The economics of adaptation to climate change relies heavily on comparisons of the benefits and costs of adaptation options that can range from changes in policy to implementing specific projects. Since these benefits are derived from damages avoided by any such adaptation, they are critically dependent on the specification of a baseline. The current exercise paper reinforces this point in an environment that superimposes stochastic coastal storm events on two alternative sea level rise scenarios from two different baselines: one assumes perfect economic efficiency of the sort that could be supported by the availability of actuarially fair insurance and a second in which fundamental market imperfections significantly impair society's ability to spread risk. We show that the value of adaptation can be expressed in terms of differences in expected outcomes damages only if the effected community has access to efficient risk-spreading mechanisms or reflects risk neutrality in its decision-making structure. Otherwise, the appropriate metric for measuring the benefits of adaptation must be derived from certainty equivalents. In these cases, increases in decision-makers' aversion to risk increase the economic value of adaptations that reduce expected damages and diminish the variance of their inter-annual variability. For engineering and other adaptations that involve significant up-front expense followed by ongoing operational cost, increases in decision-makers' aversion increase the value of adaptation and therefore move the date of economically efficient implementation closer to the present.
Yohe, G; Knee, K; Kirshen, P
On the economics of coastal adaptation solutions in an uncertain world
Climatic Change