Adaptation and Mitigation in Urban Areas

8/8/2019 Adaptation and Mitigation in Urban Areas

1/7

Adaptation and mitigation in urban areas: synergiesand conflicts

D. McEvoy MSc, PhD, S. Lindley MSc, PhD and J. Handley OBE, MSc, PhD

Following the introduction of the national Climate Change

Programme, initiatives that seek to mitigate greenhouse

gas (GHG) emissions are now well established in the UK.

However, there is increasing recognition that adaptation

to some level of climate change will be necessary, even if areduction in emissions is successful. This is inevitable as

much of the predicted climate changes over the next

3040 years have already been predetermined by past and

present emissions of GHGs. Change is likely to be

significant. Understanding what the risks are likely to be

and how best to adapt to them is therefore central to any

mature climate change strategy. However, the inevitable

linkages between adaptation and mitigation measures

represent a particular challenge. Focusing on the

consequences of climate change for the urban

environment (where most of the population is

concentrated and where its impact is likely to be mostkeenly felt), this paper suggests preferred adaptation

options and provides an evaluation of how these may act to

reinforce or hamper mitigation efforts. For example,

moves towards urban densification may contribute to the

reduction of energy use, yet will have negative implications

for adaptation. Having a better understanding of the

synergies, conflicts and trade-offs between mitigation and

adaptation measures would make a valuable contribution

to a more integrated climate policy and the effective

climate-proofing of our towns and cities.

1. INTRODUCTION

Mainstream concern about global warming and the influence of

human activity on this phenomenon can be traced back to the

1980s and is emphasised by the creation of the

InterGovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an

international attempt to consolidate the scientific community.

The increasingly consensual view of the IPCC is that human

activities are making a discernible contribution to changes in our

climate. Initial responses concentrated on reducing the impacts

of future climate change through mitigationthe reduction of

greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from anthropogenic sources.

Although mitigation continues to be the prime focus for policymakers (for example, the Kyoto Protocol came into force in

2005), the mid to late 1990s witnessed a shift in emphasis, with

the international scientific community becoming increasingly

concerned about the risks associated with a changing climate and

the need for nations and communities to adapt. For example, in a

special report in 1997,1 the IPCC provided a regional assessment

of likely vulnerability to the impacts of climate change,

examining the degree to which human conditions and the naturalenvironment were vulnerable to potential change. Focusing on

ecosystems, hydrology and water resources, food and fibre

production, coastal systems, human settlements and human

health, analyses were conducted in ten continental or sub-

continental scale regions. The results revealed a wide variation in

the vulnerability of different populations and environmental

systems, with Europe likely to feel the worst effects, primarily in

water-dependent activities such as agriculture. The report also

raised concerns in relation to temperature increases and extreme

events and suggested that additional analysis of current

vulnerability to todays climate fluctuations and existing coping

mechanisms is needed and will offer lessons for the design ofeffective options for adapting to potential future changes in

climate.1 The core components of the climate change policy

agenda are highlighted in Fig. 1.2 Summarising, the mitigation of

emissions is an anthropogenic intervention to reduce the sources

and enhance the sinks of GHGs; adaptation is the adjustment in

natural or human systems to actual or expected climatic stimuli

Climate change

(including variability)

Exposure

Initial impact oreffects

Autonomousadaptation

Residual or netimpacts

Impacts

Vulnerabilities

Policy

responses

Planned adaptation

to the impacts and

vulnerabilities

Mitigation ofclimate change

via GHG sourcesand sinks

Humaninterference

Fig. 1. The climate change agenda2

Municipal Engineer 159 Issue ME4 Adaptation and mitigation in urban areas: synergies and conflicts McEvoy et al. 185

