Proceedings of the Institution of

Civil Engineers
Municipal Engineer 159
December 2006 Issue ME4
Pages 185–191

Paper 100005
Received 06/07/2006
Accepted 05/09/2006

Keywords: Darryn McEvoy Sarah Lindley John Handley

environment/social impact/ International Centre for Integrated Centre for Urban & Regional Centre for Urban & Regional
town & city planning Assessment and Sustainable Ecology (CURE), University Ecology (CURE), University
Development (ICIS), University of of Manchester, UK of Manchester, UK
Maastricht, the Netherlands

Adaptation and mitigation in urban areas: synergies

and 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 a
reduction in emissions is successful. This is inevitable as
much of the predicted climate changes over the next
30–40 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 most
keenly 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.
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 natural
environment 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 today’s climate fluctuations and existing coping
mechanisms is needed and will offer lessons for the design of
effective 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
Human Climate change
interference (including variability)

1. INTRODUCTION
Exposure
Mainstream concern about global warming and the influence of
human activity on this phenomenon can be traced back to the
Mitigation of Initial impact or
Vulnerabilities

1980s and is emphasised by the creation of the climate change effects

Impacts

InterGovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an via GHG sources

and sinks
international attempt to consolidate the scientific community. Autonomous
adaptation
The increasingly consensual view of the IPCC is that human
Planned adaptation
activities are making a discernible contribution to changes in our to the impacts and
Residual or net
climate. Initial responses concentrated on reducing the impacts impacts vulnerabilities

of future climate change through mitigation—the reduction of

greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from anthropogenic sources.
Policy
Although mitigation continues to be the prime focus for policy responses
makers (for example, the Kyoto Protocol came into force in
2005), the mid to late 1990s witnessed a shift in emphasis, with
Fig. 1. The climate change agenda2
the international scientific community becoming increasingly

Municipal Engineer 159 Issue ME4 Adaptation and mitigation in urban areas: synergies and conflicts McEvoy et al. 185
 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 1997—an organisation quite distinct from those
dealing 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 the
urban-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
186 Municipal Engineer 159 Issue ME4 Adaptation and mitigation in urban areas: synergies and conflicts
mitigation and adaptation are important in reducing the risks
associated with climate change—that 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
adapt—this 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 ‘win–win’
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 ‘win–win’ solutions may be few and far
between, with trade-offs between conflicting goals more
commonplace. 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 change—mitigation 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 with
towns 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 determinants—in particular the availability and
penetration of new technology (although technological solutions
McEvoy et al.
 Example links to mitigation (reducing the
‘climate footprint’ of adaptation
Possible climate impacts Impact on built environment Example adaptation measures measures)

Drier summers with Subsidence, flooding Reduce exposure of vulnerable Consider whole life cycle of emissions of
reduced soil moisture places by hard and soft hard and soft engineering projects,
content and wetter engineering including air pollution emissions6
winters Reduce vulnerability of building Consideration of need to travel when
materials siting new development
Avoid ‘at risk’ locations
A larger proportion of Reduced heating demand offset Provide enhanced cooling Heating and cooling to rely on renewable
extremely hot v. extremely by increased cooling demands without loss of efficiency of sources
cold days winter heating systems
Adaptation to target vulnerable Consideration of negative impacts of air-
elements at risk conditioning
Warmer and drier Greater requirement for Reduce exposure and provide Consider whole lifecycle of emissions
summers outdoor living and access to cooling through green and blue Use trees as additional carbon sinks
urban open space infrastructure
More extreme events Damage to building fabric Greater resilience of buildings Decentralised energy infrastructure
and infrastructure Consideration of the embodied energy
Use of different materials of 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

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 economic
activity, 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 strategic
planning 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 equity—that 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 and
poor 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 benefits20 and whether there is a willingness
to 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

Municipal Engineer 159 Issue ME4 Adaptation and mitigation in urban areas: synergies and conflicts McEvoy et al. 187
 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 to
individual 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 form—that 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
188 Municipal Engineer 159 Issue ME4 Adaptation and mitigation in urban areas: synergies and conflicts
the rest of Europe.27 In the UK the promotion of higher-density
developments, including the use of brownfield sites, was one of the
key themes of the influential Lord Rogers report Towards an Urban
Renaissance published 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 and cities 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 needed—for 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 of
rainwater, 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 will
involve consideration of the location and layout of development,
landscape architecture, building design, appropriate use of
materials and provision of outdoor spaces.18,40
McEvoy et al.
 regulations and the code for
Long spell of sustainable homes are all
hot summer Evapo-
weather transpiration potential policy tools for
by greenspace achieving this.
+ + + +

