Abstract
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
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 93:335–354
Adger WN, Paavola J, Huq S, Mace MJ (eds) (2006) Fairness in adaptation to climate change. MIT, Cambridge
Burton I, Huq S, Lim B, Pilifosova O, Schipper EL (2002) From impact assessment to adaptation priorities: the shaping of adaptation policy. Climate Policy 2:145–149
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
Deltacommissie (2008) Working together with water. A living land builds for its future. Findings of the Deltacommissie (2008)
Fankhauser S, Smith JB, Tol RS (1999) Weathering climate change: some simple rules to guide adaptation decisions. Environ Econ 30:67–78
Füssel H-M (2007) Adaptation planning for climate change: concepts, assessment approaches and key lessons. Sustain Sci 2(2):265–275
Füssel H-M, Klein RJT (2006) Climate change vulnerability assessments: an evolution of conceptual thinking. Clim Change 75:301–329
IPCC (2007) Climate change 2007: impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Myers N (2002) Environmental refugees: a growing phenomenon of the 21st century. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B 357:609–613
Smit B, Lenhart S (1996) Climate change adaptation policy options. Clim Res 6:193–201
Smith JB (1997) Setting priorities for adapting to climate change. Glob Environ Change 7:251–264
Verheyen R (2002) Adaptation to the impacts of anthropogenic climate change—the international legal framework. Rev Eur Community Int Environ Law (RECIEL) 11(2):129–143
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Füssel, HM. Ranking of national-level adaptation options. An editorial comment. Climatic Change 95, 47–51 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-009-9609-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-009-9609-z