Darryn McEvoyInternational Centre for Integrated

Assessment and Sustainable

Development (ICIS), University of

Maastricht, the Netherlands

Sarah LindleyCentre for Urban & Regional

Ecology (CURE), University

of Manchester, UK

John HandleyCentre for Urban & Regional

Ecology (CURE), University

of Manchester, UK

Proceedings of the Institution of

Civil EngineersMunicipal Engineer 159December 2006 Issue ME4

Pages 185191

Paper 100005Received 06/07/2006

Accepted 05/09/2006

Keywords:environment/social impact/

town & city planning


2/7

or their effects, which moderates harm or exploits beneficial

opportunities.3

Traditionally, climate change action has tended to be

dichotomised between the two camps of mitigation and

adaptation, with policy and research communities treating the

two categories of response separately. In policy terms, the first

UK climate change programme was launched in 1994 and revised

in 2000. The revised programme placed a strong emphasis on

stimulating a transformation towards a low carbon economy.4

As a consequence, the reduction of GHG emissions was the

primary focus of policy setting in the UK, with little consideration

of adaptation objectives and minimal integration of specific

issues and possible solutions. Initiatives that seek to mitigate

GHG emissions are now fairly well established in the UK (for

instance, the Energy Savings Trust and the Carbon Trust were set

up by the UK Government to help improve residential and

business energy efficiency, as well as to promote the development

of alternative technologies). Interestingly, the traditional

separation of the mitigation and adaptation agendas is further

illustrated by the creation of the UK Climate Impacts Programme

(UKCIP) in 1997an organisation quite distinct from thosedealing with mitigation measures. The UKCIP remit, as dictated

by national Government, is to increase our understanding of the

impacts of climate change and provide guidance on how best to

respond. Built up over the past ten years, UKCIP now acts as a

gatekeeper to a substantial knowledge base on impacts and

adaptation in the UK.

Attempts to link the climate change mitigation and air pollution

agendas are even more embryonic.5,6 The need to take a more

holistic view of the full range of impacts of different sectors is

recognised but the difficulties in coordinating associated action

are further reinforced by the involvement of a range of different

bodies. In terms of air quality management, for example, the

division at national Government level is often also mirrored at

the local scale, providing a considerable barrier to truly holistic

action at the scale of towns and cities.

However, more recently the policy agenda has begun to recognise

that even with mitigation efforts some degree of climate

change is inevitable, with the change becoming much more

significant in the second half of this century.7 As such it is now

recognised that we need to be planning for adaptation, as well as

continuing mitigation efforts. This is reflected in the 2006 UK

Climate Change Programme, which includes a dedicated chapter

on adaptation for the first time,8 as well as highlighting theurban-based research being carried out as part of the Building

Knowledge for a Changing Climate (BKCC) research programme.9

Elsewhere, the Nottingham Declaration on Climate Change,

originally set up to promote mitigation activity, was relaunched

in 2005 and now adopts a broader approach to the risks

associated with climate change. At the supra-national scale,

it is intended that adaptation will also feature more strongly

in the second European Climate Change Programme (currently

under consultation), and in research terms both mitigation and

adaptation (and their trade-offs) are being considered as part of

the ADAM project (http://www.adamproject.eu).

Moves towards considering both types of response as part of

a more coherent programme in both the UK and the EU represent

an explicit acknowledgement by decision makers that both

mitigation and adaptation are important in reducing the risks

associated with climate changethat is, both limiting the adverse

effects of change and adapting to what is unavoidable. For

instance, the introduction to the UK programme states that in

order to cope with the impacts of climate change we need to

adaptthis action is complementary to our efforts to reduce

emissions to avoid dangerous levels of climate change.8 This

also suggests that the adaptation agenda is considered to have

matured enough for linkages to be made explicit.

Academic analysis has suggested that interest in a single climate

policy option arises from the appeal of creating winwin

solutions.10 However, others argue that mitigation and

adaptation are, in effect, substitutes for each other and in some

cases may actually compete for resources.11 Understanding the

linkages, synergies and conflicts between adaptation and

mitigation measures therefore represents a considerable

challenge for decision makers. It is entirely plausible that

(particularly within the built environment) the results of

improving our understanding may actually reveal that, despite

their attractiveness, truly winwin solutions may be few and far

between, with trade-offs between conflicting goals morecommonplace. The following section provides an overview of

some of the key interactions, synergies and differences between

the two different approaches. Section 3 analyses in further detail

what mitigation and adaptation actually mean in the context of

the urban environment.

2. INTERACTIONS, SYNERGIES AND DIFFERENCES

BETWEEN MITIGATION AND ADAPTATION

The contemporary notion of climate change implies something

that is anthropogenically induced and occurring over a relatively

short timescale. Since this speed of change is one of the reasons it

presents a particular challenge, even a slowing of the rate of

climate change could prove to be of substantial benefit to both

human and wildlife communities. For humankind, it would

influence the urgency and magnitude of adaptation necessary,

and for the natural world around us it would improve the

prospects for animals and plants to adapt to new climate

conditions.12 As such, there is obvious interdependence between

mitigation and adaptation in that they are both deliberate human

responses aimed at reducing the overall risks associated with

climate changemitigation seeks to reduce the drivers of

climate-related hazards, while adaptation targets vulnerability

and exposure to these hazards. In terms of the built environment

(the people, buildings and other infrastructure associated withtowns and cities) this includes the sort of measures shown in

