Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation Options For The Greek Agriculture in 2021-2050: A Monetary Assessment

Climate Risk Management 16 (2017) 164–182
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Climate Risk Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/crm
Climate change impacts and adaptation options for the Greek

agriculture in 2021–2050: A monetary assessment
E. Georgopoulou a,⇑, S. Mirasgedis a, Y. Sarafidis a, M. Vitaliotou b, D.P. Lalas b, I. Theloudis c,
K.-D. Giannoulaki c, D. Dimopoulos c, V. Zavras c
a
National Observatory of Athens/IERSD, I. Metaxa & Vas. Pavlou, GR-15236 Palea Penteli, Greece
b
FACE3TS S.A., 1 Agiou Isidorou str., GR-11471 Athens, Greece
c
Piraeus Bank S.A., Environment Unit, 4 Amerikis str., GR-10564 Athens, Greece
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history: The paper presents a quantitative assessment of mid-term (2021–2050) climate change
Received 12 October 2016 impacts on and potential adaptation options for selected crops in Greece that are of impor-
Revised 14 February 2017 tance in terms of their share in national agricultural production and gross value added.
Accepted 23 February 2017
Central points in the assessment are the monetary evaluation of impacts and the cost-
Available online 27 February 2017
benefit analysis of adaptation options. To address local variability in current and future cli-
mate conditions, analysis is spatially disaggregated into geographical regions using as an
Keywords:
input downscaled results from climatic models. For some crops (cereals, vegetables, pulses,
Climate change
Agriculture
grapevines), changes in future agricultural yields are assessed by means of agronomic sim-
Impacts ulation models, while for the rest crops changes are assessed through regression models.
Adaptation The expected effects on crop yields of a number of potential adaptation options are also
Economic assessment investigated through the same models, and the costs and benefits of these options are also
quantitatively assessed. The findings indicate that climate change may create winners and
losers depending on their agricultural activity and location, while adaptation can mitigate
adverse effects of climate change under cost-effective terms.
Ó 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC
BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
1. Introduction
Agriculture is one of the major economic sectors where climate change can have large impacts, affecting crop growth and
consequently productivity. As agricultural activities ensure food supply and represent an important source of income for
local economies, especially in southern Europe, the investigation of these impacts is particularly important as it can provide
the necessary scientific input for proper planning of adaptation strategies. Especially in the Mediterranean region where
Greece is located (as well as in the rest southern Europe), the recent findings of the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate
Change (IPCC) reveal that the duration and intensity of droughts – as projected by regional and global climate models – will
increase and will be accompanied by significant reductions in summer soil moisture (Kovats et al., 2014). These, together
with temperature increase, entail dangers for crop cultivations.
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: elenag@noa.gr (E. Georgopoulou), seba@noa.gr (S. Mirasgedis), sara@noa.gr (Y. Sarafidis), mabita@otenet.gr (M. Vitaliotou),
lalas@facets.gr (D.P. Lalas), TheloudisI@piraeusbank.gr (I. Theloudis), GiannoulakiK@piraeusbank.gr (K.-D. Giannoulaki), DimopoulosD@piraeusbank.gr
(D. Dimopoulos), v.zavras@piraeusbank.gr (V. Zavras).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.crm.2017.02.002
2212-0963/Ó 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
E. Georgopoulou et al. / Climate Risk Management 16 (2017) 164–182 165
Agriculture in Greece is important both at national and regional level (as is also the case in other southern European coun-
tries like Italy, Spain and Portugal). In 2015, agriculture generated 4% of the Greek gross value added, while its share in some
regions is even higher (of the order of 7–10%). In the case of Greece, agriculture is viewed, together with tourism, is viewed as
a sector whose development will contribute substantially in providing the development that the local economy needs to mit-
igate the financial difficulties that have plagued it in the last years.
To date very few studies have attempted to provide quantitative estimates of the climate change impacts on crop culti-
vations in Greece together with the expected economic effects of adaptation. Giannakopoulos et al. (2011) estimated the
change of regional climate indices with relevance to agriculture (but not the change of crop yields). In another study
(Bank of Greece, 2011), which is so far the only available study of climate change impacts on crops at national level,
semi- quantitative (i.e. order of magnitude) estimates of future crop yield change are provided. These estimates were
obtained through the use of crop models for only 3 crops, namely wheat, maize and cotton while for the rest of the crops
examined (olive trees, grapevines and vegetables) the estimations were based on findings in international literature pub-
lished during 1994–2010 and concerning regions other than those of Greece.
The present study represents a significant addition to the existing knowledge on the impacts of climate change on crops
in Greece as it examines a larger range of crops, it provides quantitative estimations of climate change impacts on crop yield
change and agricultural income per region and crop. Furthermore these estimations are based on models ‘tailored’ to crop
cultivations at different agricultural locations in Greece, capturing in this way the regional/local dimension of climate change
impacts.
As indications of the accelerating rate of climate change multiply, including the record breaking mean global tempera-
tures of the last years, and the recent international understandings for mitigation, the built-in increase will continue and
its impacts will be felt at least in the years till 2050. It behooves policy makers to start considering adaptation measures
as soon as possible. To address this urgent need, in this paper the effects of potential adaptation options on crop yields
are also examined, to assess their economic attractiveness and quantify their expected direct economic effects on agricul-
tural income. As the crops examined and the conditions expected in Greece are similar to those of neighboring countries such
as Italy, Spain, southern France and Cyprus but also some regions of the Balkan peninsular and Turkey, these findings could
provide useful insights on applying similar adaptation measures in these regions.
The findings may also be of value to enterprises involved in the agricultural sector in both production and in providing
focused and innovative financing and insurance. In this respect, financial institutions with a considerable fraction of their
total exposure being in the agricultural sector, need to ascertain better the corresponding climate change risk. To estimate
the climate risk of financial institutions, Georgopoulou et al. (2015) developed a methodology applicable to many activity
sectors. The methodology was applied, as a case study, to one of the systemic Greek banks (Piraeus Bank) and the amount
at risk was found to be not negligible. In view of this finding and considering the fact that the agricultural sector contributes
considerably to Greek GDP, the need for adaptation becomes clear, and the choice and effectiveness of measures to be
adopted becomes of interest including their cost benefit analysis and fuller coverage of crop varieties and cultivars.
The approach for achieving these targets comprises at first the assessment of climate change impacts on important crops
under no adaptation by applying an analytical methodology which directly relates climatic parameters with crop yields, and
allows the quantitative estimation of impacts in physical terms (% change of crop yield per unit area cultivated) and then in
monetary values (change of agricultural income). Next, a number of adaptation options per crop and region are assessed,
both in terms of their expected impact on crop yields as well as (to the extent possible) on their private costs and benefits.
2. A review of climate change impacts on crops in Europe
This section gives an overview of climate change impacts on crops under no adaptation, paying more attention to south-
ern Europe and the period up to 2050 which is the focus of this study.
2.1. Cereals
Earlier studies projected a reduction of crop yield for maize in almost all cases, and a small overall increase albeit with
considerable regional variation for wheat (e.g. Brandão and Pinto, 2002; Trnka et al., 2004; Ministry of the Environment and
University of Castilla de la Mancha, 2005; Alexandrov and Eitzinger, 2005; Wiggering et al., 2008). Recent studies confirm the
negative effect of climate change on maize (particularly in southern Europe), while for wheat the previously positive impacts
are now re-considered (e.g. Asseng et al., 2013; Thaler et al., 2012; Kersebaum and Nendel, 2014; Vanuytrecht et al., 2015;
Grab et al., 2015; Valverde et al., 2015).
According to a global assessment study (Balkovič et al., 2014) utilizing Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs)
scenarios, wheat yields in 2041–2060 will decrease up to 40% from 2000 in eastern Europe, and change by 8% up to
+15% in southern Europe, by 12% up to +5% in northern Europe and by 10% up to +2% in western Europe (depending
on the RCP).
Supit et al. (2012) carried out crop simulations covering 35 European countries for SRES scenarios (A2 and B1). Wheat
yields in 2030 will increase from 1990 to 2008 in most countries (Greece: 21–22%, rest southern Europe: 7–13%, other:
0–44%); this trend continues up to 2050. For maize, yields in the Balkans and south-eastern Europe by 2030 decrease or
166 E. Georgopoulou et al. / Climate Risk Management 16 (2017) 164–182
remain stable (Greece: 4%, other: 2% up to 7%), while by 2050 they will decrease further in southern Europe (Greece:
16%, rest southern countries: 10 to 16%).
Donatelli et al. (2012) examined wheat production in the-27 and for the period up to 2030 under the A1B scenario. Under
the ‘cold’ version of A1B (ECHAM5 data), wheat yields decrease by 5–30% in almost all parts of Spain, Portugal, and Italy,
increase by 5–30% in a large part of Greece and Balkans (as well as in almost all Western Europe), and decrease elsewhere.
However, under the ‘hot’ version (HadCM3 data), wheat yields increase by 5–30% in almost all southern Europe and decrease
or remain unchanged in the rest continent. The differences in southern Europe are due to the very different rainfall patterns
projected by ECHAM5 and HadCM3. For the same emissions scenario (A1B), Tatsumi et al. (2011) predicted an increase of
wheat yield in 2090–99 compared to 1990–99 in southern and western Europe (+11% and +8% respectively), and a decrease
in eastern Europe, northern Europe and Russia.
2.2. Vegetables, pulses and legumes
Regarding potato, Supit et al. (2012) found that in 2030 and under the A2 and B1 scenarios, yields remain stable or
increase in almost all countries compared to 1990–2008 levels (Greece: +6–8%, rest southern Europe: +6–17%, other: 4
to +17%). In 2050 and under A2, yields remain stable in most countries or decrease slightly in some (compared to 2030) apart
from northern Europe where they increase further. Under B1, yields slightly increase in the Atlantic coast of western and
northern Europe, Italy and Portugal, and remain unchanged or decrease elsewhere (Greece: +6–8%, rest southern Europe:
+6–15%, other: 19 to +18%). Vanuytrecht et al. (2015) found for Belgium an increase by +16–26% in 2031–2050 under
the A1B compared to 1981–2010, while an increase by 3–16% was also found for the UK in 2050s depending on water
and fertilization rates (Daccache et al., 2011).
On tomato, a recent study covering the Mediterranean region (Saadi et al., 2015) concluded that yields will not change by
2050 under the A1B scenario as tomato is mostly an irrigated crop; however, under mild or severe water stress, relative yield
losses by 10–60% were estimated for most of the region. For southern Italy, in particular, Ventrella et al. (2012) found that
tomato yield will decrease by 10% during 2030–2059.
As for other outdoor vegetables and grain legumes, published research for Europe is limited. In southern Portugal, under
the A2, A1B and B1 emissions scenarios, the yield of grain legumes was found to decrease by 0.6–1.8% in 2011–2040 and by
1.2–3.8% in 2041–2070 compared to 1961–1990 (Valverde et al., 2015).
2.3. Olive trees and grapevines
The link between olive yield, rainfall and CO2 concentration was explored in Viola et al. (2014) for Italy; they concluded
that (a) under the present CO2 concentration but a lower rainfall the olive yield will decrease, (b) under a stable rainfall but
higher CO2 concentration the yield will increase, (c) under the combined effect of an increased CO2 concentration and a
reduced rainfall the increase of yield would be much lower than in (b), i.e. of the order of 14%. Another study on south-
eastern Italy concluded that under the A1B scenario the yield of olive trees by 2050 will be by 8–19% lower than the historic
(1951–2000) one (Lionello et al., 2014).
In southern Portugal, the yield of rain fed olives under the A2, A1B and B1 scenarios was found to decrease by 4–7.4% in
2011–2040 and by 8–15% in 2041–2070 compared to 1961–1990 (Valverde et al., 2015). Similarly, in Andalucía, Spain, by
2030–2050 a 15–30% rainfall reduction in the fall (combined with a 7–9% annual reduction) will cause a decrease of yields
by 7% and 3.5% by 2030–50 for rain-fed and irrigated olive trees respectively (Ronchail et al., 2014).
Regarding grapevines, modified climatic conditions are expected to have an impact on yields, as well as on the wine qual-
ity by changing the ratio between sugar and acids (Bock et al., 2011; Santos et al., 2011; Duchêne et al., 2010). As for yields,
these were found to decrease by 1.5–2% in 2011–2040 and by 3–5.4% in 2041–2070 in southern Portugal compared to 1961–
1990 under the A2, A1B and B1 emissions scenarios (Valverde et al., 2015). On the contrary, in northern Portugal (Douro Val-
ley), an increase in wine production by about 10% by the end of the 21st century was estimated under the A1B scenario
(Santos et al., 2013). For the Apulia region in southern Italy, a decrease of must and wine production by 20–26% in 2021–
2050 compared to 1961–1990 was estimated (Lionello et al., 2014), while for the Tuscany region an average decrease of yield
by 12% at 0–200 m elevations and by 27% at 400–600 m elevations by 2100 compared to 1975–2005 was predicted under the
A2 and B2 scenarios (Moriondo et al., 2011). One should keep in mind though that grapevine cultivation may start in new
areas not cultivated at present because of a thermal deficit.
3. Materials and methods
3.1. Regional disaggregation and future climate
As climate change impacts on crops may differ significantly between geographical regions, a suitable spatial scale should
be chosen for impact assessment. In this work, the present division of Greece into administrative regions (Fig. 1), with some
aggregations performed (i.e. ‘Kentriki and Ditiki Makedonia’, ‘Peloponissos and Ditiki Ellada’) was considered suitable as they
Fig. 1. Regional disaggregation of Greece for the purpose of climate change impact assessment
are broadly representative of the climatic classification and at the same time correspond to the disaggregation of the national
statistics.
The assessment of impacts per crop was performed in regions where the share of regional crop production to the relevant
national total exceeds 10%. If by this rule the cumulative share to national total was lower than 85%, then more regions were
added to the set until the desired percentage was reached. In total, 77 cases were modelled (Table 1).
Regarding future climate, this study focuses on short to midterm time horizon, i.e. up to 2050. The simulation of the his-
toric (1961–1990) and future (2021–2050) climate in Greece is based on the results of the regional climate model RACMO2
(developed by the Netherlands Meteorological Service) for the SRES A1B global emissions scenario (Nakicenovic et al., 2000).
In each region, 1–2 representative (in terms of historical climatic conditions) locations were selected, and for each of them
the outputs of the regional climate model were utilized to provide daily values for maximum, mean and minimum temper-
ature, precipitation, relative humidity, wind, and sunshine duration for each year of the climatic periods examined.
3.2. Crop modelling for impact assessment
For the assessment of climate change impacts on crops, agronomic simulation models and regression models were uti-
lized. Agronomic models simulate in detail all phases of crop growth and are thus more reliable and allow for a quantitative
examination of potential adaptation measures. The models were adjusted to the regions examined and thus were ‘tailored’ to
the spatial scale selected. For crops where agronomic models are not available, regression models have been developed for
each region and crop linking climatic parameters and crop yields based on regional historical data.
For adaptation, the same models were applied with input data modified accordingly to introduce the operational changes
brought in by each adaptation measure. In regression models where this was not possible, the examination was limited to
the effects from an increase of irrigation.
3.2.1. Agronomic simulation models

