Project coordinators’ views on climate adaptation costs and benefits – justice implications

Figures & data

Table 1. Examples of different categories of costs and benefits of climate adaptation measures derived from the framework that distinguishes between costs (upper table) and benefits (lower table) of climate change adaptation measures and whether these are direct, indirect, non-market or human health.

Costs
Direct	Investment, including labour and materials Institutional and administrative costs Costs in other parts of the system
Indirect	Monitoring, maintenance and management Maladaptive practices
Non-market	Landscape modified/changed Negative effects on ecosystems and non-human species
Human health	Negative health effects
Benefits
Direct	Reduced property and infrastructure damage Reduced service interruption and/or improved quality of service
Indirect	Improved business opportunities Increased perception of safety
Non-market	Positive effects on ecological services and non-human species, such as improved biological diversity Improved recreation value, i.e. a co-benefit Improved aesthetic value
Human health	Positive health effects such as reduced morbidity, improved air quality or increased well-being

Table 2. Overview of the five cases of implemented climate adaptation measures that were used to analyse how project coordinators view the costs and benefits of climate adaptation measures.

Geographical area	Main climate risk	Climate adaptation measure	Target Group
Göteborg	Waterborne disease outbreaks	Water purification system using ultrafiltration	Affects ∼500 000 people
Växjö	Flooding	Storing water during intensive rainfall in a retention basin	Affects ∼ one dozen homeowners
Arvika	Flooding	Build levees to protect the city of Arvika	Affects ∼ 14 000 inhabitants
Örnsköldsvik	Landslides	Secure buildings and a berth area by anchoring in bedrock	Tourism in a popular archipelago
Sollefteå	Landslides	Secure buildings by re-profiling slope	Affects ∼ 20 properties

Table 3. Categories of costs and benefits as they are viewed by climate adaptation project coordinators.

Costs		Viewed by project coordinators
Direct	Investment, including labour and materials Institutional and administrative costs Costs in other parts of the system	Included in all five cases. Labour costs partly included. Planning and administrative costs are not included or only partly included. Investments needed in other parts of the system are not included (three cases).
Indirect	Monitoring, maintenance and management Maladaptive practices	Included partly in all cases. Social conflicts in three cases. In other cases project coordinators could not find any.
Non-market	Landscape modified/changed Negative effects on ecosystems and non-human species	Changed landscape included qualitatively in the levee case. Project coordinators could not find any.
Human health	Negative health effects	Project coordinators could not find any.
Benefits
Direct	Reduced property and infrastructure damage Reduced service interruption and/or improved quality of service	Damage reduction or reduced waterborne diseases included in four cases.
Indirect	Improved business opportunities Increased perception of safety	Maintained business opportunities included in two cases. Included in all cases.
Non-market	Positive effects on ecological services and non-human species e.g. improved biological diversity Improved recreation value, i.e. a co-benefit Improved aesthetic value	Project coordinators could not find any. Included in the retention basin case. Project coordinators could not find any.
Human health	Positive health effects, such as reduced morbidity, improved air quality or increased well-being	Improved working environment in two cases. Improved school playground in one case.

Note: Displayed according to the same logic as in Table 1, i.e. costs (upper table) and benefits (lower table) of climate change adaptation measures and whether these are considered as direct, indirect, non-market or human health.