Table 1.13 However, the design of integrated, and effective,

climate policy is a significant challenge as long time frames,

scientific uncertainty about impacts and about social and

economic futures all conspire to test the abilities of existing

decision-making processes.14

A further common link between the two approaches is the

capacity of a system to respond. For example, adaptive capacity

can be simply defined as the ability of a system to adjust to

climate change; it is thought to be determined by a range of

factors including technological options, economic resources,human and social capital, and governance.11 Mitigation has

similar determinantsin particular the availability and

penetration of new technology (although technological solutions

186 Municipal Engineer 159 Issue ME4 Adaptation and mitigation in urban areas: synergies and conflicts McEvoy et al.


3/7

have a role to play in both mitigation and adaptation, it should be

recognised that soft engineering has a particularly important

role in adapting cities to climate change (see Table 1)) and the

willingness and capacity of society to change (information and

awareness-raising can be useful tools to stimulate positive

change and this has been recognised with the funding of a UK

climate change communications initiative that aims to inspire

collective climate action).

In the built environment other linkages exist. For example, both

mitigation and adaptation are driven (and influenced) by

development pressures. Urban areas are centres of economicactivity, implying a concentration of high-energy intensity, and

therefore a mitigation response is needed to reduce energy flows

and the ecological footprint of our towns and cities.15 This

ecological footprint inevitably includes aspects of a climate

footprint associated with GHG emissions and the loss of carbon

sinks through land cover change.16,17 On the other hand,

adapting our cities to climate change is equally important if we

are to ensure resilience to climate-related hazards such as

flooding, heat stress and geohazards.13,18,19 (The research project

Adaptation Strategies for Climate Change in the Urban

Environment (ASCCUE), which is part of the wider BKCC research

programme, examines adaptation response through strategicplanning and urban design (http://www.sed.manchester.ac.uk/

research/cure/projects/current/asccue.htm).) It is also important

that any response to climate change, whether mitigation or

adaptation, is embedded within the wider context of sustainable

development, contributing to a combination of economic,

environmental and social wellbeing, as well as associated

environmental protection and control in specific sectors.

Although outside the scope of this paper, a move towards more

joined-up thinking (in relation to the integration of climate

change and sustainable development approaches, concepts and

language) poses a significant challenge.

Although there are discernible synergies between the two

responses, the challenge is that mitigation and adaptation are

very different in what they mean and how they work.20 First,

there is an obvious mismatch in terms of scale, both spatially and

temporally. Mitigation efforts are typically driven by national

initiatives operating within the context of international

obligations (the slogan Think Global, Act Local picks up on this),

whereas adaptation to climate change and variability tends to be

much more local in nature, often in the realm of local/regional

economies and land managers.21 As well as the spatial element,

there are also differences in the timing of effects. As GHGs

have long residence periods in the atmosphere, the results of

mitigation action will only be seen in the longer term.

Adaptation, on the other hand, has a stronger element of

immediacy.

This disconnection in space and time can make it difficult for

people to link the consequences of their activity with

long-term environmental consequences. It also raises the

question of environmental equitythat is, who are the likely

beneficiaries of the different types of response? Mitigation,

being an action targeted at the longer term, attaches value to

the interests of future generations and as such can be

considered an altruistic response by society. That said, greater

integration with air pollution control and management might

help overcome some of these issues given the relatively clear

links in time and space between air pollutant emissions andpoor air quality. Conversely, the impacts of climate change are

felt more immediately by society (e.g. weather extremes

causing flooding or heat waves, such as the 2003 event that

killed tens of thousands of people across Europe22) and

adaptation is typically viewed as everyday self-interest. In the

case of longer-term engineering (or re-engineering) of the built

environment this distinction may not be quite as clear, but it is

nevertheless more tangible and demonstrable than may be the

case for purely mitigation measures.