For the assessment of climate change impacts on cereals, vegetables, legumes, pulses, sunflower, rice and cotton, the
Decision Support System for Agrotechnology Transfer (DSSAT) was utilized. DSSAT (Hoogenboom et al., 2015; Jones et al.,
Table 1
Cases where models for the estimation of climate change impacts on crops were developed.
Anatoliki Kentriki & Thessalia Ipiros Sterea Attiki Peloponissos Ionian Vorio Notio Kriti Cumulative
Makedonia Ditiki Ellada & Ditiki Islands Egeo Egeo share (%) in
& Thraki Makedonia Ellada national
production
covered
Wheat U U U U 94
Maize U U U U 91
Barley U U U U U 85
Rice U U 96
Beans U U U U U 93
Tomato U U U U U U 91 (industrial
use) 85 (table
use)
Pepper U U U U U U 95
Cabbage U U U U U U U 94
Cotton U U U U 96
Potato U U U U U 86
Sunflower U U 100
Grapevines U U U U U U U U 90
Cucumber U U U U U U 94
Olive trees U U U U U U U 90
Tobacco U U U 92
Orange U U 86
trees
Peach U 96
trees
2003) has been in use for more than 20 years by researchers, policy makers and others in several countries worldwide. It
includes detailed crop simulation models which cover a large part of main crops cultivated in Greece, and which simulate
crop growth, development and yield as a function of the soil-plant-atmosphere dynamics. DSSAT also comprises a very rich
database of soil types and agronomic experiments for each crop, and allows the introduction of desired crop management
schemes (sowing date, irrigation, fertilization, etc.). Thus, this tool allows for a comprehensive simulation and assessment
of the impact of climate variability and climate change on crop growth and yield, and for the assessment of potential adap-
tation options.
For grapevines, the VineLOGIC Virtual Vineyard simulation tool developed by the Cooperative Research Centre for Viticul-
ture (CRCV) in Australia was utilized. VineLOGIC (Godwin et al., 2002) is a simulation model of grapevine growth and devel-
opment incorporating a model of the soil water balance and soil salt balance. It uses daily meteorological data as inputs and
includes simulation drivers such as soil type, row spacing, pruned bud number, variety, and irrigation. Thus, VineLOGIC
allows for a detailed simulation of the effects on vine growth and yield from water deficits and waterlogging (associated with
reduced/extreme rainfall under future climate). These characteristics make VINELOGIC a particularly useful tool for climate
change impact assessments in vineyards and for evaluating appropriate adaptation strategies.
Management and cultivation-related input data to the DSSAT include information on planting date, soil characteristics,
planting density, row spacing, planting depth, crop variety, irrigation and fertilizer practices, environmental modifications
(e.g. CO2 atmospheric concentration), organic residue application, chemical application, and harvest management.
Weather-related input data include latitude of the weather stations to be used in the simulations, daily values of incoming
solar radiation, maximum and minimum air temperature, and precipitation.
Regional models were ‘tailored’ to the reality of each geographical region in terms of soil types, management practices,
and local climate. Regarding soils, three basic categories were considered (loam, clay loam, sandy loam), with different sub-
types per region. Cultivars were derived from the relevant DSSAT database, with an effort to select those closer to the ones
used in Greece. Management practices were compiled based on information collected by consultation with agronomists and
field visits. The ambient CO2 concentration was kept stable at present levels (390 ppm) as its change up to 2030 (the middle
of the 2021–2050 period) is not large; in this, the results obtained could be considered somehow ‘conservative’ as they omit
the potential benefits of the CO2 fertilization effect in some cases.
As for VineLOGIC, in its Vines 950-VINES model for the simulation of the growing season of grapevine the atmospheric
CO2 concentration has a pre-set value of 350 ppm (which cannot be modified by the end-user). As local grapevine varieties
are not included in the Vinelogic database, some high-value added foreign varieties cultivated in Greece were examined
instead (Chardonnay, Cabernet, and Shiraz).
Historical data on the main climatic parameters (maximum, minimum and average temperature, rainfall, sunshine) from
representative meteorological stations in each region were used as input data to the models.
The total number of ‘tailored’ cases (i.e. combinations of soil types, cultivars/varieties, and regions) simulated by agro-
nomic models amounted to 2042. These were examined under both the historic and the future climate.
As for the models’ calibration, to date in Greece a database with agronomic experiments and other relevant information
does not exist. Thus, to minimize, to the extent possible, the deviation between the models’ simulated yields and the historic
ones per crop and region, the following two-step ‘screening process’ was developed:
(1) For each combination of soil type - cultivar per crop and region, the deviation between the simulated crop yield under
the historic climate (1961–1990) and the real annual yield (from data published by the National Statistical Service)
during 2000–2006 was calculated.
(2) For each region and crop, only the combinations with a deviation of 10% of less for at least one year in 2000–2006 were
retained for impact assessment, unless all figures were above this limit (and thus all combinations had to be retained).
This approach provided for a rough ‘calibration’ of agronomic models utilized. Table 2 shows the median deviations of the
final combinations retained.
As seen, the models’ performance can be considered as satisfactory in most of cases, with resulting median deviations
being less than ±15%. Only six cases have a deviation higher than 30%; however, since it is the difference between the sim-
ulated present and future crop yield (and not the absolute figures) that matters for the assessment, this large deviation was
not regarded as critical.
3.2.2. Regression models

