Measuring the costs of inaction versus active adaptation
To help planners decide on the most cost-effective and appropriate adaptation path, this study developed a methodology to compare the costs of doing nothing with the costs of proactive adaptation, focusing on three main aspects:
Assessing the cost of road assets throughout their lifecycle, including construction, maintenance, repair, and rehabilitation: This analysis is important because climate-resilient roads tend to have higher initial construction costs, but this is often offset by lower annual maintenance, repair, and rehabilitation costs. Considering various climate change scenarios, most projections indicate that Africa’s climate will be very different from today’s. However, there is no consensus on the nature, intensity, and geographic distribution of those changes. Therefore, the methodology used in this study was designed to take into account multiple climate scenarios. Integrating all possible climate futures can complicate analysis, but failing to do so can lead planners to “miss the mark” and over- or under-invest in climate resilience. Quantifying the broader impacts of climate-related transportation disruptions: When roads are closed or reduced in capacity due to climate change, the impact on supply chains, economic production, and access to services will vary widely based on local factors such as traffic volume on a particular road and the existence of alternative routes. The need for adaptation is particularly strong on busy roads, where even relatively modest climate change can have severe impacts on people and economies.
There is no “one size fits all” solution
Based on this methodology, this study found that:
Proper road maintenance is the most important and efficient way to reduce the impact of climate change on road systems. Without proper maintenance and management systems, the damage caused by climate change will be exacerbated. Aggressive investment in pavement improvements to cope with high temperatures is almost always justified, especially considering the relatively low incremental costs of such adaptation measures. When it comes to precipitation and flooding, the case for adaptation is more nuanced. Increasing resilience to these stressors generally comes at a high price, and savings in subsequent maintenance and rehabilitation may not be sufficient to offset the higher initial costs. In that context, it is essential to consider the broader impacts of road disruption to determine whether adaptation makes economic sense. When deciding whether and how to adapt roads to the challenges of climate change, transportation planners need to evaluate their options on a case-by-case basis and avoid “blanket prescriptions.”
To implement these recommendations and protect transport infrastructure from the impacts of climate change, the region needs to strengthen the financial, technical and institutional capacity of the roads sector. To this end, the World Bank has developed several initiatives to help countries incorporate climate change into road asset management. The Bank is also working with the African Union Commission and the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (UNECA) to establish a new African Climate Resilience Investment Facility (AFRI-RES). This will develop regional capacity to integrate climate change considerations into the planning and design of long-term investments.
The study was developed with funding from the UK Department for International Development (DfID), the Nordic Development Fund (NDF), the Economic and Financial Institution (KfW), and the Agence France-Presse de Développement (AFD). Dutch Bank Partnership Program (BNPP). Trust Fund for Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Development (TFESSD).