This inevitably leads to a consideration of trade-offs, in particular

who pays and who benefits

20

and whether there is a willingnessto invest if the benefits of climate change response are perceived

to be private.14 It is also important to note discrepancies in that

those responsible for the majority of emissions (i.e. developed

Possible climate impacts Impact on built environment Example adaptation measures

Example links to mitigation (reducing theclimate footprint of adaptationmeasures)

Drier summers withreduced soil moisturecontent and wetterwinters

Subsidence, flooding Reduce exposure of vulnerableplaces by hard and softengineeringReduce vulnerability of buildingmaterialsAvoid at risk locations

Consider whole life cycle of emissions ofhard and soft engineering projects,including air pollution emissions6

Consideration of need to travel whensiting new development

A larger proportion ofextremely hot v. extremelycold days

Reduced heating demand offsetby increased cooling demands

Provide enhanced coolingwithout loss of efficiency ofwinter heating systems

Heating and cooling to rely on renewablesources

Adaptation to target vulnerableelements at risk

Consideration of negative impacts of air-conditioning

Warmer and driersummers

Greater requirement foroutdoor living and access tourban open space

Reduce exposure and providecooling through green and blueinfrastructure

Consider whole lifecycle of emissionsUse trees as additional carbon sinks

More extreme events Damage to building fabric Greater resilience of buildingsand infrastructureUse of different materials

Decentralised energy infrastructureConsideration of the embodied energyof materials used

More frequent droughts Water shortages Storage and recycling of water Possible implications for biofuels, etc.

Table 1. A summary of some key climate change impacts and mitigation/adaptation responses13



4/7

countries) also have the highest adaptive capacity, while the

poorest countries, producing the lowest emissions, are most

vulnerable to the impacts of a changing climate and this has an

influence on the urgency that is attached to any mitigation

response. This also holds true within national territories, with

uninsured, unaware and relatively immobile populations living

in poorer-quality accommodation often being hardest hit. In

reality, those most vulnerable to climate change are those already

at a socio-economic disadvantage in society.

Another important difference between the approaches relates to

those involved. Not only are decisions taken in different policy

domains, but different stakeholder communities are also

involved. Mitigation policy is primarily focused on

decarbonisation and involves interaction with the large

emitting sectors such as energy and transport. The limited

number of key personnel and their experience of dealing with

long-term investment decisions mean that the mitigation agenda

is more sharply defined. In contrast, those involved in the

adaptation agenda come from a wide variety of sectors that are

sensitive to the impacts of climate change and operate at a range

of spatial scales from national planning authorities down toindividual building owners. As a result, the implementation of

adaptation measures is likely to encounter greater institutional

complexity.10

3. MITIGATION AND ADAPTATION IN THE BUILT

ENVIRONMENT

When concentrating on the consequences of climate change for

our towns and cities, it is useful to clarify what each response

entails in relation to the built environment. For instance,

mitigation (in terms of decarbonisation) relies on two main

responses: reducing the amount of energy required by end-users

(e.g. by improving energy efficiency) and reducing the carbon

intensity of the energy actually supplied (e.g. by increased use of

alternative fuels, particularly renewables). For adaptation of the

built environment, the main climate-related hazards of concern

in the UK (as indicated in Table 1) are increased temperatures,

changing precipitation patterns (more rainfall in winter; less in

summer) and an increase in the frequency of extreme events, with

the possibility of more storm events. Adaptation will thus be

primarily concerned with changes in processes, practices, or

structures to moderate damage or realise opportunities, as well as

adjustments to reduce the vulnerability of communities, regions

or activities.23

In terms of mitigation policymaking, improving energy efficiency

is typically targeted at end-use residential, commercial, industrial

and transport sectors. However, a more comprehensive scientific

analysis of the urban environment emphasises the city as a

complex system that is subject to continuous processes of

development and change, with energy, natural resources and

resultant waste treated as either flows or chains.15,24,25 The

metabolism of the urban system and its resultant emissions is

strongly influenced by the urban formthat is, its spatial

organisation.26 The greater the density of development, the less

the need for travel and the greater the viability of large-scale

efficiency initiatives such as community heating systems.Consequently, the advocacy of high-density mixed-use

settlement (commonly known as the compact city) has

increasingly been translated into land-use policy in England and

the rest of Europe.27 In the UK the promotion of higher-density

developments, includingthe useof brownfieldsites, wasone of the

keythemes of theinfluential Lord Rogersreport Towards an Urban

Renaissancepublished in 1999.28 However, although

consolidation is central to the urban renaissance agenda and can

act to reduce energy demand and transport emissions, it can also

be in sharp conflict with adaptation measures as well as wider

sustainable development objectives (particularly social

dimensions, e.g. ensuring access to natural greenspace for all

urban dwellers). As such, strategic planning has a pivotal role to

play in ensuring that any new development, restructuring or

retrofitting of our towns andcities is adequately climate-proofed

and contributes to truly sustainable development.19

Increasing the built mass of urban areas conflicts with the

adaptation agenda in two main ways: it not only acts to intensify

the urban heat island effect,29,30 but densification and the issue of

urban creep can also pose problems for urban drainage.31

Adapting our cities to a future climate would therefore benefit

from greater consideration of ecological principles, in particular

the use of green and blue spaces to produce cooling, provide

storage and enable infiltration.19,32,33

From recent experience,however, it is evident that greenspace is often the loser in urban