In case of crops for which agronomic simulation models are not available (i.e. olive trees, tobacco, orange trees, peach
trees, cucumber), annual yields were simulated by linear regression models connecting the crop yield (expressed in tons
per ha) with statistically important climatic parameters. Μodels were developed on the basis of statistical data on climatic
parameters, cultivated areas and production per crop for the time period 1980–2006. Data on climatic parameters for this
period derived from the official annual statistical yearbooks of Greece (ESYE 1980–2006(a)), and data on cultivated areas
and production per crop derived from the official annual agricultural statistics of Greece (ESYE 1980–2006(b)). As climatic
data are available on a monthly basis, climatic parameters in the models are also expressed on the same time basis. The mod-
els are presented in Table 3.
The R2 and significance parameters (sF) of the models (also shown in Table 3) are a measure of their deviation from real
figures on crop yields. As seen, in almost all cases the R2-value is equal to or greater than 0.6 while the F-values are small.
3.3. Economic evaluation of adaptation measures
The assessment of costs and benefits from the introduction of adaptation measures was done vise-a-vis the ‘no adapta-
tion’ case where these measures are not implemented. Therefore, only the additional cost and benefits from the ‘no adapta-
tion’ case were considered.
The economic evaluation of each adaptation measure was performed separately for each region and crop. This was done
only where the potential measure was found to reduce yield losses compared to the ‘no adaptation’ case.
The elements included in the evaluation comprised the following:
Cost: purchase and installation of equipment, consulting services for the proper implementation of the measure, irriga-
tion water supply, fertilizers’ supply, etc.
Benefits: Decrease of yield losses/increase of yield gains as a result of the measure, conservation of water for irrigation, etc.
The economic evaluation was performed on a unit cultivated area, i.e. one Ha.
Table 2
Deviations between simulated (by agronomic models) and historic yields.
Anato-liki Make- Kentriki & Ditiki Thessa- Ipiros Sterea Attiki Pelopo-nissos & Ionian Vorio Notio Kriti
donia & Thraki Make-donia lia Ellada Ditiki Ellada Islands Egeo Egeo
Wheat +0.9% +46.1% +8.1% +11.0%
Maize +11.3% 9.3% 6.1% +2.1%
Barley 16.8% +4.4% 7.4% 7.0% +3.3%
Rice 0.5% +8.6%
Beans +4.1% 16.9% +10.0% +7.3% 7.8%
Tomato +9.9% +1.9% 7.2% 0.3% 0.5% 0.5%
Pepper +10.7% +0.6% +5% +42.2% +15.1% 2.6%
Cabbage 5.1% 35.5% +2.0% +8.4% 31.9% 8.8% +4.2%
Cotton 12.8% +3.8% 3.2%% 10.6%
Potato 10.0% 62.6% 14.1% 45.0% +10.5%
Sunflower +0.2% +4.1%
Grapevine +7.8% 5.4% +4.2% 12.0% 8.1% +9.1% 10.6% 5.8%
Table 3
Relationship between crop yield (CY, in kg/ha) and local climatic conditions.
Cultivation Regression model developed R2 sF

Olive Kentriki & Ditiki CYt = 1043.4 + 7.6*PJul,t-1 + 107.4*TMINJan,t-1 + 100.8*TMINFeb,t-1 114.4*TMINMar,t-1 + 52.9*t 0.82 9.7105
trees Makedonia (t in years, where t = 1 for the year 1980)
Sterea Ellada CYt = 5439.4 173.7*TAVJan,t-1 197.6.7*TAVApr,t-1 + 2.7*PJan,t-1 + 4.8*PMar,t-1 + 6.8*PSep,t- 0.81 9.8105
*
1 + 5.3 POct,t-1
Peloponissos & Ditiki CYt = 7564.5 + 2.7*PFeb,t-1 + 8.6*PMar,t-1 + 35.9*PJul,t-1 345.9*TAVApr,t-1 + 91.4* t (t in years, 0.56 4103
Ellada where t = 1 for the year 1980)
Vorio Egeo CYt = 9362.6 + 2.6*PJan,t-1 108*TAVFeb,t-1 105.4*TAVApr,t-1 190.3*TAVAug,t-1 340*d 0.70 1.4103
(d = 0 for even years, d = 1 for odd years)
Ionian Islands CYt = 1491.9 + 13.2*PMay,t + 109.3*t (t in years, where k = 1 for the year 1980) + 777*d 0.51 4.3103
(d = 0 for even years, d = 1 for odd years)
Kriti CYt = 1493 + 6.9*PJan,t-1 + 76.8* t (t in years, where t = 1 for the year 1980) 0.79 3.4108
Tobacco Anatoliki Makedonia & CYt = 982 79.4*TAVMay,t + 62.6*TAVJun,t + 16.9* t (t in years, where t = 1 for the year 1980) 0.6 7.6105
Thraki
Kentriki & Ditiki CYt = 653.5 + 1.9*PApr,t + 81.2*TAVJun,t + 28.5* t (t in years, where t = 1 for the year 1980) 0.88 51011
Makedonia
Sterea Ellada CYt = 469.3.8 + 66.1*TAVJun,t + 78.4* t (t in years, where t = 1 for the year 1980) 0.96 2.41014
Orange Peloponissos & Ditiki CYt = 6837.3 + 77.2*(PMay,t + PJun,t) + 48.7*PSep,t 34.5*POct,t + 1374*TAVMar,t 0.69 3.4104
trees Ellada
Kriti CYt = 6772 1747.3*TMINJan,t 568.4*TMAXApr,t + 569*TMAXMay,t + 1553.4*TMINSep,t 0.72 1.6105
Peach Kentriki & Ditiki CYt = 11124.8 + 58.6*PJan,t + 57.9*PJun,t 1047*TAVJan,t 1343*TAVApr,t + 1847.5*TAVAug,t 0.65 2.7103
trees Makedonia
Cucumber Kentriki & Ditiki CYt = 30593.7 + 43.9*PApr,t 69.3*PMay,t 89.4*PSep,t + 1062.2*TMAXApr,t + 1500.6*TMAXJun,t 0.62 0.028
Makedonia 1376.6*TMAXJul,t 1025.5*TMAXSep,t
Thessalia CY = 39243.5 + 3680.5*TAVMay,t 3153.6* TAVJul,t + 81* PMay,t 0.55 2103
Sterea Ellada CYt = 7853.7 + 42.6*PFeb,t + 16.8*PMar,t 15.2*PApr,t + 81.6*PAug,t 77*PSep,t + 239.2*TAVMar,t 0.60 0.07
Attiki CYt = 13722 128.7*PSep,t + 1306.4* t (t in years, where t = 1 for the year 1980) 0.82 2.8106
Peloponissos & Ditiki CYt = 12166 + 33.6*PMar,t + 25.5*PApr,t 52.8*PJun,t + 768*TMAXApr,t + 445*TMINJun,t 0.67 1.7103
Ellada
Kriti CYt = 6070 + 28.1*PFeb,t + 76.4*PApr,t + 1529*TAVApr,t + 1484*TAVJul,t 2195.6*TAVAug,t 0.65 2.8103
Note: t: year, TAVm,t: mean temperature of month m in year t; TMINm,t: mean minimum temperature of month m in year t; TMAXm,t: mean maximum
temperature of month m in year t; Pm,t: sum of precipitation of month m in year t.
Since the lifetime of each adaptation measure is different, in order to be able to compare the cost and benefits of different
measures, capital (investment) costs had to be annualized. This was done by applying the equation:
r ð1 þ rÞT
AC i;j;k ¼ IC i;j;k ð1Þ
ð1 þ rÞT 1
where
i: adaptation measure, j: crop, k: geographical region
ACi,j,k: annualized capital cost of measure i for crop j in region k (€/year)
ICi,j,k: capital cost of measure i for crop j in region k (€)
r: discount rate (%)
T: lifetime of measure (years)
The annual operational and maintenance costs of adaptation measures include the use of any additional irrigation water,
the application of additional quantities of chemical N-fertilizers, and rest costs (namely the cost of farmers’ consulting from
specialized agronomists on how to properly apply the adaptation measures in field to reduce the adverse effects of climate
change).
The equivalent annual cost EACi,j,k were:
EAC i;j;k ¼ AC i;j;k þ OMC i;j;k ¼ AC i;j;k þ CW i;j;k þ CF i;j;k þ restOMi;j;k ð2Þ
where
OMCi,j,k: annual operational and maintenance cost of measure i for crop j in region k (€/year)
CWi,j,k: annual cost of additional irrigation water as a result of measure i for crop j in region k (€/year)
CFi,j,k: annual cost of additional N-fertilizers as a result of measure i for crop j in region k (€/year)
restOMi,j,k: annual additional rest O&M cost as a result of measure i for crop j in region k (€/year)
The annual benefits Bi,j,k from the implementation of each adaptation measure i for crop j in region k are given by:
Bi;j;k ¼ BP i;j;k þ BW i;j;k þ BF i;j;k ¼
ð3Þ
¼ ðYC i;j;k YC NoA;j;k Þ Pj þ ðW NoA;j;k W i;j;k Þ PW k þ ðF NoA;j;k F i;j;k Þ PFN
where
YCi,j,k: yield of crop j in region k when measure i is implemented (kg/ha)
YCNoA,j,k: yield of crop j in region k under no adaptation (kg/ha)
Pj: producer price of crop j (€/kg)
Wi,j,k: annual consumption of irrigation water for crop j in region k when measure i is implemented (m3/ha)
WNoA,j,k: annual consumption of irrigation water for crop j in region k under no adaptation (m3/ha)
PWk: price of irrigation water in region k (€/m3)
Fi,j,k: annual consumption of N-fertilizers for crop j in region k when measure i is implemented (kg N/ha)
FNoA,j,k: annual consumption of N-fertilizers for crop j in region k under no adaptation (kg N/ha)
PFN: price of N-fertilizer (€/kg N)
On the basis of the parameters and methods explained above, the Cost-Benefit Ratio (i.e. the ratio between the equivalent
annual cost EACi,j,k and the annual benefits Bi,j,k) was calculated. A value of CBR less than 1 indicates that measure i is eco-
nomically attractive for farmers, whereas the opposite (CBR > 1) shows that benefits of the measure are lower than its cost.
CBR allows comparing adaptation measures which are very different in terms of their lifetime and the magnitude of their
costs and benefits.
4. Results
4.1. Estimated impacts on crop yields and agricultural income under no adaptation
By applying the models of Section 3.3, the percentage estimated change of crop yields between the future (2021–2050)
and the historic (1961–1990) climate under no adaptation was calculated (Table 4). The regional figure for each crop sim-
ulated by agronomic models corresponds to the median of yield changes estimated for the different combinations of soil
types-cultivars retained for this region (see paragraph 3.3.1 above).
Table 4 shows that for some crops a decrease of yield in all regions was estimated (maize, beans, sunflower). Οn the con-
trary, the future yield of wheat, rice, cotton, orange and peach trees was found to increase. In between, one can find:
a) Crops for which the effect of climate change is mostly negative (tomato, pepper, potato, olive trees);
b) Crops which will be mostly benefited from climate change (cabbage, tobacco);
c) Crops with mixed regional effects (barley, grapevine, cucumber).
The yields’ changes estimated are in line with the ones estimated by other authors (see Section 2), although some differ-
ences are observed in some cases which are probably due to the particular climatic and rest environmental characteristics of
the regions examined, as well as to the cultivation practices followed in these regions.
Table 4
Estimated change of crop yields between the future (2021–2050) and the historic (1961–1990) climate without adaptation.
Anato-liki Make- Kentriki & Ditiki Thessa- Ipiros Sterea Attiki Pelopo-nissos & Ionian Vorio Notio Kriti
donia & Thraki Make-donia lia Ellada Ditiki Ellada Islands Egeo Egeo
Wheat +4.3% +5.1% +11.2% +26.7%
Maize 10.1% 3.2% 5.2% 2.1%
Barley 2.7% +3.2% +9.3% +35.4% 11.2%
Rice +29.9% +14.9%
Beans 47.5% 36.8% 11.9% 7.1% 28.7%
Tomato +42.2% 34.2% 21.2% 14.7% 15.2% (ind.) 20.8%
22.5% (table)*
Pepper +27.7% 5.0% 1.7% 16.9% 15.2% 1.7%
Cabbage +23.5% +39.2% +28.8% +0.5% +22.4% 3.6% +2.1%
Cotton +46.5% +10.8% +9.8% +45.6%
Potato +4.4% 23.5% 20.2% 29.2% 12.8%
Sunflower 65.3% 64.0%
Grapevine 16.8% +24.9% 2.4% 8.2% +5.5% 3.8% 0.5% 1.1%
Cucumber 0.1% 5.7% +2.0% +0.7% +6.7% 2.0%
Olive +4.1% 13.8% 5.8% 1.1% 27.8% 1.9%
trees
Tobacco 0.4% +5.1% +2.7%
Orange +0.5% +7.8%
trees
Peach +1.1%
trees
*
The percentages for industrial and table use tomatoes are different as separate simulations were performed for Peloponissos and Western Greece; the
overall regional median yield change is the weighted average of these two sub-regions.
By using the cultivated area per crop and region in 2006 (i.e. the most recent year for which final data on production and
cultivated areas are available from National Statistics), the calculated percentage change of crop yields in Table 4, and the
producer prices of agricultural products in 2012, the expected direct impact of climate change on the annual agricultural
income in 2021–2050 was estimated (‘Median’ case – Table 5). In addition, by utilizing the most adverse future change of
yield estimated, the resulting change of income was also calculated (‘Worst’ case – also in Table 5).
The addition of economic losses and gains among regions assumes that equal weights are attributed to them regarding
their climate vulnerability. However, this is not necessarily true as: (a) within a region, one or more crops may be more
important in terms of employment or contribution to the regional income; (b) within a crop cultivation, some regions
may be more important than others if they have a high contribution to the national production of this crop; and (c) at
national level, adverse economic impacts from climate change may be more damaging in some regions than others depend-
ing on their adaptive capacity (in terms of infrastructure, specialized personnel, flexibility in substituting cultivations or
changing management practices, etc.) and their dependence on agriculture.
Those caveats notwithstanding, the addition of losses and gains provides an indication on the overall vulnerability of agri-
cultural regions and cultivations.
By looking at Table 5, the following remarks can be made:
– There are significant differences between crops and regions in terms of economic benefits and losses.
– At regional level under the ‘median case’, northern and central Greece and Sterea Ellada & Attiki are climate-winners,
while west and southern Greece are climate-losers. However, this does not hold in the ‘worst case’, where all regions
except Sterea Ellada & Attiki are climate-losers. Notably, even in this latter case, regional differences are large.
– Cotton (a very water-intensive crop) is the principal reason for climate-winners, and during simulation runs it was
assumed that irrigation water supply will continue to be available despite the reduction of precipitation (which will prob-
ably have adverse impacts on groundwater replenishment and consequently on the supply of irrigation water). If this
assumption does not hold, then from runs performed the results showed that Thessalia and Sterea Ellada join the group
of climate-losers, thus leaving only two regions in the north of the country in the group of climate-winners.
– At cultivation level, both in the ‘median’ and the ‘worst’ case, the situation is mixed, with benefits for some cultivations
and adverse effects for others.
– At national level, the direct losses of the agricultural income in 2021–2050 because of climate change were estimated at
about 50–280 million €2012/year, without considering the potential water stress effect on water intensive cultivations
(i.e. cotton and rice). If these cultivations are excluded, then direct losses increase to 160–355 million €2012/year. In rela-
tion to the national Gross Domestic Product (GDP), these losses represent 0.08–0.18% of GDP in 2012, a figure which is
comparatively low. However, regional losses were found to be substantial in some cases, a result obscured in overall
national figures of climate change impacts.
– Both cases reveal that adaptation is needed at regional level, but regional adaptation efforts are not of equal magnitude
and should focus on different cultivations per region.
4.2. The effect on crop yields of potential adaptation measures
The following adaptation measures were examined:

M1 – Change of cultivar. New cultivars are already available in the market; this is less ambitious (in terms of adaptation)
compared to cultivar breeding and implies a significantly lower cost. The magnitude of benefits on regional crop yields was
estimated only for crops simulated by agronomic models taking into account the results for all combinations of soil types-
cultivars per region.
M2 – Shift of planting date. Two shifts were examined, namely the first by one month earlier and a second by one month
later compared to the present planting date. The assessment did not aim at determining the optimum planting date and
management profile (irrigation, fertilization, etc.) per region and crop.
M3 – Increase N-fertilization. In examining this measure, an upper limit to the increase of N-fertilization rates was applied
(i.e. +20% from present levels) as additional amounts of nitrogen will increase water and soil pollution, as well as national
N2O emissions limited by the Kyoto Protocol. The measure was examined only where simulations under no adaptation
showed a nutrients’ stress.
M4 – Increase irrigation. For irrigated crops simulated by agronomic models, a +15% increase of present rates was consid-
ered during the periods of water stress, while for rain fed crops (barley, wheat, sunflower) a volume of irrigation water equal
to 15% of the monthly future precipitation was assumed to be available. For crops simulated by regression models, only cases
where precipitation was found to be statistically significant were examined; in these, during months with a positive corre-
lation of precipitation, irrigation up to 15% of precipitation was assumed to be available (introduced to the model by means
of a ‘pseudo’-increase of monthly precipitation).
M5 – High-efficiency irrigation. An increase of efficiency from 75% to 95% was considered through a replacement of existing
systems (sprinkler irrigation) with modern ones (micro-irrigation). In contrast with measure M4 where irrigation increased
only during periods of water stress under no adaptation, M5 was applied to all irrigation periods.
M6 – Vineyards’ modifications. This measure comprised a set of cultivation and management practices, and was examined
only for grapevines which are perennial crops (and thus shifting of planting date is not applicable), non-irrigated, and not
Table 5
Annual change of agricultural income in Greece due to climate change in 2021–2050 (in k€ 2012) without adaptation – ‘Median’ and ‘Worst’ cases.
Cultivation Anatoliki Make-donia Kentriki & Ditiki Thessa-lia Ipiros Peloponissos & Sterea Ellada & Ionian Vorio Egeo Notio Kriti GREECE TOTAL
& Thraki Make-donia Ditiki Ellada Attiki Islands Egeo
Sunflower 4011 (5844) 199 (279) 4210
(6123)
Barley 150 (778) 697 (13,223) 871 (647) 613 (1741) 1715 (1469) 2520
(13,626)
Wheat 2704 (4880) 9289 (52,493) 10,056 13,232 (6899) 35,280
(5330) (55,804)
Maize 13,572 (17,966) 5450 (25,408) 3249 1720 (10,965) 23,991
(20,638) (74,977)
E. Georgopoulou et al. / Climate Risk Management 16 (2017) 164–182

Beans 4057 (5491) 6300 (8626) 278 1022 (1479) 269 (1924) 11,926
(1102) (19,071)
Rice 866 (106) 5392 (9083) 6258 (9189)
Tomato 2952 (2700) 4989 (5881) 5561 2546 (3922) 2782 12,926
(industrial) (7740) (3164) (18,007)
Tomato (table) 17,653 (20,810) 6128 19,869 (20,756) 10,019 7678 61,347
(8529) (11,938) (8243) (69,737)
Potato 1526 (1139) 7541 (8299) 38,476 (39,840) 5300 3401 53,193
(5597) (3493) (56,090)
Cucumber 2 93 118 36 43 16
Pepper 1010 (873) 581 (808) 184 2208 (2453) 319 (380) 92 (492) 2373
(408) (3667)
Cabbage 530 (143) 4829 (4747) 537 (57) 163 (410) 667 (401) 48 (324) 6446 (3812)
Tobacco 225 4316 2304 6395
Cotton 36,115 (32,233) 13,692 (5544) 20,001 33,644 103,452
(17,155) (32,288) (87,219)
Grapevines (PDO 1664 (1649) 87 (103) 2554 (2292) 288 39 88 (429) 3716 (2845)
wines) (382) (182)
Grapevines (rest 572 (638) 3396 (3365) 292 3186 (2859) 1717 174 (846) 3826 (3001)
wines) (0.009) (1738)
Grapevines 13,573 (15,150) 4232 (4194) 297 5833 (5235) 276 (1340) 4081
(table use) (350) (7412)
Raisins 4307 (3865) 758 3549 (181)
(3684)
Orange 365 1382 1747
Peach 3533 3533
Olives (table) 2074 3258 8626 9809
Olives (oil) 21,363 9270 782 6022 5241 42,677
ALL 9543 (14,440) 10,397 (115,487) 15,574 278 74,875 (91,453) 13,295 (498) 782 6310 39 16,320 49,795
(25,334) (1102) (782) (6404) (182) (22,754) (277,440)
ALL except 26,572 (46,673) 3295 (121,031) 4427 278 74,875 (91,453) 20,349 782 6310 39 16,320 153,246
cotton (42,489) (1102) (31,790) (6404) (182) (22,754) (364,660)
Note: ‘Worst’ case figures are in parentheses.
173
subject to N-fertilization (as fertilizers may affect the wine’s quality and taste). In this, pruned bud number was reduced,
while water supply was left unchanged in order to satisfy the crop’s needs.
These six adaptation measures considered represent the main agricultural practices for autonomous adaptation to cli-
mate change (Kovats et al., 2014). The advancement or delay of sowing dates can help plants avoid too high or too low tem-
peratures under future climate during critical development stages which can impede growth and thus reduce crop yields in
the future. The provision of additional quantities of irrigation water (either through increased irrigation rates or through
high-efficiency irrigation which increases the useful amount of water reaching the plants’ roots) represents also a potential
adaptation practice, although water availability limitations and sustainability concerns pose a barrier to its wide application.
Increased N-fertilization may assist plants in filling nutrients’ shortages caused by reduced precipitation under future cli-
mate. Finally, cultivation and management changes represent the only possible adaptation practice for vineyards when a
more radical adaptation strategy (i.e. shift of vineyards to other locations) is not applicable or desired.
The impact of adaptation measures on crop yields is presented in Annex A. The following remarks apply:
M1: the use of climate-resistant cultivars can have major benefits on crop yields in some cases, limiting significantly yield
losses or even increasing yields above present levels.
M2: Earlier planting had positive effects on potato, cabbage and (marginally) on sunflower yields, while delayed planting
was found to be more promising (although this varies by crop and region). Overall, a shift of planting date seems a
promising adaptation measure.
M3: In many cases the increase of N-fertilization rates had a minor effect on crop yields. For beans (one region) and potato
(two regions) there was a small improvement compared to no adaptation. Yield losses of pepper and cabbage caused by
the lower transportation of nutrients to plants through soil percolation because of reduced precipitation, were counter-
balanced by this measure.
M4: For maize and beans in almost all regions, and rain fed barley in one region, M4 fully counterbalanced the adverse
effects of climate change, while in some other crops/region it resulted at yields even above present levels. Yield losses of
sunflower were reduced but remained large under M4. For cabbage, higher irrigation had a negative effect as it caused
heads of the plant to split and crack. Overall, M4 looks an effective adaptation strategy in many cases.
M5: This measure was examined only for irrigated crops facing water stress under no adaptation. In many cases, M5 was
less effective than M4 as it was applied in all irrigation periods (thus, it may provide less water than needed during peri-
ods of water stress, and more than necessary in the rest). M5 had a better performance than M4 in cases where the
improvement under M4 was marginal.
M6: The results confirmed the expected reduction in the crop yield compared to no adaptation; however, the model can-
not provide an indication about the effect on the quality of the grapes’ wine potential. This gap in information does not
allow assessing whether lighter pruning will lead to improved wine quality.
4.3. Economic attractiveness of potential adaptation measures
Eqs. (1)–(3) above were applied under a number of assumptions explained below. Furthermore, ssensitivity analyses were
performed for those cost components which are characterized by a high uncertainty or regional variation. These included the
unit price of irrigation water, and the producer prices of agricultural products. Analyses were not performed for the annual
cost of consulting to farmers (which is low and not expected to change significantly during the period considered). As for the
capital cost of high-efficiency irrigation, its components (namely the cost of materials/machinery and the cost of installation)
are also not expected to vary significantly in the future.
Main assumptions applied were as follows:
Producer prices for crops remain constant at present levels in the base case; however, sensitivity analyses from 30% up
to +50% were performed to access the effect of price changes.
Prices for irrigation water across Greece vary significantly depending on the geographical region, the origin, quality and
quantity of water used, the type of cultivation being irrigated, etc. A uniform base value of 0.2 €/m3 was considered (cor-
responding to the average cost for a farmer when consuming a moderate quality water). Sensitivity analyses up to 4 €/m3
were also performed to exploit the effects of Directive 2000/60/ΕC (‘Water Framework Directive’) which requires that all
cost components related to water use must be reflected in water pricing.
For grapevines, a cost of variety replacement equal to 10,000 €/ha was considered (lifetime: 20 years). For annual crops,
an annual cost of 50 €/ha was assumed for consultancy services in the case of shift of planting date and cultivar change. In
addition, a unit cost of 1.3 € per additional kg N in N-fertilizers was assumed. The capital cost of new (more efficient) irri-
gation systems was assumed to be 6000 €/ha for grapevines, 3700 €/ha for vegetables, and 2400 €/ha for rest crops
(including rain fed crops), and for a10-years lifetime.
A discount rate of 6% was applied.
All utilized cost figures are summarized In Table 6.

