Adaptation and mitigation represent global challenges for farmers. The OECD defines adaptation to climate change “[…] as an adjustment in ecological, social or economic systems in response to observed or expected changes in climatic stimuli and their effects and impacts, in order to alleviate adverse impacts of change or take advantage of new opportunities” [6]. Under this perspective the literature on the cost-effectiveness of CAMs for farmers contributes to the debate on reducing economic and environmental risks related to climate change. Although there is no unambiguous definition of adaptation in the literature, Bosello et al. [7] provide two main approaches to define and identify adaptation. The authors classify adaption into planned adaptation and autonomous adaptation. Planned adaptation is the measures to mitigate or neutralize negative impacts of climate change implemented by public or private bodies, while autonomous adaptation refers to the resilience of natural and socio-economic systems. In each case, adaptation has a cost to be compared with benefits, such as avoided damage, or capitalized benefits as a result of adopting and implementing adaptation measures. To this end, there is the need to assess costs and benefits of adaptations in agriculture to face climate risk, and to monitor the effectiveness of adaptation strategies and actions. However, quantifying costs and benefits may be a challenge. This is because of the uncertainty associated with climate change [8] complicating cost–benefit assessment relying on climate-change related models, data, and factors [9].

Some studies have focused on the impacts of climate change and the effects of climate risks on agriculture [10,11,12,13,14,15]. In the context of the CAP, as well as at farm level, the increase in extreme weather events has led to a strong adoption of tools to control different risks in agriculture [16]. Various classification criteria have been set to categorize risk in agriculture [17] and the negative events commonly associated with climate change, such as floods, drought, plant diseases, extreme weather events, soil erosion, and water eutrophication [18]. References [19,20] conclude that the increased frequency and intensity of extreme events can influence long-term yields, directly damaging crops at crucial developmental stages, and reducing the efficiency of farm inputs. According to some studies, there are barriers to the implementation of adaptation measures in agriculture [21,22] influenced by socio-economic factors such as age, education level, household size, household income, farm size, and agricultural experience [23,24,25,26,27]. These studies [28] demonstrate that the selection of adaptation strategies and their integration in farm management activities clashes with structural, contextual, and individual obstacles. According to [29] the impact of such events may largely vary according to local and context-specific conditions of production systems, for example, crop type characteristics, soil composition and structure, and hydrogeological profile. Some studies point out that farmers’ perceptions of adverse climate events may be influenced by the specific features of the farm and its pedoclimatic context, as well as by socio-economics aspects [30,31,32,33]. Consequently, because farmers have different experiences with extreme weather events, the perception of the need for adaptation and the selection of optimal strategies may vary. In contrast, some studies analyze the perception of the negative consequences of non-adaptation and its costs for the farm in the long-term [34,35]. According to [26] economic sustainability of the implementation measure is a critical requirement for its adoption.

From an economic perspective, a literature review showed how few studies address a cost–benefit assessment, which may also be due to the difficulty of quantifying them. Our goal is to contribute to the existing literature analyzing the economic convenience to implement CAMs in order to reduce climate risk damage. It is extremely clear and well-known that agriculture is exposed to numerous adverse climate events, not always controlled by farmers, that directly affect agricultural outcomes, such as yields, revenues, and incomes [36], thus making agriculture susceptible to climate change [37]. The agri-food sector is of fundamental importance in the achievement of environmental and climate objectives, particularly in terms of reducing greenhouse gas emissions (CO₂, CH₄, and N₂O) and combating environmental degradation. In the next decades the intensification of hard-to-predict extreme weather events will put pressure on the agricultural sector, impacting farmers’ incomes and farms’ survival. The EU Strategies “Farm to Fork” and “Biodiversity 2030” presented by the EU Commission could play an important role in combating climate change. During the second Farm to Fork Conference on 14 and 15 October 2021(https://ec.europa.eu/food/horizontal-topics/farm-fork-strategy/farm-fork-conference_en accessed on 29 October 2022), the Commission reaffirmed this role, emphasizing that sustainable food production and consumption contribute to reducing the effects of climate change on production. It is important that consumers have clear information about nutritional characteristics, the health and safety of food [38], its origin and sustainability of cultivation systems, production, processing, and marketing that generate support to the local economy [39] and contribute to the reduction of waste [40]. This information could “win” over the skepticism of consumers and convince them to choose sustainable products, which have a “premium price” in good taste and quality important for health and the environment [41]. The response of agri-food companies towards processes and productions with low environmental impact is witnessed by an increasing number of certifications: 169 agricultural companies and 897 companies in the food industry comply with UNI EN ISO 14001—Environmental Management Systems (Accredia database, https://services.accredia.it/ppsearch/accredia_companymask_r mote.jsp?ID_LINK=1739&area=310, accessed on November 10, 2022). Moreover, for several years, there has been attention on a short supply chain on the part of various organizations (trade, producers, consumers) and national and regional public policies [42]; in particular, more than 20% of farms practice direct sales (ISTAT data). This spreads awareness of farmers and consumers on environmental issues related to trends in global climate change and their growing impact on agricultural productivity.