development processes, and it is clear that a more balanced

approach to densification is neededfor example, some land

classified as brownfield may actually have useful multi-

functional attributes.32 Furthermore, cities poorly designed for

the predicted hotter summers of the future are likely to become

uncomfortably hot, leading to increased use of air-conditioning

and a consequent reinforcement of climate change.34 There may

also be indirect effects as a result of people escaping

uncomfortable city conditions by travelling to more comfortable

locations, inevitably leading to increased car emissions.

The interactions between climate-related hazards and the

elements at risk (exposure units/receptors) in our towns and cities

are complex and subject to numerous and complicated feedback

processes.35 This is also true for interactions between different

exposure units (see Fig. 2). Although not the primary driver,

changes to our climate will interact with urbanisation processes

(such as densification) to amplify the impact on the built

environment; for instance riverine flooding may combine with

flooding from overwhelmed storm drains and sewers to heighten

the seriousness of urban flooding.36 In this regard, greenspace

(with the incorporation of sustainable urban drainage

measures37,38) has an important role to play. Ideally, new

development should consider the storage and infiltration ofrainwater, with particular emphasis on retaining the most

permeable areas.33 In reality, issues such as the paving over of

gardens in suburban areas are emerging problems that are

contributing to a greater risk from flood events in the future.19,39

As well as addressing the form of urban areas, adaptation

measures are also applicable at other spatial scales, including

neighbourhood and even individual building scales (see Fig. 3).

A range of climate-related factors can compromise the integrity

of buildings (and other infrastructure) in the UK, with the most

critical identified as flooding, wind and driving rain, subsidence

and soil movement.

29

Adapting to these potential hazards willinvolve consideration of the location and layout of development,

landscape architecture, building design, appropriate use of

materials and provision of outdoor spaces.18,40



5/7

The location and layout of a new development is particularly

important in minimising flood risk, with the vulnerability of

a building to flooding partly a function of its design and

the materials used, as well as being crucially dependent on theheight of the floodwater in relation to the floor level of the

structure.41 The layout of a development can also be an

important influence in reducing the urban heat island effect.40

Adaptation of the built environment should ideally seek to

simultaneously address the resilience of the building fabric to a

changing climate, with the incorporation of energy-saving

measures (and renewable technologies) where possible. Explicit

consideration of where winwin (or at least low-regret)

solutions exist, combined with the identification of examples

of maladaptation, would be of considerable benefit to best

practice guidelines. This knowledge could then be used to

improve the sustainability of our buildings and otherinfrastructure through legislation and guidance, while

simultaneously contributing to the mitigation agenda. Regional

spatial strategies, local development frameworks, building

regulations and the code for

sustainable homes are all

potential policy tools for

achieving this.

Reducing the carbon intensity

of energy supply is the second

important strand of the

mitigation armoury.

Traditionally, the energy

infrastructure in the UK has

been a centralised system with

large power stations

generating electricity that is

distributed to end-users

through a national grid. These

power stations, with their

requirement for large amounts

of water for cooling purposes, are often located near water

sources and as such are at risk from sea level rise and flooding

under changing climatic conditions. In urban areas and their

hinterlands, power lines may also be increasingly at risk fromother climate change impacts such as storms and geohazards

that is, where this infrastructure is exposed to hazards beyond the

severity anticipated by the initial design capacities. A further

threat relates to anticipated future loadings that inevitably link

not only to climatic change but also to socio-economic change

(GENESIS is another BKCC research project, which is analysing

the impact of climate change on the electricity supply industry

(http://esi.eerc.bris.ac.uk/)). This applies equally to other urban

infrastructure, for example the transport network.