The calculated Cost-Benefit Ratio (CBR) for each adaptation measure examined and for the base case is displayed in
Table 7.
Table 6
Figures utilized in the economic assessment of potential adaptation measures.
Adaptation measure Capital cost [1] Lifetime O&M cost/benefit [1]

M1 Change of Crop replacement (for vines only): 100 €/Ha Vines: Consulting to farmers: 0.5 €/Ha ∙ year
cultivar 20 years
Rest crops:
1 year
M2 Shift of planting 1 year Consulting to farmers: 0.5 €/Ha ∙ year
date
M3 Increase N- 1 year Purchase of N-fertilizers: 1.3 €/kg
fertilization
M4 Increase 1 year Irrigation water supply: 0.2 €/m3 (base value),
irrigation sensitivity analyses: ± 30%
M5 High-efficiency Vines: 48 €/Ha (machinery-materials) and 12 €/Ha 10 years Irrigation water supply: 0.2 €/m3 (base value), 0.05–4
irrigation (installation) €/m3 (sensitivity analyses) [2]
Outdoor vegetables: 29.4 €/Ha (machinery-
materials) and 7.6 €/Ha (installation)
Rest crops: 19 €/Ha (machinery-materials) and
5 €/Ha (installation)
M6 Vineyards’ 1 year Consulting to farmers: 0.5 €/Ha ∙ year
modification
Unit producer prices for agricultural products (€/kg) [3] – base value, with a-30% up to +50% change (sensitivity analyses)
barley: 0.21 cabbage: 0.25
wheat: 0.22 grapes for VQPRD wines: 0.45
maize: 0.21 grapes for rest wines: 0.45
sunflower: 0.44 raisins: 1.22–1.36
beans: 2.63 cucumber (outdoor): 0.61
rice: 0.29 olives (table use): 0.8
tomato (industrial): olives (oil): 0.4
0.09
tomato (table): 0.79 tobacco: 2.28–3.98
potato: 0.32 orange: 0.15
pepper: 0.46 peach: 0.44
Discount rate: 6% (for all measures)
[1] Cost figures utilized represent authors’ estimation based on the Greek experience.
[2] Range based on the findings of Ministry for the Environment, Spatial Planning and Public Works – Athens University of Economics and Business, 2008.
[3] Source: Ministry for Agricultural Development, 2012.
The results show that in several cases the change of cultivar and the shift of planting date are the most economically
attractive options for cereals under the base value of irrigation water cost (0.2 €/m3). For vegetables, legumes, and pulses,
increase of irrigation or N-fertilizers are the measures of first-choice. In cases where only one adaptation measure was exam-
ined (i.e. grapevines and olive trees), its CBR calculated is greater than 1, i.e. financial support is needed for farmers to apply
this measure. For grapevines, the high CBR value is explained by the high replacement cost of existing varieties, and the mar-
ginal benefits (in terms of reduced yield losses) considered. As for olive trees, the small yield improvement is also the reason
behind the high CBR value of increased irrigation.
Sensitivity analyses performed on the unit price of irrigation water showed that it affects significantly the economic per-
formance of adaptation measures. As expected, at higher prices, high efficiency irrigation improves its CBR and in some cases
(maize, beans, tomato, cabbage) it even becomes the first-choice measure (e.g. for maize at a price of 0.5–3.5 €/m3 depending
on the region). Therefore, the application of the ‘Water Framework Directive’ can have a significant impact on agricultural
adaptation. On the contrary, increase of irrigation rates is the most attractive option at a price below 0.2 €/m3 in most of
cases, while for higher prices its CBR may increase above 1 (i.e. costs exceed benefits).
The effect of producer prices on the economic attractiveness of adaptation measures was not found to be particularly sig-
nificant (at least for the range of price changes examined) in changing the attractiveness order. Under prices below the base
values considered, the first-choice adaptation option changes only in the case of wheat in one region and of pepper in
another.
4.4. Direct economic impacts of adaptation at regional and national level
The Net Economic Benefit (NEBi,j,k) of the adaptation measure i for crop j and region k is the difference between the annual
benefits Bi,j,k and the equivalent annual cost EACi,j,k of Eqs. (2) and (3) above. For each crop and region where there was at
least one measure with a CBR lower than 1, the NEB of the most economically attractive measure (i.e. the one having the
lowest CBR) was combined with the relevant cultivated area per crop, and thus the total net economic benefits of adaptation
per crop and region were calculated. This calculation assumes that all farmers in a region will implement the economically
best adaptation measure per crop (i.e. a very optimistic approach), supposing that: (a) they have full knowledge of climate
Table 7
Cost-Benefit Ratio of potential adaptation measures.
Cultivations Anatoliki Kentriki & Thessa- Ipiros Peloponi- Sterea Attiki Vorio Notio Kriti Ionian
Makedonia & Ditiki lia ssos & Ellada Egeo Egeo islands
Thraki Makedonia Ditiki
Ellada
Barley (M1) 0.83 0.73 All + 0.66 All +
Barley (M2/early) 0.27 1.33 All + 0.34 All +
Barley (M2/later) 0.22 0.72 All + 0.42 All +
Barley (M3) 723.75 18.09 All + 3.06 All +
Barley (M4) 29095.07 16.51 All + 9448.25 All +
Wheat (M1) 0.62 2.21 All + All +
Wheat (M2/early) 0.83 3.70 All + All +
Wheat (M2/later) 0.93 5.13 All + All +
Wheat (M3) 438.24 13.25 All + All +
Wheat (M4) 4698.01 278.72 All + All +
Maize (M1) 0.36 0.22 0.48 0.35
Maize (M2/early) 0.12 0.09 0.08 0.52
Maize (M2/later) 0.12 1.19 1.81 0.57
Maize (M3) 4.51 5.29 2.25 125.37
Maize (M4) 0.29 1322.2 1.33 2.59
Maize (M5) 0.91 1.50 1.38 0.94
Sunflower (M1) 0.54 0.97
Sunflower (M2/early) 1.71 5.78
Sunflower (M2/later) 5.09 3.02
Sunflower (M3) 37.62 34.67
Sunflower (M4) 3.69 18.58
Beans (M1) 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.10 0.03
Beans (M2/early) 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.02
Beans (M2/later) 0.02 0.02 0.59 0.01 0.03
Beans (M3) 0.26 0.40 0.05 0.54 0.31
Beans (M4) 0.03 0.03 0.16 0.03 0.12
Beans (M5) 0.32 0.31 0.37 0.24 0.41
Rice (M1) 0.97 0.60
Rice (M2/early) 0.60 9.81
Rice (M2/delayed) 0.07 0.06
Tomato ind. (M1) All + 0.20 0.33 0.62 0.37
Tomato ind. (M2/early) All + 0.08 0.02 0.03 0.01
Tomato ind. (M2/later) All + 0.14 0.31 0.20 0.05
Tomato ind. (M4) All + 0.32 0.23 0.24 0.12
Tomato ind. (M5) All + 0.36 0.54 0.65 0.68
Tomato table (M1) All + 0.04 0.08 0.17 0.07 0.20
Tomato table (M2/early) All + 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01
Tomato table (M2/later) All + 0.03 0.08 0.04 0.01 0.72
Potato (M1) All + 0.15 0.45 0.94 0.80
Potato (M2/early) All + 0.016 0.05 0.17 0.10
Potato (M2/later) All + 0.017 0.03 0.06 0.08
Potato (M3) All + 0.16 0.28 8.71 2.61
Pepper (M1) All + 0.03 0.13 0.60 1.22 0.16
Pepper (M2/early) All + 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.17 0.16
Pepper (M2/later) All + 0.01 0.028 0.02 0.09 0.03
Pepper (M3) All + 0.02 0.029 0.03 0.06 0.02
Cabbage (M1) All + All + All + 0.25 0.40 All + 0.44
Cabbage (M2/early) All + All + All + 0.13 0.40 All + 0.44
Cabbage (M2/later) All + All + All + 0.06 0.40 All + 0.06
Grapevine/POP wine (M1) 89.62 22.50 20.20 30.83 61.40 18.46
Grapevine/rest wine (M1) 14.78 117.83 41.01 31.64 16.40 37.73
Grapevine/table (M1) 1.81 26.72 12.48 8.43 6.49
Grapevine/raisin (M1) 35.57 18.76
Cucumber (M4) 0.71 0.08 All + All + All + 1.25
Olives for table use (M4) All + 8.03 8.99
Olives for oil (M4) 12.74 16.67 33.41 11.04 5.76
‘All +’: all yield changes were positive and thus no adaptation measures are required. Bold fonts highlight the most cost-effective adaptation measure.
CBR > 1 are not financially attractive to farmers unless financial support is provided. Negative CBRs indicate cases where the measure examined failed to
reduce yield losses faced under no adaptation.
change impacts and effects of adaptation, (b) there are no resource-related limitations (e.g. restricted availability of irrigation
water), (c) there are no other barriers (e.g. technical, social, etc.) than cost in applying adaptation.
By subtracting the total net economic benefits of adaptation per crop and region from the expected future changes of agri-
cultural income under no adaptation (Table 5 above), the change of annual agricultural income with adaptation was esti-
mated (Table 8) for the ‘median’ and ‘worst’ cases.
At national level, the comparison between Tables 5 and 8 indicates that for the ‘median’ case of climate change impacts,
large-scale and cost-efficient adaptation not only outweighs the economic losses to be faced in 2021–2050, but can also
bring additional economic benefits by improving yields through low-cost measures, increasing the annual agricultural
income by 112 million €/year from present levels, compared to a loss of ca. 50 million €/year under no adaptation. In the
