Deciding which climate adaptation measures should be prioritised

Wednesday, 2 September 2026

Transport agencies are increasingly focused on protecting their assets and services from climate change while managing the rising costs of adaptation and recovery. A new Austroads methodology provides a practical and consistent way to compare possible adaptation measures and decide which should be prioritised.

Although agencies generally understand the climate-related risks affecting their networks, determining the most appropriate response can be difficult. Future climate conditions are uncertain, risks may be interconnected, and the wider costs and benefits of adaptation can be challenging to capture in traditional business cases.

The Adaptation Action Prioritisation Methodology supports early decision-making by guiding practitioners through the identification, assessment and prioritisation of possible measures. It helps agencies shortlist options for further analysis, preliminary design or business case development.

Austroads Environment and Sustainability Program Manager Joanne Vanselow said the methodology addressed the important step between understanding climate risk and deciding how to respond.

"Agencies may have several possible ways to reduce a climate risk, but each option will perform differently depending on the asset, location and circumstances.

“Practitioners need to consider not only whether a measure will reduce risk, but also whether it can be implemented, adapted over time and justified as an investment."

The methodology applies multi-criteria analysis to assess options against effectiveness, flexibility and adaptability, whole-of-life cost, feasibility of implementation, social and economic co-benefits, and environmental impacts. It brings qualitative and quantitative evidence together so that important benefits are not excluded simply because they cannot readily be expressed in monetary terms.

Organisations can weight the criteria according to their strategic, operational and regulatory requirements. Practitioners then examine the results and trade-offs, applying professional judgement and documenting the evidence and assumptions supporting their decisions.

"Climate adaptation is not a one-size-fits-all exercise," Joanne said.

"The methodology gives agencies a consistent basis for comparing options while recognising that decisions must reflect local risks, priorities and operating conditions. This provides a stronger foundation for selecting measures that warrant further investigation."

The methodology is accompanied by a Library of Adaptation Actions containing more than 60 good-practice measures for road-related infrastructure. It helps practitioners identify possible responses and includes information on their application, potential barriers, maturity and available case studies.

Researched parameter values provide indicative information that can help translate selected costs and impacts into economic terms where detailed data is limited. These values are a starting point and should be checked against local conditions, asset-specific information and jurisdictional requirements.

The methodology supports preliminary assessment and prioritisation. It does not replace professional judgement, detailed technical studies, jurisdictional business case requirements or formal investment approval processes.

Agencies are encouraged to test the methodology within their investment planning, options analysis and pre-business case processes. Austroads also recommends expanding the Library of Adaptation Actions with implementation experience and improving the evidence available on adaptation costs, avoided damage, service impacts and recovery outcomes.

Download Identifying and Prioritising Climate Adaptation Actions for Transport Assets.