Paul Watkiss

Physical and economic consequences of climate change in Europe

Quantitative estimates of the economic damages of climate change usually are based on aggregate relationships linking average temperature change to loss in gross domestic product (GDP). However, there is a clear need for further detail in the regional and sectoral dimensions of impact assessments to design and prioritize adaptation strategies. New developments in regional climate modeling and physical-impact modeling in Europe allow a better exploration of those dimensions. This article quantifies the potential consequences of climate change in Europe in four market impact categories (agriculture, river floods, coastal areas, and tourism) and one nonmarket impact (human health). The methodology integrates a set of coherent, high-resolution climate change projections and physical models into an economic modeling framework. We find that if the climate of the 2080s were to occur today, the annual loss in household welfare in the European Union (EU) resulting from the four market impacts would range between 0.2–1%. If the welfare loss is assumed to be constant over time, climate change may halve the EUs annual welfare growth. Scenarios with warmer temperatures and a higher rise in sea level result in more severe economic damage. However, the results show that there are large variations across European regions. Southern Europe, the British Isles, and Central Europe North appear most sensitive to climate change. Northern Europe, on the other hand, is the only region with net economic benefits, driven mainly by the positive effects on agriculture. Coastal systems, agriculture, and river flooding are the most important of the four market impacts assessed.

Adaptation opportunities, constraints, and limits

Since the IPCCs Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), demand for knowledge regarding the planning and implementation of adaptation as a strategy for climate risk management has increased significantly (Preston et al., 2011a; Park et al., 2012). This chapter assesses recent literature on the opportunities that create enabling conditions for adaptation as well as the ancillary benefits that may arise from adaptive responses. It also assesses the literature on biophysical and socioeconomic constraints on adaptation and the potential for such constraints to pose limits to adaptation. Given the available evidence of observed and anticipated limits to adaptation, the chapter also discusses the ethical implications of adaptation limits and the literature on system transformational adaptation as a response to adaptation limits. To facilitate this assessment, this chapter provides an explicit framework for conceptualizing opportunities, constraints, and limits (Section 16.2). In this framework, the core concepts including definitions of adaptation, vulnerability, and adaptive capacity are consistent with those used previously in the AR4 (Adger et al., 2007). However, the material in this chapter should be considered in conjunction with that of complementary WGII AR5 chapters. These include Chapter 14 (Adaptation Needs and Options), Chapter 15 (Adaptation Planning and Implementation), and Chapter 17 (Economics of Adaptation). Material from other WGII AR5 chapters is also relevant to informing adaptation opportunities, constraints, and limits, particularly Chapter 2 (Foundations for Decision Making) and Chapter 19 (Emergent Risks and Key Vulnerabilities). This chapter also synthesizes relevant material from each of the sectoral and regional chapters (Section 16.5). To enhance its policy relevance, this chapter takes as its entry point the perspective of actors as they consider adaptation response strategies over near, medium, and longer terms (Eisenack and Stecker, 2012; Dow et al., 2013a,b). Actors may be individuals, communities, organizations, corporations, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), governmental agencies, or other entities responding to real or perceived climate-related stresses or opportunities as they pursue their objectives (Patt and Schroter, 2008; Blennow and Persson, 2009; Frank et al., 2011).

Climate change impacts in Europe. Final report of the PESETA research project

The PESETA research project integrates a set of high-resolution climate change projections and physical models into an economic modelling framework to quantify the impacts of climate change on vulnerable aspects of Europe. Four market impact categories are considered (agriculture, river floods, coastal systems, and tourism) and one non-market category (human health). Considering the market impacts, without public adaptation and if the climate of the 2080s occurred today, the EU annual welfare loss would be in the range of 0.2% to 1%, depending on the climate scenario. However, there is large variation across different climate futures, EU regions and impact categories. Scenarios with warmer temperatures and higher sea level rise result in more severe economic damage for the EU. Southern Europe, the British Isles and Central Europe North appear to be the most sensitive regions to climate change. Northern Europe is the only region with net economic benefits, mainly driven by the positive effects in agriculture. Concerning the contribution to the overall effects, coastal systems, agriculture and river flooding are the most important ones.