‘worst’ case, adaptation also reduces significantly the loss of annual agricultural income (from 277 million €/year to 115 mil-
lion €/year), but still will not fully mitigate the adverse economic impacts of climate change on crops. After 2050 when –
based on recent research findings – climate change will be stronger, more ambitious adaptation measures in terms of ampli-
tude and magnitude will be required.
One should also not forget that the above ‘optimistic’ conclusions on the net economic gains from adaptation assume also
an unlimited availability of irrigation water. The penultimate line of Table 8 provides some insight on the importance of this
assumption; the annual change of agricultural income remains positive in the ‘median’ case, but is significantly reduced if
the economic gain of water-intensive cultivations is not considered.
At regional level, in the ‘median’ case under adaptation there are again regional climate-winners and losers (regions in
northern-central Greece and southern regions respectively) as is also the case under no adaptation. However, if the economic
benefits of climate change on cotton are not considered in both cases, then under adaptation, regional winners and losers
remain almost the same while under no adaptation all regions become climate-losers. In the ‘worst’ case, almost all regions
are climate-losers despite large-scale adaptation. Pepper and beans are the cultivations (at national level) where adaptation
measures would result in reversing the adverse effect of climate change.
5. Discussion and conclusions
The analysis carried out has demonstrated that the agricultural sector in Greece will as a whole be affected adversely,
albeit with some regional winners. This is not surprising in view of the diversity of both the terrain and the diverse climatic
conditions found in Greece, which obviously are reflected also in the cultivations and practices found there. The economic
evaluation of these losses, affecting 18 cultivations covering 60% of the land cultivated (excluding cotton), range from a
yearly average of ca. 153 million € to a high of 365 million € if the most adverse estimates are taken into account, to be com-
pared with the total output value of the cultivations categories in 2015 of 6726 million € (EUROSTAT, 2016). Cotton which
accounts for 355 million € of value in 2015 (5% of total) is a special case as it seems that the future climatic conditions would
lead to an increase of yield resulting in an yearly economic gain of about 87–103 Million €, provided that water for irrigation
remains available at current levels and prices, something that seems very improbable. The same is the case for grapevines
and raisin cultivations for which the impact is small (ca. 1.4 million € yearly) but with no adaptation measures available that
lead to net increases in output value as the ones examined have a high cost.
In view of this overall negative effect of climate change in Greece, a number of adaptation measures have been examined,
specific to each of the 18 cultivations investigated, and mitigation of damages computed. The results show that the use of
appropriate adaptation measures may result in a net yearly benefit of about 162 million €.
Sensitivity analysis of the adaptation effectiveness as regards the price of water carried out in this work, has shown that
an increase of water cost (including all appropriate charges to reflect true value) from a current base value of 0.2 €/m3 has a
significant effect on the economic attractiveness of adaptation measures.
The results obtained have a number of policy implications. At first, the study has shown that there will be regional losers
but also winners, with a clear distinction between northern and southern Greece. Thus, efforts to address climate change
impacts on agriculture need to be tailored to both geography and crop kind even in a comparatively small country such
as Greece.
In addition, the agriculture of the smaller island regions (Ionian, North and South Aegean) shows a rather small exposure
to climate change impacts, mainly because of the small volume of the crops under investigation cultivated there compared to
the rest of the regions. That is not to say that there is no impact but rather that the economic dimension is small. Supporting
agriculture in these islands which are main tourist destinations (thus have a large demand of agricultural products especially
of the perishable kind such as fruits and vegetables) is important; in the future, this support should be focused on mitigating
water stress, which even in today’s conditions is a major disadvantage.
Within the context of adaptation, the issue of water stress, especially in the semi-arid Mediterranean area, is central. As
shown, the measure of increased irrigation is economically attractive in almost all regions and crops only for low water
prices (i.e. not exceeding 0.5–1 €/m3), and even then in many cases it is not the first choice of adaptation measures to apply.
Of more interest is the measure of increased irrigation efficiency, whose attractiveness increases with the water price and in
many cases at values over about 1–1.5 €/m3 becomes the most attractive option. In view of the fact that the price of water is
expected to go up rather than decrease, the technologies and practices that increase efficiency should be promoted both in
the research and in the development/demonstration/dissemination phase.
Table 8
178
Annual change of agricultural income in Greece due to climate change in 2021–2050 (in k€ 2012) under adaptation – ‘Median’ and ‘Worst’ cases.
Cultivation Anatoliki Make-donia & Kentriki & Thessa-lia Ipiros Peloponissos & Ditiki Sterea Ionian Vorio Egeo Notio Kriti GREECE
Thraki Ditiki Ellada Ellada & Islands Egeo TOTAL
Makedonia Attiki
Sunflower 3662 (5495) 198 (278) 3860
(5773)
Barley 1759 (1131) 1396 871 (647) 172 (956) 1715 (1469) 5913
(12,523) (10,233)
Wheat 6467 (1117) 9,289[1] 10,056 13,232 39,043
(52,493) (5330) (6899) (52,041)
Maize 8373 (3980) 8547 1753 2116 (7130) 17,283
(11,410) (19,413) (33,703)
Beans 1444 (3328) 637 (2962) 240 1401 (943) 357 83 (7228)
(585) (1297)

Rice 869 (104) 5916 (8558) 6785 (8662)
Tomato (industrial) 2952 (2700) 4412 3900 453 (1829) 348 (34) 5465
(5304) (6079) (10,547)
Tomato (table) 15,195 3898 6795 (7682) 1776 (398) 5035 29,146
(18,351) (6299) (5601) (37,536)
Potato 1526 (1139) 4850 (4092) 7693 (9057) 1778 193 (101) 2902
(2075) (5798)
Cucumber 2 32 118 36 43 81
Pepper 1010 (873) 2784 (2557) 1430 (1207) 1837 (1592) 91 (152) 559 (158) 7529 (6235)
Cabbage 530 (143) 4829 (4747) 537 (57) 608 (362) 799 (269) 87 (284) 7389 (4754)
Tobacco 225 4316 2304 6395
Cotton 36,115 (32,233) 13,692 (5544) 20,001 33,644 103,452
(17,155) (32,288) (87,219)
Grapevines (PDO 1664 (1649) 87 (103) 2554 (2292) 288 39 88 (429) 3716 (2845)
wines)[1] (382) (182)
Grapevines (rest 572 (638) 3396 (3365) 292 (0.01) 3186 (2859) 1717 174 (846) 3826 (3001)
wines) [1] (1738)
[1]
Grapevines (table) 13,573 (15,150) 4232 (4194) 297 (350) 5833 (5235) 276 4081
(1340) (7412)
Raisins[1] 4307 (3865) 758 3549 (181)
(3864)
Orange 365 1382 1747
Peach 3533 3533
Olives (table) [1] 2074 3258 8626 9809
Olives (oil) [1] 21,363 9270 782 6022 5241 42,677
ALL 40,125 (16,142) 50,079 22,636 240 17,066 (33,644) 32,729 782 6310 39 9394 112,218
(75,805) (18,272) (585) (19,932) (6404) (182) (15,827) (115,428)
j
ALL except cotton 4010 (16,091) 36,387 2635 240 17,066 (33,644) 915 782 6310 39 9394 8766
(81,349) (35,427) (585) (12,356) (6404) (182) (15,827) (202,647)
j
ALL except cotton 18,155 (303) 17,807 3311 240 8325 (23,275) 18,698 0 0 0 2857 47,028
and cases (38,064) (34,974) (585) (7278) (4287) (94,209)
with CBR greater
than 1
[1]: Cases with CBR > 1. ‘Worst’ case figures are in parentheses.
Table A1
Estimated change of crop yields between the future (2021–2050) and the historic (1961–1990) climate under potential adaptation measures.
Cultivations Anatoliki Kentriki & Thes-salia Ipiros Pelopo-nissos & Sterea Attiki Vorio Notio Kriti Ionian
Makedo-nia & Thraki Ditiki Make-donia Ditiki Ellada Ellada Egeo Egeo Islands
Barley (No A) 2.7% 3.2% All + 11.2% All +
Barley (Change of cultivar) 8.6% 15.1% 4.4%
Barley (Earlier planting) 37.1% 3.2% [1] 41.7%
Barley (Delayed planting) 40.9% 3.2% [2] 13.6%
Barley (Increased N-fertilization) 2.7% 3.2% 10.5%
Barley (Introducing irrigation) 2.7% 7.6% 11.2%
Wheat (No A) 4.3% 5.1% All + All +
Wheat (Change of cultivar) 20.1% 9.9%
Wheat (Earlier planting) 4.3% [3] 5.1% [3]
Wheat (Delayed planting) 14.9% 5.1% [4]
Wheat (Increased Nfertilization) 4.3% 5.1%

