Criteria for evaluating adaptation options

Due to the wide range of adaptation options, it is important to evaluate these in order to determine which adaptation actions should be promoted or implemented under specific circumstances (Dolan et al. 2001). Planned (anticipatory) adaptations can be evaluated using methods such as cost-benefit analysis, cost effectiveness analysis or multiple criteria evaluation.

Evaluation of adaptations to climate change needs to be considered as part of an ongoing assessment of choices in a context of multiple risks.

"Evaluations are intended to assess the overall merit, suitability, utility or appropriateness of potential adaptation strategies or measures" (Dolan et al. 2001, iv).

Various criteria such as effectiveness, flexibility, economic efficiency, so-cial acceptability, timeliness, equity, institutional compatibility, farmer implementability, and net benefits independent of climate change, are used in literature to evaluate adaptation options (Titus 1990; Dolan et al. 2001;

Adger / Arnell / Tompkins 2005). These criteria are context specific and are based on competing values as their importance varies from context to context:

1. Effectiveness relates to the capacity of an adaptation action to achieve its expected/target objectives and can be measured by robustness to uncertainty and flexibility, that is, ability to change in response to al-tered conditions.

2. Flexibility, that is, the ability of an adaptation to perform well for a range of likely climate changes (Titus 1990). This is important given the uncertainties in climate change, so that adaptations can accom-modate "adjustments as new information becomes available, or as ex-perience is gained" (Dolan et al. 2001, 8). According to Dolan et al.

(2001), a flexible adaptation option in agriculture is one that is "func-tional in the light of unforeseen climate changes and effects. For ex-ample, planting crop varieties that are tolerant to a wide range of cli-mate conditions is considered more flexible than planting crop

varie-ties that are productive in very particular climate conditions" (Dolan et al. 2001, 9).

3. Efficiency of adaptation actions requires considerations of

a) The distribution and costs of the benefit of the action. Economic efficiency captures whether adaptation benefits are greater than the costs. Economic efficiency is important as an adaptation criterion because perceived lack of profitability is often cited as a con-straint to adoption of a wide range of farm-level innovations.

Dolan et al. (2001, 8) highlight that "costing procedures for evaluation of adaptation options pose a significant challenge, par-ticularly in agriculture" where "the costs and benefits of adapta-tion are often shared by more than one party".

b) The social costs and benefits of adaptations in those goods that cannot be expressed in market values may deter farmers from adopting them. For example, being perceived as not conforming to societal values hinders female farmers from selling livestock in the market in the absence of their migrant husbands, thereby lim-iting their access to cash.

c) The timing of adaptation has to be weighed against the conse-quences of delayed implementation (Titus 1990). The timing of adaptation action in relation to climate change impact will also af-fect the potential economic efficiency of an adaptation option. For example, farmers are interested in which crops to plant in the next season and less so for projected climate in 50 years time (Adger / Arnell / Tompkins 2005). Similarly, politicians are interested to see the results of their policy decisions during their legislative pe-riod. Thus, focusing on climate variability and observed climate change might be a viable way as it highlights current needs for adaptation.

4. Equitable adaptations can be evaluated from the perspective of out-come – who wins and who loses from the adaptation as well as who decides which adaptations to take. Adger, Arnell and Tompkins (2005) note that assessing equity shows that present day adaptations reinforce existing inequalities and do little to alleviate underlying vulnerabilities (see also Section 3.4).

5. Institutional compatibility tests whether adaptations are consistent with existing institutional structures (laws and institutions) and juris-dictional authority, as these are more likely to be adopted than those that require changes to existing structures. Institutional frameworks

and actions can thus hinder or facilitate adaptations (Dolan et al.

2001). The legitimacy of an adaptation policy depends on cultural ex-pectations and interpretations as these define what is or is not legiti-mate, or socially acceptable (Adger / Arnell / Tompkins 2005).

6. Farmer implementability refers to a lack of complexity, compatibil-ity, "triability" and observability (Dolan et al. 2001). "Complexity represents the degree to which new knowledge and skills are needed for implementation, and compatibility refers to the ease with which an innovation can be integrated into a current farming system" (Dolan et al. 2001, 9–10). ‘Triability’, is the degree to which an innovation may be experimented with prior to full adoption, and ‘observability’, the degree to which the results of an innovation are visible to others.

7. Net benefits independent of climate change refers to adaptations that provide benefit regardless of whether or not climate change effects occur. "Adaptation options are preferred if they will result in no net losses (or damages)", if they are ‘no regrets’ or ‘win-win’ measures (Dolan et al. 2001, 10).

According to Adger, Arnell and Tompkins (2005), achieving a balance between these criteria can lead to tradeoffs, which the stakeholders them-selves must decide. Weighting (whether qualitative or quantitative) pro-vides an instrument for the actor (farmer, extension officer decision-maker) for gauging its path to and the achievement of desired outcomes.

Determining the unit (individual, organisation, government, society) for which success is measured also determines who is to be involved in such a process.

Issues of scale in adaptation are important as regards who (as in actor categories), or what (as in social structures and processes) adapts to cli-mate change. Cross-scale dynamics in implementing adaptations can cre-ate new or amplify existing conflicts. Therefore, the temporal and spatial dimensions determine the success of adaptation actions. While adaptation may be effective for the adapting actor, it may produce "negative exter-nalities and spatial spill over potentially increasing impacts on others and reducing their capacity to adapt" (Adger / Arnell / Tompkins 2005, 80).

Therefore, specifying who undertakes an adaptation is a fundamental part of differentiating adaptations and is necessary in any evaluation of adapta-tion opadapta-tions (Dolan et al. 2001, 10).

The sustainability of adaptation depends on the heterogeneity of adaptive capacity across different stakeholders (Adger / Arnell / Tompkins 2005) – this relates to "diversity" as used in resilience terms (see Section 3.4).

Considering the foregoing, one can interpret that the perceived success of an adaptation lies in achieving resilience to climate change.