Conversely, the promotion of renewables tends to favour

decentralisation of energy supply and there is obvious resonance

between this form of mitigation and adapting to climate change

(particularly in relation to security of supply issues). That said,

although there is a policy goal to increase the percentage of

renewable supply, it is not clear how the different technologies

will perform under changed conditions. For instance, increased

storminess may have operational implications for technologies

such as wind turbines. Furthermore, biomass is currently being

promoted as an alternative fuel source within the UK, but it is

unclear whether this will remain a viable option in times of water

scarcity and whether this activity is associated with land-use

change and emissions characteristics that may have negative

impacts in other areas. The operation and effectiveness of

renewable options under changed climatic conditions and theirpossible conflicts with adaptation (for instance, in terms of land

use) are topics that are currently under-researched.

4. CONCLUSIONS

Although climate change may bring some opportunities to urban

areas in the UK, this paper has illustrated that the challenges are

likely to be considerable. Heat extremes, geohazards, storms, and

coastal and riverine flooding are four key issues likely to be faced

in the future. Due to the complexity of the climate change issue, it

has been argued that planned responses to these hazards need to

be holistic and act at a variety of spatial scales. Of particularimportance is strategic urban planning, which has a critical role

to play in climate-proofing our towns and cities, primarily

through guiding development to suitable locations and ensuring

Regional level:

Levels of study

socio-economic trends, etc.

Conurbation level:

open space system:

compostion and spatial pattern

Neighbourhood level:

interaction of exposure units

openbuilthumanMainlevelsofinvestig

ation

Site level:

open space mechanics:

structural and functional

attributes

?

?

Fig. 3. Levels of investigation: adaptation in the urbanenvironment (from the ASCCUE project)

Long spell of

hot summer

weather

Greenspace

condition

Soil moisture

deficit

develops

Air

quality

Heat island

intensifies

Human

comfort

Soil

shrinkage

Shading and

evaporative

cooling

Building

integrity

Evapo-

transpiration

by greenspace

+

+

++

+

+ +

Fig. 2. Conceptual model demonstrating possible interactions between urban greenspace, buildingintegrity and human comfort35



6/7

that urban drainage and heat issues are adequately addressed. In

particular, soft engineering solutions such as the promotion of

green and blue infrastructure are considered valuable responses,

helping to moderate the impacts of climate change by cooling

urban areas as well as providing storage and infiltration capacity.

On the face of it, the most notable winwin example is that of

urban forestry. Not only do trees play an important adaptation

role but they also act as sequesters of carbon. However, even this

is not a straightforward solution, since some species of trees are

actually associated with the emissions of ozone precursors.6

Further research is therefore required to understand the full

implications of any planned developments and to ensure that any

remaining negative consequences are minimised. There is also

the potential to develop regional parks near to urban areas. These

would not only provide an important adaptation alternative for

urban inhabitants escaping the heat of our cities, but would also

be capable of hiding substantial recreational activity and

reducing visitor demand on more vulnerable landscapes.21

For many high-density towns and cities in the UK it is likely that

retrofitting and other innovative initiatives (such as the use ofgreen roofs that can reduce energy requirements as well as

performing adaptation functions) may be required. However,

there are also significant opportunities for the uptake of

adaptation measures associated with major programmes of urban

restructuring and regeneration. It is vital that these new

developments adopt climate conscious planning and design

criteria if problems are to be avoided in future years. At this

strategic level, it is argued that the relationship between

adaptation and mitigation is predominantly one of trade-offs. As

discussed previously, higher densities favour mitigation by

reducing the need to travel and contributing to improvements in

energy efficiency. However, it is important that a balance is

struck between these mitigation attributes and the need to retain

and promote land uses that moderate adverse climate change

impacts.

Evidence indicates that climate change risks will be location-

specific and dependent on the type of hazard faced. For

instance, research has shown that the type and severity of

impact on the urban environment varies according to

neighbourhood type, for example city centre, restructuring,

densifying suburbs, new build.19 As such, adaptation strategies

will need to be evidence-based where possible, and it is at this

local scale where the greatest synergies between mitigation and

adaptation exist. The interaction is most obvious in terms ofurban design. Building height, layout and spacing, building

material and albedo, shading, ventilation and air-conditioning

all influence energy requirements (and hence emissions). These

factors are also important considerations for the adaptation

agenda, and synergies should be exploited wherever possible.

In addition, less traffic and low-energy buildings will also help

to reduce waste heat from anthropogenic sources within the

urban environment, thus helping to minimise the effect of the

urban heat island.