Wheat (Introducing irrigation) 4.3% 5.4%
Maize (No A) 10.1% 3.2% 5.2% 2.1%
Maize (Change of cultivar) 3.7% 7.4% 0.6% 5.4%
Maize (Earlier planting) 28.5% 30.3% 32.1% 7.2%
Maize (Delayed planting) 8.5% 5.2% 4.0% 2.5%
Maize (Increased N-fertilization) 10.9% 3.9% 6.7% 2.2%
Maize (Increased irrigation) 4.4% 3.2% 2.6% 1.7%
Maize (High-efficiency irrig.) 0.8% 0.3% 0.1% 0.2%
Sunflower (No A) 65.3% 64.0%
Sunflower (Change of cultivar) 52.9% 52.9%
Sunflower (Earlier planting) 61.4% 62.2%
Sunflower (Delayed planting) 66.7% 67.6%
Sunflower (Increased N-fertilization) 65.2% 64.2%
Sunflower (Introducing irrigation) 50.0% 59.1%
Beans (No A) 47.5% 36.8% 11.9% 28.7% 7.1%
Beans (Change of cultivar) 32.3% 10.9% 11.0% 21.4% 10.0%
Beans (Earlier planting) 75.7% 73.7% 61.1% 78.4% 34.7%
Beans (Delayed planting) 16.2% 3.0% 13.1% 40.1% 31.2%
Beans (Increased N-fertilization) 46.3% 37.5% 6.5% 29.3% 6.3%
Beans (Increased irrigation) 4.5% 10.4% 12.7% 57.0% 11.5%
Beans (High-efficiency irrig.) 37.6% 24.5% 0.9% 9.8% 1.7%
Rice (No A) 29.90% 14.90%
Rice (Change of cultivar) 32.40% 18.50%
Rice (Earlier planting) 25.90% 15.10%
Rice (Delayed planting) 5.30% 19.30%
Tomato ind. (No A) All + 34.2% 21.2% 15.2% 14.7%
Tomato ind. (Change of cultivar) 29.2% 19.0% 13.5% 12.1%
Tomato ind. (Earlier planting) 46.8% 64.2% 52.0% 99.6%
Tomato ind. (Delayed planting) 41.1% 23.7% 20.4% 2.8%
Tomato ind. (Increased irrigation) 28.5% 13.0% 1.2% 15.1%
Tomato ind. (High-efficiency irrig.) 14.2% 12.6% 3.5% 4.7%
Tomato table (No A) All + 34.2% 21.2% 22.5% 14.7% 20.8%
Tomato table (Change of cultivar) 29.2% 19.0% 21.0% 12.1% 19.9%
Tomato table (Earlier planting) 46.8% 64.2% 52.6% 99.6% 34.4%
Tomato table (Delayed planting) 41.1% 23.7% 29.1% 2.8% 21.1%
Tomato table (Increased irrigation) 28.5% 13.0% 0.0% 15.1% 13.2%
(continued on next page)
179
180
Table A1 (continued)
Cultivations Anatoliki Kentriki & Thes-salia Ipiros Pelopo-nissos & Sterea Attiki Vorio Notio Kriti Ionian
Makedo-nia & Thraki Ditiki Make-donia Ditiki Ellada Ellada Egeo Egeo Islands
Tomato table (High-efficiency irrig.) 14.2% 12.6% 10.8% 4.7% 6.1%
Potato (No A) All + 23.5% 29.2% 20.2% 12.8%
Potato (Change of cultivar) 19.4% 27.7% 19.2% 11.5%
Potato (Earlier planting) 15.7% 14.9% 14.9% 1.2%
Potato (Delayed planting) 12.1% 5.1% 5.8% 1.8%
Potato (Increased N-fertilization) 18.2% 25.7% 20.3% 12.2%
Pepper (No A) All + 5.0% 1.7% 15.2% 16.9% 1.7%
Pepper (Change of cultivar) 7.0% 1.7% 14.5% 16.3% 0.2%
Pepper (Earlier planting) 21.1% 13.4% 25.6% 21.4% 0.3%
Pepper (Delayed planting) 24.2% 13.4% 13.1% 8.4% 7.7%
Pepper (Increased N-fertilization) 8.5% 12.1% 1.8% 4.1% 10.9%
Cabbage (No A) All + All + All + 3.6% 0.5% All + 2.1%

