Climatic Change

, Volume 95, Issue 1–2, pp 63–81 | Cite as

AD-DICE: an implementation of adaptation in the DICE model

  • Kelly C. de BruinEmail author
  • Rob B. Dellink
  • Richard S. J. Tol
Open Access


Integrated Assessment Models (IAMS) have helped us over the past decade to understand the interactions between the environment and the economy in the context of climate change. Although it has also long been recognized that adaptation is a powerful and necessary tool to combat the adverse effects of climate change, most IAMS have not explicitly included the option of adaptation in combating climate change. This paper adds to the IAM and climate change literature by explicitly including adaptation in an IAM, thereby making the trade-offs between adaptation and mitigation visible. Specifically, a theoretical framework is created and used to implement adaptation as a decision variable into the DICE model. We use our new AD-DICE model to derive the adaptation cost functions implicit in the DICE model. In our set-up, adaptation and mitigation decisions are separable and AD-DICE can mimic DICE when adaptation is optimal. We find that our specification of the adaptation costs is robust with respect to the mitigation policy scenarios and parameter values. Our numerical results show that adaptation is a powerful option to combat climate change, as it reduces most of the potential costs of climate change in earlier periods, while mitigation does so in later periods.


Climate Sensitivity Integrate Assessment Model Mitigation Cost Adaptation Cost Residual Damage 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. de Bruin KC, Dellink RB, Agrawala S (forthcoming) Integrated assessment modelling of adaptation. OECD working paperGoogle Scholar
  2. Dickinson T (2007) The compendium of adaptation models for climate change: first edition, adaptation and impacts research division, Environment Canada, 52 ppGoogle Scholar
  3. Fankhauser S (1994) Protection vs. retreat—the economic costs of sea level rise. Environ Plan A 27:299–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Fankhauser S (1998) The costs of adapting to climate change. GEF Working Paper Series 16, Global Environmental Facility, ISBN 1-884122-14-0Google Scholar
  5. Füssel H-M (2007) Methodological and empirical flaws in the design and application of simple climate-economy models. Clim Change 81:161–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hope CW (2006) The marginal impact of CO2 from PAGE2002: an integrated assessment model incorporating the IPCC’s five reasons for concern. Integr Assess J 6(1):19–56Google Scholar
  7. Hope CW, Anderson J, Wenman P (1993) Policy analysis of the greenhouse effect—an application of the PAGE model. Energy Policy 15:328–338Google Scholar
  8. IPCC (2001a) Climate change. In: Houghton JT et al (eds) Working group 1: the scientific basis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  9. IPCC (2001b) Climate change. In: McCarthy JJ et al (eds) Working group II: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  10. Klein RJT, Huq S, Denton F, Downing TE, Richels RG, Robinson JB, Toth FL (2007) Inter-relationships between adaptation and mitigation. Climate Change 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. In: Parry ML, Canziani OF, Palutikof JP, van der Linden PJ, Hanson CE (eds) Contribution of working group II to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp 745–777Google Scholar
  11. Lecocq F, Shalizi Z (2007) Balancing expenditures on mitigation of and adaptation to climate change: an exploration of issues relevant to developing countries. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 4299 Available at SSRN:
  12. Manne AS, Mendelsohn R, Richels RG (1995) MERGE: a model for evaluating regional and global effects of GHG reduction policies. Energy Policy 23(1):17–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Manne AS, Richels RG, Edmonds JA (2005) Market exchange rates or purchasing power parity: does the choice make a difference to the climate debate? Clim Change 71(1–2):1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Mendelsohn R (2000) Efficient adaptation to climate change. Clim Change 45:583–600CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Nordhaus WD (1994) Managing the global commons: the economics of the greenhouse effect. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  16. Nordhaus WD, Boyer J (2000) Warming the world: economic models of global warming. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  17. Parry ML, Carter TR, Konijn NT (eds) (1998a) The impact of climate variations on agriculture. Kluwer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  18. Parry ML, Arnell NW, Hulme M, Nicholls RJ, Livermore M (1998b) Adaptation to the inevitable. Nature 395:741CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Plambeck EL, Hope CW, Anderson J (1997) The PAGE95 model: integrating the science and economics of climate change. Energy Econ 19:77–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Reilly J, Hohnmann N, Kane S (1994) Climate change and agricultural trade: who benefits, who loses? Glob Environ Change 4(1):24–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Smit B, Pilifosova O (2001) Adaptation to climate change in the context of sustainable development and equity. In: McCarthy JJ, Canziani O, Leary NA, Dokken DJ, White KS (eds) Climate change 2001: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp 877–912Google Scholar
  22. Sokolov AP, Schlosser CA, Dutkiewicz S, Paltsev S, Kicklighter DW, Jacoby HD, Prinn RG, Forest CE, Reilly JM, Wang C, Felzer BS, Sarofim MC, Scott J, Stone PH (2005) MIT integrated global system model (IGSM) version 2: model description and baseline evaluation, MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, Report no. 124Google Scholar
  23. Tol RSJ (2002) Estimates of the damage costs of climate change. Environ Resour Econ 21:47–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Tol RSJ (2005) Adaptation and mitigation: trade-offs in substance and methods. Environ Sci Policy 8(6):572–578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Tol RSJ (2006) Exchange rates and climate change: an application of FUND. Clim Change 75:59–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Tol RSJ (2007) The double trade-off between adaptation and mitigation for sea level rise: an application of FUND. Mitig Adapt Strategies Glob Change 12(5):741–753CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Tol RSJ, Dowlatabadi H (2001) Vector-borne diseases, climate change, and economic growth. Integr Assess 2:173–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Tol RSJ, Fankhauser S (1998) On the representation of impact in integrated assessment models of climate change. Environ Model Assess 3:63–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Tol RSJ, Fankhauser S, Smith JB (1998) The scope for adaptation to climate change: what can we learn from the impact literature? Glob Environ Change 8(2):109–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kelly C. de Bruin
    • 1
    Email author
  • Rob B. Dellink
    • 1
    • 2
  • Richard S. J. Tol
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
  1. 1.Environmental Economics and Natural Resources GroupWageningen UniversityWageningenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Institute for Environmental StudiesVU University AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Economic and Social Research InstituteDublinIreland
  4. 4.Department of Spatial EconomicsVU University AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  5. 5.Department of Engineering and Public PolicyCarnegie Mellon UniversityPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations