This paper sets out to explore to what extent integrating employment effects, equity, and risk aversion within cost–benefit analysis (CBA) affect the economic appraisal of a climate change adaptation project designed to protect against flood risk in a region of Bilbao (Basque Country, Spain). Four CBAs are conducted: (i) a standard CBA; (ii) a standard CBA considering equity; (iii) a standard CBA considering equity and employment; and (iv) a standard CBA considering equity, employment and risk aversion. All CBAs are conducted using a time frame of 2014–2080 and considering a 100-year return period under a middle of the road emission scenario (RCP4.5). A sensitivity analysis is also undertaken. Results suggest that the economic efficiency of the adaptation investment is contingent on what types of considerations are included within CBA. Integrating elements of employment, equity and risk aversion can strengthen or weaken the case for action (leading to higher or lower net-present values) and (depending on the discount rate chosen) may even be the deciding factor for determining whether a particular action should be carried out or not (whether the net-present value is positive or negative).

Under the heading of flexicurity, Danish labour market activation policies are receiving international attention because of their perceived ability both to curb unemployment and to boost employment. Indeed, the objectives, target groups and design of activation policy have undergone a remarkable transformation over the past fifteen years. From the initial curbing of unemployment among the insured unemployed through standard activation offers, the aim today is also to increase labour supply among non-economic active groups using individually tailored programmes. Danish activation policies thus embrace not only active labour market policies but also social and integration policies. Despite widespread popularity and belief in the positive effects of activation, little is actually known about its overall impact on the Danish economy.

This paper provides an input–output (I/O)-based economic impact analysis for organic apple production in Washington State. The intent is to compare the economic ‘ripple’ effect of organic production with conventional production. The analysis is presented in two scenarios: first we compare the economic impact of organic versus conventional apple production for a final demand increase of US$1 million as measured in sales. In the second analysis, the economic impacts of organic and conventional apple production are compared in terms of a given unit of land (405 ha of production). Both state-wide output (sales) and employment (jobs) impacts are estimated under each scenario. Results are presented in terms of direct, indirect, and induced economic impact. Organic apple production was more labor intensive than conventional production. While the organic apple sector used less intermediate inputs per unit of output than conventional production, it also produced higher returns to labor and capital. As a result, the indirect economic effect was lower for the organic sector than the conventional sector, but the induced economic effect was higher for organic. Given the organic price premium, the economic impact (direct, indirect and induced) was larger for organic apple production than conventional apple production.