Cabbage (Change of cultivar) 0.6% 3.2% 5.0%
Cabbage (Earlier planting) 4.5% 3.2% 5.0%
Cabbage (Delayed planting) 14.5% 3.2% 2.1% [5]
Cabbage (Increased N-fertilization) 9.8% 3.2% 5.0%
Cabbage (Increased irrigation) 8.0% 0.5% [6] 2.1% [6]
Cabbage (High-efficiency irrig.) 0.3% 1.0% 3.9%
Cucumber (No A) 0.1% 5.7% All + All + All + 2.0%
Cucumber (Increased irrigation) 0.8% 1.7% 0.7%
Grapevine (No A) 16.8% 24.9% 2.4% 5.5% 8.2% 3.8% 0.5% 1.1%
Grapevine (Change of variety) 14.9% 25.1% 2.0% 6.1% 6.7% 3.2% 0.0% 0.3%
Grapevine (Vineyard’s modifications) 48.3% 46.7% 46.8% 44.4% 43.7% 43.4%
Olive trees (No A) All + 5.8% 13.8% 27.8% 1.9% 1.1%
Olive trees (Increased irrigation) 4.6% 10.7% 26.4% 0.9% 0.7%
Tobacco (No A) No prec. All + All +
Tobacco (Increased irrigation)
Orange trees (No A) All + All +
Orange trees (Increased irrigation)
Peach trees (No A) All +
Peach trees (Increased irrigation)
‘No A’: No adaptation. ‘All +’: all yield changes were positive and thus no adaptation measures are required.
[1] Due to the small number of combinations and their specific values, the median yield change does not reflect the real effect of the examined adaptation measure. Thus, one should look at the average yield
change, which is 2.8% (no adaptation) and 9.4% (earlier planting).
[2] As in [1]; the average yield is 2.8% (no adaptation) and 14.9% (delayed planting).
[3] As in [1]; the average yield change is +5.5% (no adaptation)/6.3% (earlier planting) for Anatoliki Makedonia & Thraki, and +1.4% (no adaptation)/1.5% (earlier planting) for Kentriki & Ditiki Makedonia.
[4] As in [1]; the average yield change is +1.4% (no adaptation) and 0.7% (delayed planting).
[5] As in [1]; the average yield change is 2.3% (no adaptation) and 25.1% (delayed planting).
[6] As in [1]; the average yield change is 0% (no adaptation)/2.9% (increased irrigation) for Sterea Ellada, and 2.3% (no adaptation)/4.9% (increased irrigation) for Kriti.
Some possible extensions of this work should be mentioned. First, the lists of crops examined can be further enlarged
with the relative contribution to agricultural output distribution as selection criterion. A second possible extension would
be to examine in more detail areas with special characteristics such as the Cyclades islands (Region of Notio Egeo) where
cultivation plots are much smaller, water is already so scarce that prices have surpassed 1.5 €/m3 and the demand for veg-
etables and fruits is seasonal and high.
Finally, the analytical approach developed and presented in this paper represents a methodology that can be followed in
other regions wishing to develop adaptation plans for dealing efficiently with a major environmental problem, namely cli-
mate change and its impacts on agriculture that represents a significant productive sector. Through the quantification of
both impacts and economic performance of potential adaptation options, policy makers can prioritize adaptation measures
and thus take better informed decisions on management actions.
Funding
This research was partially supported by Piraeus Bank S.A.
Acknowledgments
The support of the Green Banking Division of Piraeus Bank for this work is gratefully acknowledged.
Annex A. Effects on crop yields of potential adaptation measures
(Table A1).
References
Alexandrov, V.A., Eitzinger, J., 2005. The potential effect of climate change and elevated air carbon dioxide on agricultural crop production in central and
southeastern Europe. J. Crop Improv. 13 (1–2), 291–331.
Asseng, S., Ewert, F., Rosenzweig, C., Jones, J.W., Hatfield, J.L., Ruane, A.C., Boote, K.J., Thorburn, P.J., Rötter, R.P., Cammarano, D., Brisson, N., Basso, B., Martre,
P., Aggarwal, P.K., Angulo, C., Bertuzzi, P., Biernath, C., Challinor, A.J., Doltra, J., Gayler, S., Goldberg, R., Grant, R., Heng, L., Hooker, J., Hunt, L.A., Ingwersen,
J., Izaurralde, R.C., Kersebaum, K.C., Müller, C., Naresh Kumar, S., Nendel, C., O’Leary, G., Olesen, J.E., Osborne, T.M., Palosuo, T., Priesack, E., Ripoche, D.,
Semenov, M.A., Shcherbak, I., Steduto, P., Stöckle, C., Stratonovitch, P., Streck, T., Supit, I., Tao, F., Travasso, M., Waha, K., Wallach, D., White, J.W.,
Williams, J.R., Wolf, J., 2013. Uncertainty in simulating wheat yields under climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 3 (9), 827–832.
Balkovič, J., van der Velde, M., Skalský, R., Xiong, W., Folberth, Ch., Khabarov, N., Smirnov, A., Mueller, N.D., Obersteiner, M., 2014. Global wheat production
potentials and management flexibility under the representative concentration pathways. Global Planet. Change 122, 107–121.
Bank of Greece (2011). The environmental, economic and social impacts of Climate Change in Greece. June 2011, Athens, ISBN: 978 - 960 - 7032 - 49 - 2 (in
Greek), http://www.bankofgreece.gr/BogEkdoseis/Pkgqg1_Εjherg.pdf.
Bock, A., Sparks, T., Estrella, N., Menzel, A., 2011. Changes in the phenology and composition of wine from Franconia, Germany. Clim. Res. 50, 69–81.
Brandão, P.A., Pinto, P.A., 2002. Chapter 7: Agriculture. In: Santos, F.D., Forbes, K., Moita, R. (Eds.), Climate Change in Portugal. Scenarios, Impacts and
Adaptation Measures, SIAM Project. SIAM Project, Gradiva, Lisboa, pp. 221–239. ISBN 972-662-843-1.
Daccache, A., Weatherhead, E.K., Stalham, M.A., Knox, J.W., 2011. Impacts of climate change on irrigated potato production in a humid climate. Agric. For.
Meteorol. 151 (12), 1641–1653.
Donatelli, M., Srivastava, A.K., Duveiller, G., Niemeyer, S., 2012. Estimating impact assessment and adaptation strategies under climate change scenarios for
crops at EU27 scale. In: Seppelt, R., Voinov, A.A., Lange, S., Bankamp, D. (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Environmental Modelling and Software
Society (iEMSs) 2012 International Congress on Environmental Modelling and Software - ‘‘Managing Resources of a Limited Planet: Pathways and
Visions Under Uncertainty”, 1–5 July 2012, Leipzig, Germany. International Environmental Modelling and Software Society (iEMSs) Secretariat, Manno,
Switzerland, pp. 404–411. http://www.iemss.org/sites/iemss2012//proceedings/A6_0757_Srivastava_et_al.pdf.
Duchêne, E., Huard, F., Dumas, V., Schneider, C., Merdinoglu, D., 2010. The challenge of adapting grapevine varieties to climate change. Clim. Res. 41 (3),
193–204.
ESYE [National Statistical Authority], 1980-2006(a). Statistical Yearbook of Greece, Athens. http://dlib.statistics.gr/portal/page/portal/ESYE.
ESYE [National Statistical Authority], 1980-2006(b). Annual Agricultural Statistics of Greece, Athens. http://dlib.statistics.gr/portal/page/portal/ESYE.
EUROSTAT, 2016. Statistical Factsheet of Greek agriculture, April (update of January 2016). http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/statistics/factsheets/pdf/el_en.
pdf.
Georgopoulou, E., Mirasgedis, S., Sarafidis, Y., Hontou, V., Gakis, N., Lalas, D., Xenoyianni, F., Kakavoulis, N., Dimopoulos, D., Zavras, V., 2015. A
methodological framework and tool for assessing the climate change related risks in the banking sector. J. Environ. Planning Manage. 58 (5), 874–897.
Giannakopoulos, C., Kostopoulou, E., Varotsos, K.V., Tziotziou, K., Plitharas, A., 2011. An integrated assessment of climate change impacts for Greece in the
near future. Reg. Environ. Change 11 (4), 829–843.
Godwin D., White B., Sommer K., Walker R., Goodwin I., Clingeleffer P., 2002. VineLOGIC e a model of grapevine growth, development and water use. In:
Managing Water. 46–50. Dundon, C., Hamilton, R., Johnstone, R., Partridge, S. (eds.), Australian Society of Viticulture and Oenology Inc., Adelaide.
Graß, R., Thies, B., Kersebaum, K.-C., Wachendorf, M., 2015. Simulating dry matter yield of two cropping systems with the simulation model HERMES to
evaluate impact of future climate change. Eur. J. Agron. 70, 1–10.
Hoogenboom, G., J.W. Jones, P.W. Wilkens, C.H. Porter, K.J. Boote, L.A. Hunt, U. Singh, J.I. Lizaso, J.W. White, O. Uryasev, R. Ogoshi, J. Koo, V. Shelia, and G.Y.
Tsuji. 2015. Decision Support System for Agrotechnology Transfer (DSSAT) Version 4.6 (http://dssat.net). DSSAT Foundation, Prosser, Washington.
Ones, J.W., Hoogenboom, G., Porter, C.H., Boote, K.J., Batchelor, W.D., Hunt, L.A., Wilkens, P.W., Singh, U., Gijsman, A.J., Ritchie, J.T., 2003. DSSAT cropping
system model. Eur. J. Agron. 18, 235–265.
Kersebaum, K.C., Nendel, C., 2014. Site-specific impacts of climate change on wheat production across regions of Germany using different CO2 response
functions. Eur. J. Agron. 52, 22–32.
Kovats, R.S., Valentini, R., Bouwer, L.M., Georgopoulou, E., Jacob, D., Martin, E., Rounsevell, M., Soussana, J.-F., 2014. Europe, in: Barros, V.R., Field, C.B.,
Dokken, D.J., Mastrandrea, M.D., Mach, K.J., Bilir, T.E., Chatterjee, M., Ebi, K.L., Estrada, Y.O., Genova, R.C., Girma, B., Kissel, E.S., Levy, A.N., MacCracken, S.,
Mastrandrea, P.R., White, L.L. (Eds.), Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part B: Regional Aspects. Contribution of Working
Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom
and New York, pp. 1267–1326.
Lionello, P., Congedi, L., Reale, M., Scarascia, L., Tanzarella, A., 2014. Sensitivity of typical Mediterranean crops to past and future evolution of seasonal
temperature and precipitation in Apulia. Reg. Environ. Change 14, 2025–2038.
Ministry for Agricultural Development, 2012. Statistical data – Time series (in Greek), http://www.minagric.gr/index.php/el/the-ministry-2/agricultural-
policy/statistika.
Ministry for the Environment, Spatial Planning and Public Works (YPEXODE) – Athens University of Economics and Business, 2008: Implementation in
Greece of Article 5 of Directive 2000/60/EC (in Greek), available at www.aueb.gr/users/koundouri/resees/uploads/finalreportarticle5.doc
Ministry of the Environment – University of Castilla de la Mancha, 2005. A Preliminary Assessment of the Impacts in Spain Due to the Effects of Climate
Change. ECCE Project - Final Report, Madrid. http://www.magrama.gob.es/es/cambio-climatico/temas/impactos-vulnerabilidad-y-adaptacion/full_
report_tcm7-199440.pdf.
Moriondo, M., Bindi, M., Fagarazzi, C., Ferrise, R., Trombi, G., 2011. Framework for high-resolution climate change impact assessment on grapevines at a
regional scale. Reg. Environ. Change 11, 553–567.
Nakicenovic, N., Alcamo, J., Davis, G., de Vries, B., Fenhann, J., Gaffin, S., Gregory, K., Griibler, A., Jung, T., Kram, T., La Rovere, E., Michaelis, L., Mori, Sh., Morita,
T., Pepper, W., Pitcher, H., Price, L., Riahi, K., Roehrl, A., Rogner, H.-H., Sankovski, A., Schlesinger, M., Shukla, P., Smith, S., Swart, S., van Rooijen, S., Victor,
N., Dadi, Z., 2000, IPCC Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES). Working Group III, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Ronchail, J., Cohen, M., Alonso-Roldan, M., Garcin, H., Sultan, B., Angles, S., 2014. Adaptability of Mediterranean agricultural systems to climate change: the
example of the Sierra Magina olive-growing region (Andalusia, Spain). Part II: the future. Weather Clim. Soc., 1948-8327 6 (4), 451–467.
Saadi, S., Todorovic, M., Tanasijevic, L., Pereira, S., Pizzigalli, C., Lionello, P., 2015. Climate change and Mediterranean agriculture: Impacts on winter wheat
and tomato crop evapotranspiration, irrigation requirements and yield. Agric. Water Manag. 147, 103–115.
Santos, J.A., Grätsch, S.D., Karremann, M.K., Jones, G.V., Pinto, J.G., 2013. Ensemble projections for wine production in the Douro Valley of Portugal. Clim.
Change 117, 211–225.
Santos, J.A., Malheiro, A.C., Karremann, M.K., Pinto, J.G., 2011. Statistical modelling of grapevine yield in the Port Wine region under present and future
climate conditions. Int. J. Biometeorol. 55 (2), 119–131.
Supit, I., van Diepen, C.A., de Wit, A.J.W., Wolf, J., Kabat, P., Baruth, B., Ludwig, F., 2012. Assessing climate change effects on European crop yields using the
Crop Growth Monitoring System and a weather generator. Agric. For. Meteorol. 164, 96–111.
Tatsumi, K., Yamashiki, Y., Valmir da Silva, R., Takara, K., Matsuoka, Y., Takahashi, K., Maruyama, K., Kawahara, N., 2011. Estimation of potential changes in
cereals production under climate change scenarios. Hydrol. Process. 25 (17), 715–2725.
Thaler, S., Eitzinger, J., Trnka, M., Dubrovsky, M., 2012. Impacts of climate change and alternative adaptation options on winter wheat yield and water
productivity in a dry climate in Central European. J. Agric. Sci. 150, 537–555.
Trnka, M., Dubrovsky, M., Semeradova, D., Zalud, Z., 2004. Projections of uncertainties in climate change scenarios into expected winter wheat yields.
Theoret. Appl. Climatol. 77, 229–249.
Valverde, P., de Carvalho, M., Serralheiro, R., Maiac, R., Ramos, V., Oliveira, B., 2015. Climate change impacts on rainfed agriculture in the Guadiana river
basin (Portugal). Agric. Water Manag. 150, 35–45.
Vanuytrecht, E., Rae, D., Willems, P., 2015. Regional and global climate projections increase mid-century yield variability and crop productivity in Belgium.
Reg. Environ. Change. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10113-015-0773-6.
Ventrella, D., Charfeddine, M., Moriondo, M., Rinaldi, M., Bindi, M., 2012. Agronomic adaptation strategies under climate change for winter durum wheat
and tomato in southern Italy: irrigation and nitrogen fertilization. Reg. Environ. Change 12, 407–419.
Viola, F., Caracciolo, D., Pumo, D., Noto, L.V., La Loggia, G., 2014. Future climate forcings and olive yield in a mediterranean orchard. Water 6, 1562–1580. DOI
0.3390/w6061562.
Wiggering, H., Eulenstein, F., Mirschel, W., Willms, M., Dalchow, C., Augustin, J., 2008. The environmental effects of global changes on Northeast Central
Europe in the case of non-modified agricultural management. Landscape Online 4 (1), 1–17.

Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation Options For The Greek Agriculture in 2021-2050: A Monetary Assessment

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation Options For The Greek Agriculture in 2021-2050: A Monetary Assessment

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Climate Risk Management 16 (2017) 164–182

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Climate Risk Management

Climate change impacts and adaptation options for the Greek

2. A review of climate change impacts on crops in Europe

2.2. Vegetables, pulses and legumes

2.3. Olive trees and grapevines

3. Materials and methods

3.1. Regional disaggregation and future climate

3.2. Crop modelling for impact assessment

3.2.1. Agronomic simulation models

3.2.2. Regression models

3.3. Economic evaluation of adaptation measures

Cultivation Regression model developed R2 sF

4.2. The effect on crop yields of potential adaptation measures

The following adaptation measures were examined:

E. Georgopoulou et al. / Climate Risk Management 16 (2017) 164–182

Note: ‘Worst’ case figures are in parentheses.

4.3. Economic attractiveness of potential adaptation measures

All utilized cost figures are summarized In Table 6.

Adaptation measure Capital cost [1] Lifetime O&M cost/benefit [1]

4.4. Direct economic impacts of adaptation at regional and national level

5. Discussion and conclusions

E. Georgopoulou et al. / Climate Risk Management 16 (2017) 164–182

E. Georgopoulou et al. / Climate Risk Management 16 (2017) 164–182

(continued on next page)

E. Georgopoulou et al. / Climate Risk Management 16 (2017) 164–182

This research was partially supported by Piraeus Bank S.A.

Annex A. Effects on crop yields of potential adaptation measures

You might also like