Soil moisture Greenspace Reducing the carbon intensity

Air – Heat island + –
deficit condition of energy supply is the second
quality intensifies
develops
–
important strand of the
–
mitigation armoury.
+ Shading and Traditionally, the energy
Human + evaporative
cooling infrastructure in the UK has
comfort
been a centralised system with
Soil Building
– integrity
large power stations
shrinkage
generating electricity that is
–
distributed to end-users
Fig. 2. Conceptual model demonstrating possible interactions between urban greenspace, building through a national grid. These
35
integrity and human comfort power stations, with their
requirement for large amounts
The location and layout of a new development is particularly of water for cooling purposes, are often located near water
important in minimising flood risk, with the vulnerability of sources and as such are at risk from sea level rise and flooding
a building to flooding partly a function of its design and under changing climatic conditions. In urban areas and their
the materials used, as well as being crucially dependent on the hinterlands, power lines may also be increasingly at risk from
height of the floodwater in relation to the floor level of the other climate change impacts such as storms and geohazards—
41
structure. The layout of a development can also be an that is, where this infrastructure is exposed to hazards beyond the
important influence in reducing the urban heat island effect. 40 severity anticipated by the initial design capacities. A further
Adaptation of the built environment should ideally seek to threat relates to anticipated future loadings that inevitably link
simultaneously address the resilience of the building fabric to a not only to climatic change but also to socio-economic change
changing climate, with the incorporation of energy-saving (GENESIS is another BKCC research project, which is analysing
measures (and renewable technologies) where possible. Explicit the impact of climate change on the electricity supply industry
(http://esi.eerc.bris.ac.uk/)). This applies equally to other urban
consideration of where win–win (or at least low-regret)
infrastructure, for example the transport network.
solutions exist, combined with the identification of examples
of maladaptation, would be of considerable benefit to best
Conversely, the promotion of renewables tends to favour
practice guidelines. This knowledge could then be used to
decentralisation of energy supply and there is obvious resonance
improve the sustainability of our buildings and other
between this form of mitigation and adapting to climate change
infrastructure through legislation and guidance, while
(particularly in relation to security of supply issues). That said,
simultaneously contributing to the mitigation agenda. Regional
although there is a policy goal to increase the percentage of
spatial strategies, local development frameworks, building
renewable supply, it is not clear how the different technologies
will perform under changed conditions. For instance, increased
Levels of study storminess may have operational implications for technologies
Regional level: such as wind turbines. Furthermore, biomass is currently being
socio-economic trends, etc. 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
Conurbation level:
open space system: change and emissions characteristics that may have negative
Main levels of investigation

compostion and spatial pattern impacts in other areas. The operation and effectiveness of
renewable options under changed climatic conditions and their
? possible conflicts with adaptation (for instance, in terms of land
use) are topics that are currently under-researched.
Neighbourhood level:
interaction of exposure units
open–built–human 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
Site level:
coastal and riverine flooding are four key issues likely to be faced
open space mechanics: in the future. Due to the complexity of the climate change issue, it
structural and functional has been argued that planned responses to these hazards need to
attributes
be holistic and act at a variety of spatial scales. Of particular
importance is strategic urban planning, which has a critical role
Fig. 3. Levels of investigation: adaptation in the urban to play in climate-proofing our towns and cities, primarily
environment (from the ASCCUE project)
through guiding development to suitable locations and ensuring

Municipal Engineer 159 Issue ME4 Adaptation and mitigation in urban areas: synergies and conflicts McEvoy et al. 189
 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 win–win 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 of
green 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 of
urban 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 detailed
analysis 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
190 Municipal Engineer 159 Issue ME4 Adaptation and mitigation in urban areas: synergies and conflicts
maintenance of our towns and cities. Improving our
understanding of this area may actually reveal that truly
‘win–win’ 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 urban
environment.
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, 199–213.
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: A
UK 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, 572–578.
12. ROYAL COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION. Energy—The
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, 562–571.
McEvoy et al.
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,
215–237.
16. CHAMBERS N., SIMMONS C. and WACKERNAGEL M. Sharing Nature’s
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, 541–547.
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 England’s
Northwest. 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. 877–912.
24. FISCHER-KOWALSKI M. and HÜTTLER W. Society’s metabolism—
the state of the art. The intellectual history of materials flow
analysis, Part II (1970–1998). Journal of Industrial Ecology,
1999, 2, No. 4, 107–137.
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, 1479–1496.
27. WILLIAMS K. Urban intensification policies in England:
problems and contradictions. Land Use Policy, 1999, 16,
No. 3, 167–178.
What do you think?
To comment on this paper, please email up to 500 words to the editor at journals@ice.org.uk
Proceedings journals rely entirely on contributions sent in by civil engineers and related professionals, academics and students. Papers
should be 2000–5000 words long, with adequate illustrations and references. Please visit www.thomastelford.com/journals for author
guidelines and further details.
Municipal Engineer 159 Issue ME4 Adaptation and mitigation in urban areas: synergies and conflicts
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 London’s urban heat
island. Weather, 2003, 58, No. 7, 251–260.
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 process—indicators for the ecological performance of
urban areas and their application to Merseyside, UK.
Landscape and Urban Planning, 2001, 57, No. 2, 91–103.
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-TRITTA A. 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, 25–41.
38. DEPARTMENT FOR ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS. Making
Space for Water: Developing a New Government Strategy for
Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management in England.
Defra, London, 2004.
39. GREATER LONDON AUTHORITY. Crazy Paving: The Environmental
Importance of London’s Front Gardens. GLA, London, 2005.
40. GRAVES H. M., WATKINS R., WESTBURY P. 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.
McEvoy et al. 191