A Framework for Benefit-Cost Analysis of Adaptation to Climate Change and Climate Variability

  • Neil A. Leary


The potential damages of climate change and climate variability are dependent upon the responses or adaptations that people make to their changing environment. By adapting the management of resources, the mix and methods of producing goods and services, choices of leisure activities, and other behavior, people can lessen the damages that would otherwise result. A framework for assessing the benefits and costs of adaptation to both climate change and climate variability is described in the paper. The framework is also suitable for evaluating the economic welfare effects of climate change, allowing for autonomous adaptation by private agents.

The paper also briefly addresses complications introduced by uncertainty regarding the benefits of adaptation and irreversibility of investments in adaptation. When investment costs are irreversible and there is uncertainty about benefits, the usual net present value criterion for evaluating the investment gives the wrong decision. If delaying an adaptation project is possible, and if delay will permit learning about future benefits of adaptation, it may be preferable to delay the project even if the expected net present value is positive. Implications of this result for adaptation policy are discussed in the paper.

adaptation climatic change economic welfare costs and benefits 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Callaway, J.M., Naess, L.O., and Ringius, L.,1998. ‘Adaptation Costs: A Framework and Methods.’ UNEP Centre, Riso, Denmark. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  2. Carter, T.R., Parry, M.L., Harasawa, H., and Nishioka, S., 1994. IPCC Technical Guidelines for Assessing Climate Change Impact and Adaptations. Department of Geography, University College London.Google Scholar
  3. Deaton, A., and Muellbauer, J., 1980. Economics andConsumer Behavior. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  4. Dixit, A., 1992. ‘Investment and Hysteresis’,Journal of Economic Perspectives, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 107–132.Google Scholar
  5. Fankhauser, S., Smith, J.B., and Tol, R., 1998.Weathering Climate Change, Some Simple Rules to Guide Adaptation Decisions. Institute for Environmental Studies, Amsterdam, Netherlands.Google Scholar
  6. Fankhauser, S., 1996. ‘The PotentialCosts of Climate Change Adaptation.’ In Adapting to Climate Change, Smith, J.B., Bhatti, N., Menzhulin, G., Benioff, R., Budyko, M., Campos, M., Jallow, B., Rijsberman, F., editors. Springer-Verlag, New York.Google Scholar
  7. IPCC, 1996. Climate Change1995: Impacts, Adaptation, and Mitigation of Climate Change, Scientific and Technical Analysis. Contribution of Working Group II to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  8. Johansson, Per-Olov,1993. Cost-Benefit Analysis of Environmental Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
  9. Johansson, Per-Olov, 1991. An Introduction to Modern Welfare Economics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
  10. Pindyck, R.S.,1991. ‘Irreversibility, Uncertainty, and Investment’, Journal of Economic Literature, 29: pp. 1110–148.Google Scholar
  11. Smit, B., Burton, I., and R.J.T. Klein, 1999. ‘The Science of Adaptation: A Framework for Assessment.’, Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies to Global Change (same issue)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Neil A. Leary
    • 1
  1. 1.IPCC Working Group II Technical Support UnitWashington, DCUSA

Personalised recommendations