This paper has scoped out the synergies and conflicts that exist

between mitigation and adaptation agendas, with more detailedanalysis of the implications for the built environment. Although

this is a research area very much in its infancy, this knowledge is

important for those responsible for the planning, design and

maintenance of our towns and cities. Improving our

understanding of this area may actually reveal that truly

winwin solutions are rare and trade-offs between conflicting

goals are more commonplace (particularly at the conurbation

scale). Place-based integrated assessments appear to hold

greatest potential for exploiting any synergies that do exist, with

an effective planning system and innovative urban design crucial

for combining mitigation and adaptation measures and hence

promoting more effective climate-proofing of the urbanenvironment.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Reference to adaptation in the urban environment has been

drawn from research conducted for the ASCCUE project, funded

by EPSRC/UKCIP (proposal number GR/S19233/01).

REFERENCES

1. INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE. The Regional

Impacts of Climate Change: An Assessment of Vulnerability.

IPCC, Geneva, 1997.2. SMIT B., BURTON I., KLEIN R. J. T. and STREET R. The science of

adaptation: a framework for assessment. Mitigation &

Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 1999, 4, 199213.

3. INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE. Climate Change

2001: Mitigation. IPCC, Geneva, 2001.

4. DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS. The

UK Climate Change Programme. DETR, London, 2000.

5. EUROPEAN ENVIRONMENT AGENCY. Air Pollution and Climate

Change Policies in Europe: Exploring Linkages and the Added

Value of an Integrated Approach. EEA, Copenhagen, 2004,

Technical Report 5/2004.

6. AIR QUALITY EXPERT GROUP. Air Quality and Climate Change: AUK Perspective. Defra, London, 2005, Consultation draft.

7. HULME M., JENKINS G. J., LU X., TURNPENNY J. R., MITCHELL T. D.,

JONES R. G., LOWE J., MURPHY J. M., HASSELL D., BOORMAN P.,

MCDONALD R. and HILL S. Climate Change Scenarios for the

21st Century for the UK (UKCIP02). UKCIP, Oxford, 2002,

Technical report.

8. DEPARTMENT FOR ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS. The UK

Climate Change Programme 2006. Defra, London, 2006.

9. ENGINEERING AND PHYSICAL SCIENCES RESEARCH COUNCIL/UK CLIMATE

IMPACTS PROGRAMME. Building Knowledge for a Changing

Climate: The Impacts of Climate Change on the Built

Environment. UKCIP, Oxford, 2003.10. KLEIN R.J.T.,SCHIPPER E. L. and DESSAI S. Integrating Mitigation

and Adaptation into Climate and Development Policy: Three

Research Questions. Tyndall Centre for Climate Change

Research, Norwich, 2003, Working paper 40.

11. TOL R. S. J. Adaptation and mitigation: trade offs in substance

and methods. Environmental Science and Policy, 2005, 8,

No. 6, 572578.

12. ROYAL COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION. EnergyThe

Changing Climate. RCEP, London, 2000, Report 22.

13. OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER. The Planning Response to

Climate Change: Advice on Better Practice. ODPM, London,

2004.

14. TOMPKINS E. L. and ADGER W. N. Defining a response capacity

for climate change. Environmental Science and Policy, 2005,

8, No. 6, 562571.



7/7

15. MCEVOY D., GIBBS D. C. and LONGHURST J. W. S. City-regions:

development of sustainable energy supply systems.

International Journal of Energy Research, 2000, 24, No. 3,

215237.

16. CHAMBERS N., SIMMONS C. and WACKERNAGEL M. Sharing Natures

Interest: Ecological Footprints as an Indicator for

Sustainability. Earthscan Publications, London, 2000.

17. BARRETT J. and SCOTT A. An Ecological Footprint of Liverpool:

Developing Sustainable Scenarios. Stockholm Environment

Institute, York, 2001.

18. THREE REGIONS CLIMATE CHANGE GROUP. Adapting to Climate

Change: A Checklist for Development. Greater London

Authority, London, 2005.

19. MCEVOY D. and LINDLEY S. Adaptive Management and Climate

Conscious Design of Urban Neighbourhoods. CURE,

Manchester, 2006, Workshop Report for the ASCCUE project.

20. WILBANKS T. J. Issues in developing a capacity for integrated

analysis of mitigation and adaptation. Environmental

Science and Policy, 2005, 8, No. 6, 541547.

21. MCEVOY D., HANDLEY J. F., CAVAN G., AYLEN J., LINDLEY S.,

MCMORROW J. and GLYNN S. Climate Change and the Visitor

Economy: Challenges and Opportunities for EnglandsNorthwest. Sustainability Northwest, Manchester and UKCIP,

Oxford, 2006.

