Climatic Change

, 95:47 | Cite as

Ranking of national-level adaptation options. An editorial comment



de Bruin et al. (Clim Change, 2009) report on an expert assessment aimed at prioritizing adaptation options in several climate-sensitive sectors of the Netherlands. Their results show that even in a country with high economic, institutional and technical capacity, it is not currently feasible to prioritize national-level adaptation options based on social cost-benefit analysis because of methodological difficulties and insufficient quantitative data. Multi-criteria analysis based on qualitative indicators can help prioritizing adaptation options but the analysis detected strong conflicts between priority and feasibility criteria. The specific results of the ranking exercise should be treated with caution due to weaknesses in the selection of adaptation options and the definition of evaluation criteria. The authors assert that their methods can be transferred to other regions but substantial modifications are likely required in developing countries with large current climate risks, fewer economic resources, and substantial social inequalities.


  1. Adger W, Dessai S, Goulden M, Hulme M, Lorenzoni I, Nelson D, Naess L, Wolf J, Wreford A (2009) Are there social limits to adaptation to climate change?. Clim Change 93:335–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adger WN, Paavola J, Huq S, Mace MJ (eds) (2006) Fairness in adaptation to climate change. MIT, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  3. Burton I, Huq S, Lim B, Pilifosova O, Schipper EL (2002) From impact assessment to adaptation priorities: the shaping of adaptation policy. Climate Policy 2:145–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. de Bruin K, Dellink RB, Ruijs A, Bolwidt L, van Buuren A, Graveland J, de Groot RS, Kuikman PJ, Reinhard S, Roetter RP, Tassone VC, Verhagen A, van Ierland EC (2009) Adapting to climate change in the Netherlands: an inventory of climate adaptation options and ranking of alternatives. Clim Change 95:1–2. doi:10.1007/s10584-009-9576-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Deltacommissie (2008) Working together with water. A living land builds for its future. Findings of the Deltacommissie (2008)Google Scholar
  6. Fankhauser S, Smith JB, Tol RS (1999) Weathering climate change: some simple rules to guide adaptation decisions. Environ Econ 30:67–78Google Scholar
  7. Füssel H-M (2007) Adaptation planning for climate change: concepts, assessment approaches and key lessons. Sustain Sci 2(2):265–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Füssel H-M, Klein RJT (2006) Climate change vulnerability assessments: an evolution of conceptual thinking. Clim Change 75:301–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. IPCC (2007) Climate change 2007: impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  10. Myers N (2002) Environmental refugees: a growing phenomenon of the 21st century. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B 357:609–613CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Smit B, Lenhart S (1996) Climate change adaptation policy options. Clim Res 6:193–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Smith JB (1997) Setting priorities for adapting to climate change. Glob Environ Change 7:251–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Verheyen R (2002) Adaptation to the impacts of anthropogenic climate change—the international legal framework. Rev Eur Community Int Environ Law (RECIEL) 11(2):129–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact ResearchPotsdamGermany

Personalised recommendations