The use of new economic decision support tools for adaptation assessment: A review of methods and applications, towards guidance on applicability

There is a growing focus on the economics of adaptation as policy moves from theory to practice. However, the techniques commonly used in economic appraisal have limitations in coping with climate change uncertainty. While decision making under uncertainty has gained prominence, economic appraisal of adaptation still uses approaches such as deterministic cost-benefit analysis. Against this background, this paper provides a critical review and assessment of existing economic decision support tools (cost-benefit analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis) an uncertainty framework (iterative risk management) and alternative tools that more fully incorporate uncertainty (real options analysis, robust decision making and portfolio analysis). The paper summarises each method, provides examples, and assesses their strengths and weaknesses for adaptation. The tools are then compared to identify key differences, and to identify when these approaches might be appropriate for specific applications in adaptation decision making.

Projection of economic impacts of climate change in sectors of Europe based on bottom up analysis: human health

This paper scopes a number of the health impacts of climate change in Europe (EU-27) quantitatively, using physical and monetary metrics. Temperature-related mortality effects, salmonellosis and coastal flooding-induced mental health impacts resulting from climate change are isolated from the effects of socio-economic change for the 2011–2040 and 2071–2100 time periods. The temperature-induced mortality effects of climate change include both positive and negative effects, for winter (cold) and summer (heat) effects, respectively, and have welfare costs (and benefits) of up to 100 billion Euro annually by the later time-period, though these are unevenly distributed across countries. The role of uncertainty in quantifying these effects is explored through sensitivity analysis on key parameters. This investigates climate model output, climate scenario, impact function, the existence and extent of acclimatisation, and the choice of physical and monetary metrics. While all of these lead to major differences in reported results, acclimatisation is particularly important in determining the size of the health impacts, and could influence the scale and form of public adaptation at the EU and national level. The welfare costs for salmonellosis from climate change are estimated at potentially several hundred million Euro annually by the period 2071–2100. Finally, a scoping assessment of the health costs of climate change from coastal flooding, focusing on mental health problems such as depression, are estimated at up to 1.5 billion Euro annually by the period 2071–2100.

Impacts of climate change in human health in Europe. PESETA-Human health study

The most important health effects from future climate change are projected to include: increases in summer heat related mortality (deaths) and morbidity (illness); decreases in winter cold related mortality and morbidity; changes in the disease burden e.g. from vector-, water- or food-borne disease; increases in the risk of accidents and wider well being from extreme events (storms and floods). The PESETA health project has assessed these effects in Europe. These include both positive and negative effects on health, and show strong patterns of regional variation across Europe. The analysis has undertaken a detailed bottom-up analysis of summer and winter temperature-related mortality. This shows that Europe’s changing climate will have significant additional effects on heat and cold related mortality, measured in tens of thousand of deaths each year (and economic effects measured in tens of billions of Euro). The analysis has also undertaken a detailed bottom-up analysis of food borne disease in Europe which shows that the additional number of cases (particularly with under reporting of disease levels) could be significant in terms of both physical impacts (tens of thousands of cases per year) and economic costs (billions). Finally, the study has progressed an initial analysis of the mental health effects of coastal flooding (linking the output from one of the other PESETA sectoral projects), which shows that under high sea level rise scenarios, the number of cases and economic costs could also be significant. A consideration of adaptation, whether through addressing heat exposure, through control of food borne disease, or through flood protection, shows that it offers significant reductions in impacts at potentially low cost. A number of possible policy responses are also identified. The most important of these relate to further extension or refinement of the heat health warning systems emerging in Europe.

Conservation of grassland butterflies in Finland under a changing climate

Abstract This paper examines the potential impact of climate change on grassland butterfly species in Finland. It combines multiple climate change scenarios and different impact models for bioclimatic suitability to capture multi-faceted aspects of uncertainty. It also evaluates alternative options to enhance the adaptation of grassland biodiversity. Due to the long-term decline of semi-natural grasslands, their current extent in Finland is much lower than the minimum level estimated to ensure the survival of butterfly species. Projected locations of the climatically most suitable areas for butterfly species varied considerably between different modelling techniques and climate change scenarios. This uncertainty needs to be taken into account in planning adaptation responses. Analysis of potential adaptation options considered the promotion of existing measures based on the agri-environmental scheme (AES), as well as new measures, including species translocation and dispersal corridors. Current AES options were compared using a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA). The CEA results indicated that buffer zones are the most cost-effective AES measure, although environmental fallows and buffer zones had broadly similar cost-effectiveness. The cost of translocation was relatively modest compared to that of dispersal corridors, due to the high number of habitat stepping stones required along potential dispersal corridors. A questionnaire survey of Finnish farmers revealed that a third of the respondents supported increases in nature conservation. Thus, large increases of the uptake of biodiversity-related AES measures among farmers may prove to be difficult. Given the small areas currently assigned for such measures, the prospects for the adaptation of grassland butterflies to climate change in Finland appear unfavourable.