IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/wpaper/hal-01166542.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Economic evaluation in the assessment process for decision-making about climate change adaptation

Author

Listed:
  • Abigaïl Fallot

    (CATIE-CCC - Grupo Cambio Climático y Cuencas del Centro Agronómico Tropical de Investigación y Enseñanza - Centro Agronómico Tropical de Investigación y Enseñanza, UPR GREEN - Gestion des ressources renouvelables et environnement - Cirad - Centre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement)

  • Marianela Greppi

    (Bosque Modelo Jujuy (BMJ))

  • Josefina Marin

    (FCBC - Fundación para la Conservación del Bosque Chiquitano)

  • Juan Mardones

    (BMAAM - Bosque Modelo Araucarias del Alto Malleco)

  • Jean-François Le Coq

    (UMR ART-Dev - Acteurs, Ressources et Territoires dans le Développement - Cirad - Centre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement - UPVM - Université Paul-Valéry - Montpellier 3 - UPVD - Université de Perpignan Via Domitia - UM - Université de Montpellier - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

Abstract

The economic assessment of climate change adaptation basically consists in balancing costs and benefits of actions considered when addressing climate change (CC) threats. The purpose of economic evaluation in the assessment process of CC adaptation actions is essentially to provide figures for the comparison of different possibilities. In the context of the 3 EcoAdapt south American sites (Los Perico-Manantiales watershed in Argentina – BMJ, Zapoco watershed in Bolivia – BMCh and Alto Malleco in Chile – BMAAM), economic evaluation is to rely on a shared understanding of local contexts and the economic drivers of current dynamics. We focus on specific actions considered in these contexts so as to address unsustainable dynamics. The present report D3.4 provides a framework for economic evaluation: its context and the approach under development; the elements of costs and benefits that enter the analysis; and how uncertainty and irreversibility can be accounted for when using economic evaluation results. The initial panorama of the context of the economic evaluation recalls synthetically what we know about the territories and their people in terms of scales, activities and living conditions and about the extent to which they are affected by climate. Such introduction aims at facilitating the understanding of the types of actions considered for climate change adaptation. Then the economist standpoint on climate adaptation is explained and the perimeter of the evaluation is defined: 15 actions in BMJ, 11 in BMCh and 9 in BMAAM. Twelve fields of investigation are identified, for which available information is synthetized and on-going research on the elements of costs and benefits is described, so as to both make a progress status, and actualize the road map for integrating economic evaluation in modelling (task 3.2), scenario development (task 4.2) and implementation (task 5.3). A final section illustrates the possible use of the economic analysis to reveal or highlight specific characteristics of the actions considered, for instance: their time horizons and links with inexplicit future benefits or costs; their progressive definition that requires to start the evaluation; their reliance on resources considered free.

Suggested Citation

  • Abigaïl Fallot & Marianela Greppi & Josefina Marin & Juan Mardones & Jean-François Le Coq, 2014. "Economic evaluation in the assessment process for decision-making about climate change adaptation," Working Papers hal-01166542, HAL.
  • Handle: RePEc:hal:wpaper:hal-01166542
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://hal.science/hal-01166542v2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://hal.science/hal-01166542v2/document
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Adler, Matthew D. & Hammitt, James K. & Treich, Nicolas, 2014. "The social value of mortality risk reduction: VSL versus the social welfare function approach," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 82-93.
    2. Galarraga, Ibon & Oses, Nuria & Markandya, Anil & Chiabai, Aline & Khantun, Kaysara, 2011. "Aportaciones desde la economía de la adaptación a la toma de decisiones sobre cambio climático: un ejemplo para la Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco," Economia Agraria y Recursos Naturales, Spanish Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 11(01), pages 1-30, November.
    3. Olivier Godard & Yann Laurans, 2004. "Evaluating environmental issue- Valuation as co-ordination in a pluralistic world," Working Papers hal-00242936, HAL.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Adler, Matthew D. & Ferranna, Maddalena & Hammitt, James K. & Treich, Nicolas, 2021. "Fair innings? The utilitarian and prioritarian value of risk reduction over a whole lifetime," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(C).
    2. Marc Lipsitch & Nicholas G. Evans & Owen Cotton‐Barratt, 2017. "Underprotection of Unpredictable Statistical Lives Compared to Predictable Ones," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(5), pages 893-904, May.
    3. Hammitt, James K., 2022. "Prevention, Treatment, and Palliative Care: The Relative Value of Health Improvements under Alternative Evaluation Frameworks," TSE Working Papers 22-1339, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    4. Adler, Matthew, 2020. "What should we spend to save lives in a pandemic? A critique of the value of statistical life," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 105283, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    5. Richard Peter, 2024. "The economics of self-protection," The Geneva Risk and Insurance Review, Palgrave Macmillan;International Association for the Study of Insurance Economics (The Geneva Association), vol. 49(1), pages 6-35, March.
    6. Hammitt, James K. & Treich, Nicolas, 2021. "Fatality Risk Regulation," TSE Working Papers 21-1177, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    7. Yasushi Iwamoto, 2021. "Welfare economics of managing an epidemic: an exposition," The Japanese Economic Review, Springer, vol. 72(4), pages 537-579, October.
    8. Herrera-Araujo, Daniel & Hammitt, James K. & Rheinberger, Christoph M., 2020. "Theoretical bounds on the value of improved health," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(C).
    9. Carole Bernard & Christoph M. Rheinberger & Nicolas Treich, 2018. "Catastrophe Aversion and Risk Equity in an Interdependent World," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(10), pages 4490-4504, October.
    10. Canning, David, 2023. "Conducting Cost Benefit Analysis in Expected Utility Units Using Revealed Social Preferences," Working Papers 0722, University of Heidelberg, Department of Economics.
    11. Marc Fleurbaey & Grégory Ponthière, 2019. "The Value of a Life-Year and the Intuition of Universality," PSE Working Papers halshs-02393392, HAL.
    12. James K. Hammitt, 2017. "Valuing Non-Fatal Health Risks: Monetary and Health-Utility Measures," Revue économique, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 68(3), pages 335-356.
    13. Daniel Bauer & Darius Lakdawalla & Julian Reif, 2018. "Mortality Risk, Insurance, and the Value of Life," NBER Working Papers 25055, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    14. Adler, Matthew D. & Treich, Nicolas, 2017. "Utilitarianism, prioritarianism, and intergenerational equity: A cake eating model," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 94-102.
    15. Matthew Adler & Nicolas Treich, 2015. "Prioritarianism and Climate Change," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 62(2), pages 279-308, October.
    16. Marc Fleurbaey, 2018. "Welfare economics, risk and uncertainty," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 51(1), pages 5-40, February.
    17. Luciana Echazu & Diego C. Nocetti, 2020. "Willingness to pay for morbidity and mortality risk reductions during an epidemic. Theory and preliminary evidence from COVID-19," The Geneva Risk and Insurance Review, Palgrave Macmillan;International Association for the Study of Insurance Economics (The Geneva Association), vol. 45(2), pages 114-133, September.
    18. Christoph M. Rheinberger & Nicolas Treich, 2017. "Attitudes Toward Catastrophe," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 67(3), pages 609-636, July.
    19. Hammitt, James K., 2022. "Prevention, treatment, and palliative care: The relative value of health improvements under alternative evaluation frameworks," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    climate change; economic evaluation; cost-benefit analysis;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hal:wpaper:hal-01166542. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.