22. LARSEN J. Record Heat Wave in Europe Takes 35 000 Lives .

Earth Policy Institute, Washington, DC, 2003.

23. BURTON I., CHALLENGER B., HUQ S., KLEIN R. J. T., YOHE G., ADGER

N., DOWNING T., HARVEY E., KANE S., PARRY M., SKINNER M., SMITH

J. and WANDEL J. Adaptation to climate change in the context

of sustainable development & equity. In Climate Change:

Impacts, Adaptation & Vulnerability, Contribution of

Working Group II to the 3rd Assessment Report of IPCC

(MCCARTHY J. J., CANZIANI O. F., LEARY N. A., DOKKEN D. J. and

WHITE K. S. (eds)), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,

2001, pp. 877912.

24. FISCHER-KOWALSKI M. and HUTTLER W. Societys metabolism

the state of the art. The intellectual history of materials flow

analysis, Part II (19701998). Journal of Industrial Ecology,

1999, 2, No. 4, 107137.

25. BULKELEY H. and BETSILL M. Cities and Climate Change.

Routledge, London, 2002.

26. CAPELLO R. and CAMAGNI R. Beyond optimal city size: an

evaluation of alternative urban growth patterns. Urban

Studies, 2000, 37, No. 9, 14791496.

27. WILLIAMS K. Urban intensification policies in England:

problems and contradictions. Land Use Policy, 1999, 16,

No. 3, 167178.

28. DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS.

Towards an Urban Renaissance. DETR, London, 1999.

29. GRAVES H. M. and PHILLIPSON M. C. Potential Implications of

Climate Change in the Built Environment. BRE, East Kilbride,

2000.

30. WILBY R. L. Past and projected trends in Londons urban heat

island. Weather, 2003, 58, No. 7, 251260.

31. DUCKWORTH C. Assessment of Urban Creep Rates for House

Types in Keighley and the Capacity for Future Urban Creep .

MA thesis, University of Manchester, 2005.

32. WHITFORD V., ENNOS A. R. and HANDLEY J. F. City form and

natural processindicators for the ecological performance of

urban areas and their application to Merseyside, UK.

Landscape and Urban Planning, 2001, 57, No. 2, 91103.

33. GILL S., HANDLEY J., ENNOS R. and PAULEIT S. Adapting cities for

climate change: the role of the green infrastructure. Built

Environment, in press.

34. HACKER J. N., BELCHER S. E. and CONNELL R. K. Beating the Heat:

Keeping UK Buildings Cool in a Warming Climate. UKCIP,

Oxford, 2005, Briefing Report.

35. GILL S., PAULEIT S., ENNOS R., LINDLEY S., HANDLEY J., GWILLIAM J.

and UEBERJAHN-TRITTAA. Literature Review: Impacts of Climate

Change on Urban Environments, 2004. See http://www.sed.

manchester.ac.uk/research/cure/downloads/

asccue_litreview.pdf for further details.

36. ASHLEY R., BLANKSBY J., JACK L., FEWTRELL L., CASHMAN A.,

PACKMAN J., MAKSIMOVIC C. and POOLE T. Adapting urban

drainage to a changing climate. Built Environment,

in press.

37. WHITE I. and HOWE J. Unpacking the barriers to sustainable

urban drainage use. Journal of Environmental Policy and

Planning, 2004, 7, No. 1, 2541.

38. DEPARTMENT FOR ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS. Making

Space for Water: Developing a New Government Strategy forFlood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management in England.

Defra, London, 2004.

39. GREATER LONDON AUTHORITY. Crazy Paving: The Environmental

Importance of Londons Front Gardens. GLA, London, 2005.

40. GRAVES H. M., WATKINS R., WESTBURYP. and LITTLEFAIR P. Cooling

Buildings in London: Overcoming the Heat Island. CRC,

London, 2001.

41. GWILLIAM J. A. and FEDESKI M. F. Urban sustainability in the

presence of flood and geological hazards: the development

of a GIS based urban scale vulnerability and risk

assessment methodology. Landscape and Urban Planning,

in press.

What do you think?To comment on this paper, please email up to 500 words to the editor at [email protected]

Proceedings journals rely entirely on contributions sent in by civil engineers and related professionals, academics and students. Papersshould be 20005000 words long, with adequate illustrations and references. Please visit www.thomastelford.com/journals for authorguidelines and further details.


Adaptation and Mitigation in Urban Areas

Documents

Transcript of Adaptation and Mitigation in Urban Areas