits and burdens. Identify and map any groups that may be excluded from the positive effects of the proposed option or experience negative effects, such as an increased cost burden.
• The link to climate mitigation measures. Measures that contribute to climate change or harm the environment should not be implemented.
• An assessment of effectiveness and efficiency. Effective options reduce a particular vulnerability or number of vulnerabilities to a desired level. Efficient options are those whose benefits exceed costs and are more cost-effective than the alternatives.
• Assessing costs and benefits to predict whether the benefits (e.g. avoided damage) of an option outweigh its costs, and by how much in relation to other alternatives (i.e. one can rank alternate options in terms of the cost-benefit ratio). All costs and benefits should be quantified where possible and meaningful, otherwise a qualitative assessment shall be delivered.
• Considering the barriers to implementation of adaptation actions including budget required, the need of a policy or behavioural change or introduction of legislation, the expected level of acceptance to stakeholders as well as the extent of research and development needed.

To determine feasible adaptation options, the analysis of costs and benefits is crucial, including maintenance costs. Estimates of costs and benefits are emerging, but vary substantially with the objectives of the study, and the aggregation level and sector. For further information on cost and benefit assessments, please see here.

The results of the assessment can be described in concise option factsheets, starting with the creation of a portfolio that does not contain too much technical detail, but rather gives a quick overview, easily understood by non-experts. These factsheets can be very useful at a later stage for the prioritisation exercise (see next step). Information within the factsheets should be provided at least on the following points:

• Adaptation option description
• Which climate change impact(s) does the option address
• The potential to reduce vulnerability (split up for different social groups if possible) to the identified climate change impact(s), effectiveness, flexibility to be upgraded or downgraded if necessary
• Spatial scope, visual mapping
• Information on which stakeholders’ participation is needed or recommended
• Success and limiting factors (based on own experience or on other cases)
• Implementing and operating costs and economic benefits expressed in monetary terms
• Social and environmental co-benefits or disadvantage, necessary remedial action
• Financial resources required, investment timing and sources of funding
• Time frame for planning and implementation until fully functional, operating lifetime
• Responsibility for implementation and maintenance within the ministerial departments or other institutions
• Interlinkages with other proposed adaptation options, interchangeability, combinability
• Reference information