The fourth step of the Climate Resilience Guide focuses on evaluating and selecting the most effective adaptation plans. This phase involves assessing different adaptation options, conducting a cost-benefit analysis, prioritizing suitable measures, and performing a self-check to ensure thorough consideration. By systematically evaluating adaptation options, municipalities can make informed decisions to maximize resilience and sustainability.
The first task is choosing an assessment framework for adaptation options. It is essential to compare options effectively and facilitate communication with decision-makers by using agreed criteria such as effectiveness in reducing vulnerability, sustainability impacts, and costs. Coordinating the assessment across political, legal, and institutional actors can enhance synergies and prevent maladaptation. Decision-makers should aim for “win-win” options that deliver multiple benefits or “no-regret” options that are beneficial regardless of future climate change. Each option should be evaluated on its ability to achieve adaptation targets and its broader social and environmental impacts.
Next, conducting a cost-benefit analysis of adaptation measures helps prioritize and allocate resources effectively. This analysis compares the costs and benefits of different measures, predicting whether the benefits outweigh the costs and how they compare to other alternatives. Adaptation costs include planning, preparing, facilitating, and implementing measures, while benefits encompass avoided damage costs and accrued advantages. It is also important to account for the residual risk costs, which are the impacts that remain after implementing the measures. Prioritizing adaptation options follows the cost-benefit analysis. A Multi-Criteria Analysis (MCA) can be particularly useful for ranking and selecting the most suitable options. The preferred list of adaptation actions should be agreed upon with stakeholders, who should be involved in the MCA to incorporate diverse values and criteria. The selection process should recognize various viable options and their combinations, including:
- “No-regrets adaptation options” that are beneficial regardless of future climate change.
- “Low-regrets options” that have relatively low costs but potentially high benefits under projected future climate conditions.
- “Win-Win options” that not only minimize climate risks but also contribute to other social, environmental, or economic goals.
- “Flexible or adaptive management options” that can be adjusted easily and cost-effectively if circumstances change.
- “Multiple-benefit options” that provide synergies with other goals like mitigation, disaster risk reduction, and environmental management.
These types of options should be favored due to the broad range of potential future climate impacts and associated uncertainties. Focusing on options with multiple benefits can also facilitate funding by pooling resources and emphasizing shared benefits that outweigh the investments.
For the successful implementation of this step, the following activities should be undertaken:
4.1 Selecting an evaluation framework for adaptation options
4.2 Performing a cost-benefit analysis of adaptation measures
4.3 Ranking adaptation options
4.4 Reviewing and choosing adaptation options: Self-evaluation
How to move ahead
The Urban Adaptation Support Tool (https://climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu/en/knowledge/tools/urban-ast) from the Climate ADAPT platform also provides useful recommendations and access to more specific tools, especially for performing a cost-benefit analysis of climate adaptation measures.
